Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
update on proposed name change
Line 339: Line 339:
==Update on name change proposal==
==Update on name change proposal==
It appears that that a clear consensus is emerging in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change RfC] to change the article's name. The voting is, as of this moment, 21-13 in support of changing the name. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoRight#Current_Proposal This list] plus the comments in the RfC, appear to support "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" as the compromise title with the most support. If anyone hasn't commented yet on the RfC or on GoRight's proposal, please feel free to do so. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears that that a clear consensus is emerging in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change RfC] to change the article's name. The voting is, as of this moment, 21-13 in support of changing the name. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoRight#Current_Proposal This list] plus the comments in the RfC, appear to support "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" as the compromise title with the most support. If anyone hasn't commented yet on the RfC or on GoRight's proposal, please feel free to do so. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

:No, I don't think so. To begin with, what's it doing on a user talkpage? But more to the point, the discussion was entirely [[WP:CANVASS]]ed, it's not only unrepresentative, it's tainted. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:11, 16 February 2010

Template:Community article probation

Template:Shell

RfC on article name change

Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change

I've moved that discussion to a separate page because, at nearly 50kb, it was dwarfing the rest of the page, and is heading in the opposite direction to consensus. --TS 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Heading in the opposite directing to consensus"? What do you mean? Consensus to change the title of the article has clearly emerged. I count 20 in favor of changing the title and only 13 opposed. Furthermore, the last 8 votes are all in favor. Are you seriously trying to hide the results by moving them? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of various potential titles by news hits

Please continue this discussion on the RFC at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change, where a full copy of the text of this section is available
  1. "Climategate"
    1,711 hits in the past month.
  2. "Climategate scandal"
    199 hits in the past month.
  3. "Climategate controversy"
    29 hits in the past month.
  4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"
    1 hit in the past month, and that's from a source mocking the silliness of the title.

I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. UnitAnode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Climategate articles also describe it as scandal or controversy. Ex. Climategate+near+Controversy gives 163 last month. What is good with our current title is that it gives a hit. The old one gives ZERO (all time) "Climatic+Research+Unit+e-mail+hacking+incident" Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Nsaa (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant, pointless bit of GoogleDiving to waste everyone's time. There is no notability requirement for titles, and there are no policies that prohibit us from inventing an entirely unique title. As long as it is accurate, unambiguous and neutral we can pretty much have anything we like. Even if you could find 100 million GoogleNews hits for "Climategate" (or variations thereof) it would still fail the neutrality requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. It's reliably-sourced, and much clearer than the hackneyed junk that currently constitutes the titling. UnitAnode 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-neutral. Saying it isn't won't ever change that fact. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "non-neutral" to call it what the reliable sources call it. UnitAnode 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most reliable sources use the term in quotes, indicating it is not their choice of word. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Of the top 10 Gnews main results, 6 use it without quotes, and 4 use the quotes. UnitAnode 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of which most are blogs/op-eds/opinion pieces. Legitimate reports from legitimate reporters almost all use quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are simply a way of acknowledging that they didn't coin the phrase, not a statement on what they think of it as a neutral term. UnitAnode 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and forth on the "Climategate" name change issue. As a skeptic I would like to state for the record that it's just too soon to re-name this article "Climategate" even though many (every single) reliable source calls it that. For two very simple reasons: 1. It's a violation of WP guidelines (a word to avoid); and 2. We don't know yet whether or not this is a significant event. Someone once opined that everything since the Fall of Rome is current events. I don't take quite such a strict view, but there's no avoiding the fact that this is a developing story. Maybe the term "hack" should go. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to talk about it, especially since it rubs some folks raw (for one reason and another). You know what really would help, though? The whole "assume good faith" thing. The skeptics (and we know who we are) need to stop acting like this was something other than a minor issue of semantics and WP policy. The True Believers (and you know who you are) need to ease up on the stridency and condescension. (tongue-in-cheek) How's about htis for a compromise - if Al Gore calls it "Climategate", can we put it parenthetically in the title? Nightmote (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether "Climategate" should be the title, surely the present title is unbalanced? "Hacking incident" implies the controversy was about the supposed hackers; while in fact the main focus of this story has been the controversy about the alleged behaviour of the scientists (revealed, incidentally, by the alleged hacking).--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found:

Climategate in quotes: 11 [6][7][8][9][10] [11][12] [13][14] [15][16]

Climategate not in quotes: 2 [17][18]

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7 [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: [26] and [27] for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[36] is certainly an apologia for the UEA, while [37] is behind a paywall. How do these show anything other than that Nature.com certainly has their own spin on what happened? UnitAnode 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet is not a reliable source regarding climate change-related issues, then I really, really encourage you to go to WP:RSN and see how far you get with that argument. I think that deserves a *rolleyes*. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they weren't a reliable source, only that they clearly have their own spin on the politics of what's going on in the scientific community with regards to the CRU/UEA. UnitAnode 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concure with SA. Nature is peer-reviewed, academic journal. Such sources are highly prized by Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints are presented fairly and with equal weight. It present viewpoints as they're presented by WP:RS. Since the scientific consensus is that AGW is the correct viewpoint, we're supposed to repeat that bias here. Maybe AGW really is the greatest scientific fraud since Piltdown man? Who cares? That's not our problem as Wikipedia editors. You're just going to have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a pristine reliable source on science takes an unequivocal position on the politics behind that science, we give it no more weight than any other RS on the same political issue. UnitAnode 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you basing this on anything but your own point-of-view? Has any reliable source ever criticized Nature for being political? And since when are there "politics behind science"? Are you referring to the politicization of science, because if that's so then you've got your cause-and-effect mixed up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the series of articles by The Guardian that I linked below, and then tell me that there aren't any politics going on behind the "scientific scene." UnitAnode 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I guess the answer is, "no". No, you aren't basing this deprecation of Nature on anything but your own POV. No, you don't have any reliable source criticizing Nature for being political. And you similarly failed in recognizing your premise/predicate problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay cut the crap. I haven't even implied that Nature is "deprecated." They're a great source for actual science, and the fact that they have a POV on the politics behind the science doesn't change that. And I notice how you failed to reply regarding the politics that go on behind the scientific scene. UnitAnode 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. Since you admit that Nature is a great source for actual science and global warming is actual science then they are a great source. Whether global warming is a political issue or not is irrelevant to the fact that the source I cited was discussing the presentation, conduct, and application of science (not politics which isn't the subject of either article). Since we need not intuit any political bias when none is explicitly mentioned in the articles in question and since you were unable to provide any source which indicated as much, we rightly rely on Nature for notable commentary on this issue. I'm glad we came to an agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There would indeed appear to be sourcing that calls Nature's editorial independence into doubt. Key quote from Dr. Campbel: "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." Nature's editor forced to step down from climate review panel?? They are clearly an involved party here and should be treated as such. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False. The editor-in-chief is not the same thing as the publication itself. Nor is there any evidence from that Channel 4 piece that Philip Campbell is somehow lacking "independence". Only spin from naysayers. Removing the appearance of something that would call "into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task" is not the same thing as actually having a problem in that regard. Let me be clear: the panel is going to come to the conclusion that there is no smoking gun in these documents that makes anthropogenic global warming questionable. Similar to the DOE panels convened about cold fusion, for example. This is essentially a nice big fat red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above, you challenged the notion that Nature had been criticized for being political and asked for sourcing to support that statement. I simply submit the requested evidence in which Dr. Campbell admits he has made prejudicial statements and, quite rightly, disqualified himself from serving on an independent review panel. Is there any evidence that Nature is regarded as neutral in this dispute? Ronnotel (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a "prejudicial statement" at all. He was simply stating facts that should be obvious to more or less everybody. It is hard for anyone to be impartial when the skeptical position is so fringey. In that sort of climate (no pun intended), a reasonable statement can seem prejudicial. I doubt very much the skeptics would be complaining about the makeup of the panel if it included someone like Ross McKitrick, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should be clear, marginalized and deprecated sources have questioned the political neutrality of Nature from time-to-time. But their protestations are not things worth considering. Think of people like Young-Earth-Creationists, Big-Bang-Deniers, Einstein-was-wrongers, Cold-Fusion-pathological-scientists, etc. Global-warming-denialists is just another branch on the tree of pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have regularly questioned the political neutrality of Nature Magazine: do feel free to call me a pseudo-scientific denialist, or whatever is the insult of choice these days, but you might wish to click through to my publication record before doing so. Now, can we please calm down and get back to the issues? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This insult-fest that ScienceApologist is engaging in needs to be ignored, I think. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-type IPCC

I'm still reading this article from the CSM, but I ran across an interesting phrase worth sharing:
John Christy, a climate researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, suggests setting up a Wikipedia-type IPCC --SPhilbrickT 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right....sure....like we don't have enough self-important unemployed computer programmer writing enough non-fact in wiki already.142.177.62.115 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another panel member facing calls to resign

More news here A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation that Nigel Lawson set up a few days after the emails were made public, thinks mainstream scientist is biased. News at 10. . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Souza, sarcasm is not helpful. I looked at the Scotsman article. Is there a separate Wikipedia article on the investigation? If not, then a sentence saying that one of the investigators resigned after being accused of COI may be appropriate. If more sources pick up on the calls for this other guy to resign, then a sentence saying something like, "Allegations of COI have been raised against other members of the investigative team by critics." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm? It's obvious that a think tank set up on 23 November 2009 by a climate sceptic politician "concerned with the 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' put forward to deal with global warming" is likely to complain about a reputable mainstream scientist taking part in the enquiry. Thanks for the spelling correction, KimDabelsteinPetersen, I copied and pasted from the linked Scotsman article and it appears that they got that wrong. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate to say this, I'm starting to think that Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ is deserving of its own article. If we don't already have enough content, we will by the time it releases its report. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine how there could possibly be enough material for a separate article, even after the report has been released. I can see it eventually needing a paragraph in this article, and perhaps even its own section, but certainly not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no plans to create one as this is the only article in this topic space I edit, but sure I think that there's enough for an entire article. Off the top of my head, here's a brief outline:
  • Summary - Summarize article
  • Background - Summarize Climategate controversy
  • Mandate - Explain what specific allegations they're investigating.
  • Makeup - List of panel members with brief explanations of each of their backgrounds
  • History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign
  • Conclusions - To be filled out later
  • Reception - Reactions to the conclusions, to be filled out later A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be huge redundancy. I think you will find that the entire investigation and its conclusions will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph. I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton). Giving this its own article would be making an enormous mountain out of a tiny molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It couldn't be redundant as this article is about the "hacking incident". Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That would be huge redundancy" It would only be a huge redundancy if the entire contents of the sub-article was included in the main article. Instead, the sub-article should include the important details while the main article only contains a summary.
"I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton)" I disagree. Jimbo has said that Wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge.[28] A bit grandiose if you ask me, but there's no reason why a reader who's interested in finding out more about the the Russell inquiry shouldn't be allowed to. We're not a paper encyclopedia. We're not limited by the number of pages that can be printed. As long as the Russell inquiry is notable (which clearly it is) and we cite reliable sources (which obviously we can), I don't see a problem at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing a spinout article is fine per WP:Talk page guidelines, but please confine such a discussion to the merits of the proposed article. It may be better to work on a userspace draft. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article on the matter would probably have serious WP:WEIGHT issues. If it ends up getting filled out with all sorts of nonsense about "calls for resignations" from the climate skeptics, it will also become a POV fork. Wait until the report actually comes out, and then we'll see. I suspect the report will call for a few changes to adopt best practices, and it may well indicate Jones did not use the best of judgment, but that'll probably be about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT applies to neutrality, not notability. I doubt this sub-article would be any better or worse than any other article in this topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what WP:WEIGHT applies to. I have over 15,000 edits so I've become pretty familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thank you very much. Creating an article that inflates the importance of the climate skeptic attacks on panel members will violate WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. The inquiry would have to become a really big deal with far-reaching consequences before it would warrant its own article. In the meantime, consider WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Creating an article that inflates the importance of the climate skeptic attacks on panel members will violate WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK" Where in the world did I ever suggest anything even remotely like what you just described? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign - this sort of "filler" material is the problem. In the context of the article, they are trivial issues; however, if the inquiry gets its own article there will doubtless be a push to highlight this sort of material by the climate change skeptics who seem to think this sort of thing is important. As I said before, we need to wait until the report is released before we can make a judgment on whether or not this deserves its own article, but I suspect not. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so you ignored most of the different sections (Summary, Background, Mandate, Makeup, Conclusions, Reception) and then decided it was the one section you paid attention to that was the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore anything. Please assume good faith. Let me use plainer language in case you are having difficulty understanding my point. The only reason that I can see for splitting the inquiry off into a separate article would be to inflate the controversial aspects (such as the resignation) that I don't think are significant. That would be a POV fork. As I stated previously, I think the entire investigation will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph, or perhaps a section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I didn't ignore anything." Actually, you did. You ignored 6 out of 7 sections. And then made up some fantasy about the one section you didn't ignore.
"Let me use plainer language in case you are having difficulty understanding my point." There's no need to be condescending. I understand English just fine, thank you.
"The only reason that I can see" That indeed might be the only reason you can see, but I've suggested nothing of the kind. If you can't address what I'm saying then this discussion is not accomplishing anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"made up some fantasy" - That's an assumption of bad faith right there. If you look down, I think you'll find you no longer have a leg to stand on. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did toy with the idea of separate coverage for the enquiries, but I quickly rejected the idea when we consider that there are at least seven enquiries in motion (see #Keeping up with the investigations/reviews/inquiries above. Anyway, as always, what we do is start the coverage here in an article section, then, if and when this article becomes too big, we look at which section(s) to spin off into sub-articles, leaving a summary and a {main} link here. No need to worry about it until then. --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the way news is developing, it seems worthwhile moving the various enquiries from the "responses" section into a new "reviews and enquiries" section. As you say, if that section becomes too large, it can be split off in summary style. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems premature to start an article about the COE. It's currently attracting news coverage, and if the denialists manage to gut it, then it might be worth a sentence somewhere in the politicisation of climate change, but beyond that its only notability lies with its findings and their consequences. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use offensive terms like denialists; it really doesn't help. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest as an alternative? I find the nonsensical frame of "skeptic" far more offensive, all the more since it's regularly turned around into an attack. Guettarda (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the best academic analysis of the issue I've found so far (Aaron McCright's work) using the term, so I think it's appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply suggest that we be guided by Wikipedia:Civility. I hope this is not controversial. Personally I would suggest that addressing people by the term they use to describe themselves (which would, in this case, be "skeptics") is normally a good position to start from. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL doesn't require us refer to Fox News as "fair and balanced". Personally I prefer accuracy over framing. There are really only two defensible terms, "denialist" and "contrarian" (per sources supplied in the archives, somewhere). And I find "contrarian" to be both clumsy and too infrequently used. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked document made public, and other news

Document revealed, and comment on disagreements. . dave souza, talk 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That commentary article is well-written and informative. I liked how he explained the nature of "research science." Is that photomontage a public image? If so, it could be added to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Stainforth's column is excellent, an accurate portrayal of the status of the science and what the real uncertainties are (as opposed to what journalists, politicians, and scientists in unrelated fields think the uncertainties are). It's nice to hear from someone who is an ordinary scientist in the trenches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Blog, Small Dead Animals, contains articles and comments from a Canadian perspective under the heading "Hide the Decline" http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012714.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by On2u2 (talk • contribs)

Blogger, not a reliable or notable source. Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rajendra K. Pachauri quote... a must read!!
   Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?
   R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone
           be worried about climate change?

Exactly! 142.177.60.141 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, and seems to have lost something in translation. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

The recent BBC Q&A withe Phil Jones [29] is a useful source: much of it is off-topic for this article but some sections are quite relevant, and it seems one of the better Reliable Sources we have got for his opinion of the incident. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article in The Mail first, which contained this inexplicable sentence: He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.. Then I read the BBC interview, where Jones discusses the same periods, with different answers, so now I'm convinced the Mail reporter just mangled the answers. The BBC interview is quite interesting.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time -- or the second, or the third -- that the Mail has screwed things up badly. It simply isn't a reliable source on anything related to this topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I thought his answers were probably nonsense, but it is still better to work from the BBC's fairly original version answers than from a mangled version of them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@jonathanJones - I think his answers [[30]] were uncommonly straightforward, and to some extent quite accurate, but neither of our opinions matters a whit as to whether this is a WP:RS for the opinions of Phil Jones. Unclear if it needs to be here only, or also in Global Warming. Speculation on his motives, if that's what you were doing, is unnecessary. Oiler99 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found his answers generally interesting, humble and carefully constructed. Not enough to stop misleading spin by tabloids. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mail is just as reliable as any other newspaper trying to hype headlines to sell papers. So what now, can't reference newspapers now? pullleeeze142.68.220.68 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Reliable sources policy. That tabloid does not have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the archives on WP:RSN there have been discussions of the Mail. Can be reliable for some topics. Their science coverage has received a great deal of criticism. "Hype headlines" doesn't come into it - headlines are written by subeditors and should not be use as sources. Of course newspapers want to sell copies, like writers want to sell books. If we take any notice of that then we will have no sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any record of The Mail making up quotes in an interview? If not, it would seem ok as a source for the Jones quotes. JPatterson (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of quote mining? As it happens, the quotes it uses are from the BBC interview, transcript link at the top of this section. A much better source. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage

It's time for this issue to be decided. This page can optionally include a template that lists any interesting press coverage the article receives. For some weeks now, certain editors (notably Nsaa) have been trying to get anti-Wikipedia/anti-article press coverage included in this talk page, presumably to make some sort of point. Examples include:

  • Lawrence Solomon - laying out his conspiracy theory that Google and Wikipedia have colluded to offer only a censored, sanitized version of the CRU story.
  • James Delingpole - complains about sanitized version of "the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age." (Hidden in the template by Nsaa by using HTML comments)

There is no policy or guideline that requires this template; furthermore, WP:PRESS appears to encourage positive press coverage, rather than negative. Likewise, there is no policy or guideline that prohibits this template either. Its inclusion or exclusion is determined by consensus. So let's have at it. Do we support or oppose this inclusion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey does not phrase his question fairly. The inclusion of the press template is not equivalent to the inclusion of links to Delingpole and Solomon. The press template would contain links to all relevant press coverage. We must, surely, be in favour of that? What are you opposers afraid of? That the newspapers of the world disagree with WP? Surely that cannot be the case as we are not arbiters of the truth. We merely reflect the WP:RSs, we are not in the business of hiding them from our readers. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per a question raised by Sphilbrick on my user talk page, it sould be noted that WP:BLP applies to all pages including article talk pages which are explicitly mentioned. JPatterson (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't see anything in WP:PRESS suggesting a preference for positive coverage. If there is, I'll lobby to change the policy. While we ought to include coverage both positive and negative, we ought to be scrupulous about including negative, to mitigate any perception we are slanted. SPhilbrickT 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the piece? He is obviously very uninformed about WP. Anyone who has edited here could spot any number of errors in his analysis. Also his google analysis is well off the mark I'm afraid. There is no collusion, only a different algorithm for counting and google's is better IMHO. JPatterson (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but not because I think the criticism is wrong or right. There must not be the perception that we are hiding criticism of WP. It is shameful that we seem determined to ignore criticism. If you really believe this article truly reflects Climategate then you would not be shy of criticism. The problem is that WP is not just opinion-reflecting it is opinion forming. We know this, and this is why some allow the distortions of this article to continue, and why they shield them from criticism. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, primarily because one of the AGW goaltenders decided to "administratively chastise" me on my talk page for some comments that are much more innocuous than those posted above by said defenders of the faith...ipso facto. --Textmatters (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite the rather bizarre representation given by Scjessey of WP:Press and of the contents of the articles. Would the OP mind revising the description of the two articles so as to represent them more fairly?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the inclusion. I don't see the harm in mentioning the existence of these articles on the talkpage, and I don't see any way in which a link to these articles can be spun as a WP:BLP violation. However I do think KDP makes a good argument for their exclusion above. I'm down to talk about this. In the meantime, the vote currently reads 11 in favor, 7 against, which suggests we should include them while we do so.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bing versus Google

Off-topic discussion about search engines
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since this has been brought up above as being part of the reason that the Solomon piece can't be linked on this talkpage, I -- gasp! -- actually tested the theory, and searched both for "Climategate." Result: Bing ~51.8 million; Google ~3.7 million. That's far too large a gap to be coincidental. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has any of that got to do with the price of carrots cherries? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief! YOU claimed that Solomon's Bing/Google analysis was basically nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er... no. I didn't say anything about Bing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And this means...what? We know Google pretty much makes up its top-line numbers. How does Bing calculate its top-line numbers? And what's the point of comparing a meaningless number (Google's) with a number of unknown provenance? I don't get the point of this addition. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proves that Google is coluding with wikipedia? Great, I'm a semiregular on my page, I expect my payment in the post ASAP Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Gasp! And i get the opposite 16.2 million on Google and 1.98 million on Bing.... Whoa they are on to us! Can we please stay on-topic? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you even talking about? Scottaka UnitAnode 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've just demonstrated that you have no clue whatsoever about how search engines work. I suggest you take your hypothesis to Conservapedia, where it's more likely to be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed to know about how search engines work. And I also am not conservative in any way. You'd do well to cut the personal attacks. I mean, "Clueless in Seattle" as an edit summary? It's not even particularly witty. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←Oooh! Ask.com has only 339,000 hits for "Climategate", with Wikipedia being the first. Their collusion with Wikipedia must be even worse! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Those numbers are estimates, and irrelevant to our article — which is what we're supposed to discuss on this page. Moreover, if you actually try to search through the results (what is hit number 50 million, anyway?) you'll find that neither search engine will serve up results past the first 1000. Quirks in the two estimation algorithms render any large numbers suspect. Applying Solomon's specious reasoning, we find that Google is also attempting to suppress mention of the Bananaphone (500 thousand Ghits compared to nearly 30 million results on Bing: comparison) and the Star Wars Kid (9.6 million Ghits versus 52 million Bings). Is it possible that Bing's algorithm just turns out higher guesstimates for internet memes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)It's actually a lot worse then you think. Google gives 93,900 for "irreducible complexity", Bing gives 400k. Google gives 5 million for 'september 11 conspiracy', Bing gives 10 million. 'abortion causes cancer' is 980k on Google, 2.2 million on Bing. Google gives 36 million for terrorism, Bing gives 92 million. 'dinosaurs living together with men' 447k for Google, 1.5 million for Bing. Google gives 25.2k for '"nil einne" is an idiot', Bing gives 124. Is there no end to Google's evilness? P.S. It was rather annoying finding these examples, I suggest you don't bother to try it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the Solomon article and it should be noted that this discussion is about a distorted view of Solomon's argument. His thesis was NOT that Google returns few hits than Bing and therefore is suppressing Climategate news. Rather, Solomon says that at one point Google returned X number of hits and is now returning Y number of hits where Y is substantially smaller than X. He also says Google's autocomplete feature has changed during this time frame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if Google has been updating their autocomplete feature. While often useful and on point, its output is sometimes quirky and occasionally downright hilarious. (There's even a website dedicated to its more bizarre output: [31].) I also note that, as of this minute, entering 'c-l' is sufficient to get 'climategate' as an autocomplete suggestion; by the time I type 'c-l-i-m' it's the top autocomplete term.
As for changes in the apparent numbers of Ghits with time — that's entirely cosmetic algorithm tweaking. Neither site (Google or Bing) will allow you to retrieve more than the first thousand hits, so any number greater than that is pretty cosmetic. Solomon, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about here, and he's abusing numbers that he doesn't understand to give a gloss of credibility to a very thin conspiracy theory. This is not a new approach for him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Not that whatever evils Google has are particularly relevant to the issue at hand anyway but even so most of the points are still somewhat relevant, Google changing their guesstimate doesn't really tell us much, it could be simply that during the initial stage of a rapidly developing event, the Google algorithm is generous since it's trying to extrapolate from a small number but resonable percentage of recent samples that suddenly use the term. And the changing, up or down could almost definitely be shown for other search terms (particularly developing ones and memes) if people could be bothered to monitor them. In other words, the crux of the issue, the fact that the number of guessed results went down doesn't tell us much remains true. It's not even clear what Bing did. As for the autocomplete thing, that seems to have gone back and forth, but at least for me, it's working now. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if you found something similar with other search terms if anyone bothered to monitor them. P.S. It's perhaps worth remembering how inaccurate the guesstimates are. Google gave me 25.2k for '"nil einne" is an idiot' because it thought there were 25.2k results for "nil einne" and basically ignored the idiot part. However there are only 302 when you go to the end of the results. And Google nor Bing will ever give more then 1000 results anyway so anything more then that is a somewhat moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Also, unless I missed something, Solomon's article alleges no conspiracy between Google and Wikipedia. Where Scjessey got that idea from, I have no idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this from before my first comment but admit didn't comment on it since Scott didn't seem to either. Solomon's article is really concentrating on the 'Google is evil' idea and only mentioned the wikipedia as an aside. He appears to be suggesting that Google is evil and linking to the wikipedia article as part of their campaign to downplay the significance of the controversy. So no, not active collusion rather we're both part of the widespread worldwide group who for whatever reason (money is suggested for Google, none is offered for us) wants to promote global warming and censor any negative information so linking to this evil article benefits the evil Google. However the fact that Google links to the wikipedia first whatever our ultimate name for the article should surprise no one who knows how Google operates and is hardly uncommon (and in fact one of the key concerns for many LPs is our BLPs is the first link for them and in fact it's true for Lawrence Solomon himself). In terms of his actual criticism of our article (whatever you may think of it) while parts of it may be relevant (for the time), other parts show a distinct lack of understanding of wikipedia (like the idea that there's some secret hidden climategate article, there have been forks some of which may still exist but that's different and hardly uncommon as I guess you know). Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another article from Solomon we may wish to add to the press section: Climategate rages on at Wikipedi. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to discuss this article in any way, but rather Wikipedia in general. Maybe we should add it to Talk:Main Page :) Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on it! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the BLP issue

Could those who expressed support above please comment here on why they think inclusion would not violate WP:BLP?JPatterson (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how it might? That's not clear to me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a couple of on point excerpts from the policy. Bolding for the most part mine.
  • This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.
So that says the BLP rules apply to the inclusion you support, including this one
  • External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[4]
I think the articles in question fail the above
  • Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; ...
..and I know the information re edit counts is not true so it fails this as well.
  • and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.
I don't see the relevance of this on the talk page. As you know, I am no fan of the high handedness of certain editors in this debate but policy is policy. I try and apply it evenly knowing that hypocrisy always comes back to bite you in the ass. JPatterson (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now adding to "see also" is subject to summary removal?

We have pretty liberal "see also" guidelines here. It should be patently obvious that there is some overlap between the article on the Criticism of the IPCC AR4, and this article. Yet, we have Haeb, whose only edits to this article in his last 500 are simple reversions, removing it, claiming my detailed edit summary just wasn't quite enough. Yet, Scjessey reverts the initial addition with nothing more than a "not related" edit summary, and that's acceptable? Good grief, people! It's also more than a bit, well, "interesting" that an editor who hadn't touched this article, or participated in any discussions surrounding it, in quite some time randomly shows up at a 1RR article once the wikilink was readded. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider refactoring your bad faith assertion above. You have to have a proper reason for adding something to a "see also", and that does not include "making sure as many people see it as possible." Also, you aren't supposed to be reverting things that have just been reverted, according to recent comments by 2/0. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted with an edit summary of "not related", which is categorically untrue. I restored the "see also" wikilink with a detailed edit summary. Then, mysteriously, Haeb drops by and reverts again to remove it, claiming my edit summary was somehow inadequate, while not commenting on your two word edit summary at all. Have I missed anything? Scottaka UnitAnode 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the IPCC AR4 contains a huge amount of scientific info that's related to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Both are about scientific errors by the IPCC that have received widespread coverage in the media. The two are very much related to each other. In fact, I think the two articles should be merged, because all the scientific errors covered in both articles are all closely related to each other. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge with Criticism of the IPCC AR4

I propose that this article be merged with Criticism of the IPCC AR4 because both articles are about scientific errors by the IPCC. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Criticism of the IPCC AR4 goes (or least should go) beyond the Climategate controversy. The error on the Pakistani glaciers, for example, has no direct relationship on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total non-starter. Hipocrite (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not even close --SPhilbrickT 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on name change proposal

It appears that that a clear consensus is emerging in the RfC to change the article's name. The voting is, as of this moment, 21-13 in support of changing the name. This list plus the comments in the RfC, appear to support "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" as the compromise title with the most support. If anyone hasn't commented yet on the RfC or on GoRight's proposal, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. To begin with, what's it doing on a user talkpage? But more to the point, the discussion was entirely WP:CANVASSed, it's not only unrepresentative, it's tainted. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&oldid=344336038"