Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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

Hacking?

Answer A5 above conflicts with the neutrality claimed as a Wikipedia objective in answer A1. It also presupposes guilt rather than innocence as is the tradition in the US and much of the western world. Given that an "inquiry" does not mean a crime has occurred, I propose the title of this article be changed to "Climatic Research Unit email incident." That title is neutral on the controversial subject of whether, or not, hacking has occurred. It also welcomes the many points for and against the charge of "hacking" in the body of the article. Or, for consistancy, since an investigation is about to be opened on the entire Climate Change topic [6] Wikipedia could always change the title of the Global Warming article to "Global Warming Fraud" since investigations immediately confer legitimacy to a charge here. --138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite the earlier atempts at censorship, it's clear the very title of this article is biased. --138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is virtually certain that unauthorized access to computer files occurred. Some people use the word "hacking" to mean just that. (A possible exception is that the unauthorized access was technically very easy and only social institutions such as employment contracts were barriers. Even if the case at UEA was like that, the breaking of RealClimate site does not seem so.) We have a real issue here, however, that is whether or not Wikipedia should join the people who use the word "hacking".--Masudako (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing 'virtually certain' is that the computer files being made publicly available was unauthorized. How they were accessed is still pure speculation. CRU had been upgrading their network and server security in the months preceding the disclosure. In the course of that process, they likely authorized database access to a number of third party individuals. If one of them copied it and sent it to a buddy in russia or turkey to be sorted through and posted online, the information would not have been hacked, it simply would have been stolen. Or if, in the course of those security upgrades, the data briefly became accessible to an intern who happened to be looking for a personal file and he copied it and sent it somewhere, it would still be an issue of theft, not hacking. Even if it is one day proven they had been legitimately hacked, such use of the term in an encyclopedia article's title is just gawdy.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the speculation, but it's not really useful. Most reliable sources say "hacking", and have done so consistently since the story came to light. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? The Guardian used the term 'leaked'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails As did the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Climategate-Leaked-Emails-Scandal-Review-Launched-Over-University-Of-East-Anglia-Case/Article/201002215546468?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15546468_Climategate_Leaked_Emails_Scandal:_Review_Launched_Over_University_Of_East_Anglia_Case Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html In light of the above, which all generally use the term leaked, and no information that the information was specifically obtained by hacking as opposed to insider whistleblowing or other means, I suggest renaming the article to match the sources above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.96.114 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2010

I do not think titles of articles in newspapers are reliable sources of choice of words in the title of articles in the encyclopedia. The choice of words in the texts of them are relevant. Most of the texts referred to above included "hacking" or "hacker" as well. (The Sunday Times article by Jonathan Leake did not.)

That said, I prefer "leak" myself if and only if we can have a consensus that the use of the word "leak" does not imply denial of such action that has been called "hacking" here. (Tessa Chapman in the Sky News article referred to above says "whether the emails were leaked or hacked". I do not want to adopt "leak" in that sense.) I personally think that it is very likely that cracking into computer systems occurred. I think that calling such action "hacking" is disrespectful to those computer programmers who call their creative actions "hacking". --Masudako (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The title "Climatic Research Unit Hacking" is unfounded. Is there any positive evidence that the CRU servers were hacked? The mere mention of potential hacking within newspapers articles is not evidence that they were hacked. Without evidence, the title is speculation.

More on the Scandal

Which now seems a relatively benign term to refer to the incident. The world is passing you all by, at warp speed. Here, Mojib Latif, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University and no skeptic of AGW, was interviewed on the German public TV station ZDF, where he had harsh words for the IPCC, referring to its some of its activities as "A Fraud on the Public" [[7]] The station ZDF sandwiches its interview of Dr Latif with segments on the substantive problems in the IPCC, including the issue of economic catastrophe losses. Dr. Latif comments on the misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in very strong terms, and a reviewer whose first language is German translates [[8]]: "This is a very obvious fraud, on the public and on the colleague in question. One has to categorically reject such a thing and we must now try, should such things really have happened, to make sure they don’t happen again next time." And then says "On a sliding scale of words referring to matters of dishonesty, 'Betrug' is the strongest and most serious accusation, used in the sense of criminal deception. As even in Germany libel cases are no longer quite so rare, using this word can be quite risky." The word "betrug" (fraud) (at 3:17 on the tape) is shown to refer to:

IPCC's treatment of climate scientist Dr Roger Pielke Jr and -

its misstatements (CLIMATE CHANGE 2007) on:

Himalayan glaciers disappearing

40% of Amazon forests burning

african agriculture diminishing

hurricanes increasing

sea level rising

population water stress increasing

with reference to the costs involved - €300,000,000 - which are described as "keine peanuts" (not trifling).

The narrator images the title of an op-ed in Nature "IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?" [Nature 463, 730-732 (11 Feb 2010)] in which he highlights and zooms the words "scrap it". My German is worse than rudimentary, so German speakers, please add corrections and amplifications.

And, of course, I await your withering dismissal of a blog reference. Oiler99 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proposal to improve the article in there somewhere, or is this just another example of Wikipedia being used as an organ for propaganda? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oiler99- I think your posting really belongs on the talk page of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not here. This article is about the CRU, not the IPCC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this pertains to the naming of the article and the proposal to split off the scandal component (which has been contested) from the hacking/liberation component. It has clearly become reasonable, if not decorous, to rename the scandal component Climategate, for reasons that have been adumbrated many times before. The current title, as has been noted, is a subject of jest. Oiler99 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU is not mentioned in the ZDF report, and neither are the hacked documents and email. This is entirely unrelated. The PrisonPlanet analysis is, of course, without any value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't whether CRU is mentioned, but whether "ClimateGate" was mentioned. I didn't listen to the whole piece, but I didn't hear it. --SPhilbrickT 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did hear it through - and it doesn't. Watching it again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In which case I concur with CurtisSwain - while I've noted the concern that the subject matter of the term "ClimateGate" is expanding, and it may cause us to reconsider our coverage, this does not appear to be an example, so for now, it belongs with either IPCC or more naturally Criticism of the IPCC AR4. --SPhilbrickT 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate has been violently resisted as a title to this or any article on the basis of the wiki guideline of not using pejorative words in titles. But - correct me if I'm wrong - this is superseded by the policy of using the common term as long as it doesn't ADD any notion of wrongdoing. Therefore this reference pertains to the IDEA of "Climategate" even - or perhaps especially - if the word itself does not appear. Much the same as discussing the intentional taking of innocent human life without using the word MURDER. Note that the Spanish Wikipedia has the title Climagate[[9]], without abandoning overall support for AGW. This article has already branched far afield from the email incident so that the elements of (perceived) scandal are not adequately described by the title, and should be split off as a separate article under the proper name. Oiler99 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only does "Climategate" fall foul of WP:WTA, because the "-gate" suffix is used almost exclusively to refer to scandal and controversy it violates WP:NPOV as well. You may consider your wrongness corrected. It is deeply troubling that this matter is being continuously raised. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@scjessey, I suspect it's continually raised because the current practice seems tenaciously wrong-headed to some. The WP:WTA clearly states that for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. The term Climategate, as a title, satisfies the wiki policy of using the common term, and does not violate NPOV since it is descriptive only, albeit pedestrian, and does not add an imputation of scandal not previously recognized. Oiler99 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you now talking about the ZDF report (which has no connection at all with the CRU emails or the term Climategate) or about a title for the article dealing with the CRU emails (which has nothing to do with the ZDF report)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Adding "-gate" to anything instantly brands it as somehow "scandalous" or "controversial", and this is not a scandal by any reasonable measure. Furthermore, there is nothing descriptive about the word "Climategate" whatsoever. It suggests some sort of scandal involving "climate", and that's about it - vague ambiguity. I applaud you for coming up with all sorts of interesting new ways to try to get this article titled with this non-neutral term, but you have gone way beyond the level at which this kind of agenda-driven behavior is called disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an opinion which many do not share. Even the ever politically correct Swedes have titled their Wikipedia entry "Climategate or the Climate scandal". This is clearly a scandal relating to climate research. It appears almost all other language versions of this article are titled Climategate.91.153.115.15 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the Swedish article is relevant. I'm also not sure making sweeping generalizations about the political-correctness of certain countries is appropriate, either. Unless you are going to say "all British people are awesome" of course. I am not aware of any "scandal" relating to climate change, unless you are referring to the scandalous denial of science by certain US politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"I am not aware of any "scandal" relating to climate change ..." - You seem to be somehow suggesting that your personal level of ignorance should somehow be a factor in the evaluation of which content is appropriate to this or other articles. This seems an odd stance to take so I can only assume I am mistaken. Can you please clarify your meaning? Content decisions are based on WP:RS and WP:V, among other policies as you are no doubt aware. --GoRight (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not only the Swedish article that is relevant. If most other language versions use climategate there is a clear consensus supporting the use for it. I accept I took some liberties in labeling Swedes politically correct but I do not think most Swedes would object. (Digging deeper) In Swedish society there is tradition of vigorous debate which often results in a consensus... which on occasion manifest itself as overt political correctness. There is no shame in that. My point was Sweden is awesome, they have a great debating culture, they and pretty much everyone else find climategate acceptable. Why can't we?91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but I think you will find that consensus on one language version of Wikipedia is not transferable to another. There is actually a longstanding, clear, unambiguous consensus against the use of "Climategate" on the English Wikipedia. If other language versions use "Climategate" then I respectfully suggest their standards are lower. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly unambiguous. The consensus at the last poll was for changing from 'incident' to 'controversy' as a compromise. Climategate was a pretty popular choice.91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. No consensus was found, and no change took place. "Climategate" was only popular among a small group of editors, which is the same as saying it was not popular. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the title of this section is "More on the Scandal", substantiated by a German professor of Climatology at the Max Planck Institute, a supporter of AGW, who refers to the revealed actions as fraudulent (betrug), which has definite implications of criminal behavior. Scandal, on the other hand, can refer to relatively minor peccadilloes attributable to rascals and scamps, not criminals, that do not demand prosecution. So in the interest of NPOV, Scandal should be preferred. Oiler99 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but, quite apart from the fact that its hard to figure out the context, he does not talk about "the revealed actions". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Then get everything post-email-revelations out of this article as currently named, and into one called Climategate that can pertinently address all the various controversies. That does not require abandoning AGW support. Oiler99 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: You are well aware that both Scandal and Controversy is widely used by reliable sources. You can take a short look at this very short list Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Climategate usage That it doesn't fit your personal feeling about it is realy irrelevant and you – as an experienced editor – should refrain from comments like you do above: "as somehow "scandalous" or "controversial", and this is not a scandal by any reasonable measure. [...] agenda-driven behavior is called disruptive. -- Scjessey" [10]. Nsaa (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care what you think, since your editing behavior indicates that you're only interested in furthering your agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. I do NOT wish to be seen as pushing for the use of the word Scandal in the title of an article. I merely wish to point out that the perception of scandal is, and has been, widespread (for example, in the IOP report to Parliament[[11]]) and that the use of the title Climategate adds NO ADDITIONAL imputation of scandal. It merely reflects common usage. Those who shriek that there is no scandal in this matter seem to be blinkered. Oiler99 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee - University of East Anglia

"Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee - University of East Anglia (UEA)". Retrieved 2010-02-26. as reported by the Press Association (25 February 2010). "University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-02-26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) provides long overdue clarification. I've tackled the much misreported ICO statement which the ICO has been remarkably coy at releasing to the general public. Other issues will also need to be shown. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I like your wording, but does it need to be repeated 3 times? The lead and one elaboration would be better, I think. Ignignot (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I've trimmed the timeline mention to a reasonable minimum, and focussed the detail in the UK Government section. It'll be interesting to see what happens on Monday. . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that support the language about "prima facie", etc.? The UEA statement reads more like a pleading rather than an objective assessment. Can we stick to reliable sources for the text? As we all agree, there's no deadline. Better to wait for some more reporting on this. Ronnotel (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's covered by three reliable sources, the statement itself and two news stories, and shows a significant difference from the misleading news reporting of the secret statement made by the ICO. We don't do literary criticism of the UEA's prose, I suspect they thought about it a bit. If we don't put it in, we have a knowing BLP violation by sticking with an incorrect description. dave souza, talk 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct link to the House of Commons - Science and Technology - Memoranda [12] which include the CRU statement and all other submissions.91.153.115.15 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, quite a list of names. This should be interesting. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Institute of Physics response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee request for evidence is particularly interesting, featuring another use of the term "prima facie" [[13]]: "The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law." Oiler99 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with all of the respondents listed but the IOP [14] appears to be a neutral party as in no conflict of interest? Other neutral parties? Royal Statistical Society? Plenty of people on the list defending themselves and others with an axe to grind. Fair assessment?91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text on Mann/UPenn

Proposed text

[Rescued from the archives to close and apply.]

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". The committee pointed to the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report which found that "Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but noted that since that report the purloined CRU emails "give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science." Noting the public outcry from some quarters "may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically" but that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee chose to constitute a multi-discipline, faculty committee to further consider that specific allegation.

This IMO is a more accurate depiction of the committee findings than our current version above. JPatterson (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very much not. There is e.g. nothing like your first or second "but" in the report - neither literally nor implied. The only mentioning of "public outcry" is in a very different context. Your suggestion is longer (too long, but then the whole section is too long already, given that this is not an article about Mann), but in fact less accurate than the previous (disclosure: "my previous") version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but if we are going to mention the NAS report we have to talk about, as the committee put it, "what has changed sicne then" (the emails). My version I think follows the logic of the committee if not in the same order presented in the report.JPatterson (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to revise

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee chose to constitute a faculty committee to further consider that specific allegation, as the allegation "revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists".

Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Better, but it misses one crucial point, namely that the committee declared itself incompetent to reach a definitive finding on the last point. This does not suggest or imply any differences in the committee or conflicting evidence, this is the committee saying "we are administrators, this is question that only faculty can decide (to the satisfaction of the public)". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Permit me to re-revise

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter."

Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Still too long, though ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I disagree about it being too long. It's a nuance that is important to capture and that would be difficult to do with less prose. JPatterson (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over then proposal again, I'd suggest one more change. The committee did not actually say that they were unable to reach a finding. So I propose the following:

The committee did not issue a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter."

Comments? If not, I'll insert that version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nit pick alert - can you change what appears to be a hyphen followed by a space to an em dash? Otherwise, looks fine.--SPhilbrickT 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text reflecting my suggestion:

The committee did not issue a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry—whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter."

So applied. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

should climategate still redirect here?

There seems to be an awful lot of talk about climategate that doesn't really trace back to the email incident.[15] I think it might be time to start thinking about breaking the link and having a fuller page called climategate which can lead to redirects to there for glaciergate, africagate, et al. If any of these mini-scandals goes hot, then we can break them out into their own page but right now they're each too small to merit one. In any case, the idea that climategate = CRU hacking is no longer founded, if it ever was. TMLutas (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting and potentially useful link, a piece which uses the term as a blanket term for assorted Criticism of the IPCC AR4 and not this incident. Were you thinking of a sort of disambiguation page, with little more than links to relevant articles? It remains a pov term, and obviously care would be needed with neutrality. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be care taken to not slip into POV. I just don't see how we can avoid it without being POV. Climategate seems to be a popular term and growing in popularity. I think that a disambiguation page *would* be an improvement. An article itself might be even better. TMLutas (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

+ urbangate NCDC UrbanGate: how the urban warming was exported to U.S. countryside

I read that paper—potentially very interesting, but the selection of one site per state doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not putting much weight on it until either someone convinces me that it does make sense (hard to believe) or it is redone with a better selection process. I don't even like 5x5 but it is better than one per state. (just so there's no confusion, I'm commenting on "UrbanGate" not Kintisch)--SPhilbrickT 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Kintisch blog post was mentioned here before. It may indicate an expansion/change in usage, and if that catches on, it may be appropriate to replace the redirect with a dab. No rush, best to wait a while. Guettarda (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Institute of Physics

Have released a memorandum on climategate, I`ve not fully read it yet but am looking at adding some of the info from their statement here, any thoughts? It is the implications on the sciences which interested me and i figure this impact on trust in science is quite interesting. worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research mark nutley (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Same info as pdf from IOP.[16]91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking into why they take an interest at all. The question is answered in the history section of their website. 'Royal Meteorological Society' was (re-)merged into the organization in 1960[17]. The 'Science Board' took part in creating the draft. Unknown people to me[18]. 'Council' [19] ditto.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the reason they took an interest is this statement The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context They are worried that the scandal will impact on the peoples perception of the scientific method, people now doubt those who work in the climate related fields, how long before they begin to doubt scientists in other fields? mark nutley (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a plausible interpretation. Read again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mark. The emails have been acknowledged to be real and published unabridged. There is serious cause for concern.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the statement by Mark about what he thinks is the claim of the Institute of Physics? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, what part of this are you having trouble getting? credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context Seems like a fairly obvious interpretation to me, why do you feel it is not plausible? mark nutley (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here, Stephan. How are YOU interpreting that statement if you believe Mark is wrong? --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, read to the end of the thread before trying to restart old, and settled, discussions. We're not interpreting anything here as that is not our place. We're waiting and seeing what others make of all the evidence presented. --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're confusing me again. In what way is this discussion either old or settled? The section appears to be open for further discussion. SS made a claim that Mark's reading of the statement was incorrect, I don't agree but am open to being shown some alternative interpretation (since I might learn something), and so it seems perfectly acceptable to ask him how he interprets the statement since he believes Mark's reading was incorrect. This all relates to how the article should take such things into account so I fail to see how this is even off topic. Waiting is fine but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it in the mean time. So, Stephan, what do you think they meant if not what Mark thinks they meant? --GoRight (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

<-Have you seen the list that this submission is part of?[20] The government have asked for submissions with regard to the current enquiries, and this is just one of them. Why not rely on our usual policy of secondary sources, or at least wait until the enquiries have weighed all their evidence themselves and published something. Cherry picking and doing our own evaluation of individual items of evidence in advance of a committee report sounds to me like the worst kind of OR. I'd agree with a mention that the evidence is being collected and a link to the list page reffed above. --Nigelj (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A very good point. I see that the issue has been dealt with below. Let's wait and see. We are talking days or a week perhaps?130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In the article, I have just extended the logic and consensus arrived at here on the IoP submission to this committee, to the UEA submission. This was discussed in far too much detail, based on nothing more than the primary sources represented by these submissions, and some correspondence between UEA and ICO. There are 55 such submissions listed, they are primary sources, and they will be evaluated by the committee, not by us. What is sauce for the goose (over the IoP submission) is sauce for the gander (the UEA submission). --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We have at least a WP:RS that says The real reason for AGW: Post Normal Science and comment on this issue ... "The Institute of Physics has ... It argues that the behaviour of the scientists involved has “worrying implications” for “the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”" Nsaa (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a Delingpole blog! We are talking about evidence to a Parliamentary Committee here. I'm afraid that does not cut it. I just undid swift reversion of my careful edit, where you said there was no discussion here. I see you have now found it, but you'll have to do better than that. Have you read the earlier comments in this thread? --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole`s blog is wp:rs what`s the problem mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• For these guysTimes headline, which is fantasy[21] not even The Times is WP:RS when it suits them ... and yes Delingpole is WP:RS as long as he publish his articles on the telegraph.co.uk-address and he is credited per WP:RS Nsaa (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC`s comment in that diff makes no sense, the times article is spot on, and the times is also wp:rs sorry but nobody gets to choose which storys in a paper are reliable mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The IOP statement is a secondary source for the emails and the topics which the IOP is describing. The UK inquiry will be a secoondary source which describes the IOP statement. We use a newspaper article as a secondary source for a car accident, and then we use a history book as a secondary source about the news coverage. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edit

The following edit has two major problems[22]. First, it cites a primary source without corroborating third-party reliable sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. Second, the content was added to the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article. Without multiple independent sources, there is no evidence that this is important enough to include in the lede. Therefore, I removed the material explaining that "Per WP:UNDUE. Find some independent, third-party reliable sources to include this in the article. Find many more to prove this is important enough to include in the lede". Dave souza then restored the content without addressing either of my two concerns.[23] True, a token reference was added but the cited source does not support the content. Indeed, the cited article[24] only contains a single sentence reference to the UAE's failure to comply with FOA requests, "The university also denied suggestions that it had breached Freedom of Information rules by refusing to release raw data.". It says nothing about "no breach of the law has been established; the evidence the ICO had in mind was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request had been for private emails". Since neither of my two concerns were addressed, I have removed this content from the article. Please do not restore this content until consensus has been reached on the article talk page. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the above, I still don't understand the grounds on which you removed references to these important statements. It looks to me as if you're reading some policy or other as saying we cannot report one of the principal party's statements about itself or its interactions with a key deliberative body. Perhaps you could try explaining in English why we shouldn't include such material. As for your objection to putting this in the lede, obviously the gravity of the alleged offence alone merits putting it in the lede. We don't need multiple sources to establish that. --TS 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the section above. The same reason no additions should be made. Let's wait to get the whole story.130.232.214.10 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More on the whole story: CRU correspondence with ICO[25]. Article in the Times[26]. Trying to refrain from comment but unable... This University is complete s**t at damage control.91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This FOI stuff is all a bit broken. This article has long contained invalid claims that the university breached FOI law. Those claims are now show to be wrong; that the FOI office has made no such determination. So we need to reparit the article. Because of this, all the stuff about 6 month limits becomes irrelevant and may as well go William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding last edit. Did you read all of the correspondence and the Times article?91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)WMC: Your comment above has no basis in reality. Indeed, not only is the IOC sticking to its findings, the UAE has apparently been caught lying about it: University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the article and the correspondence, and several points have been made clear:

1. The ICO has essentially admitted that (as the UEA alluded to) media coverage has been inaccurate, misrepresenting ICO statements.
2. That despite (1), the ICO cannot be bothered to clarify their statements because they don't feel responsible.
3. Absolutely nothing has been asserted, and the investigation has months to run.
4. Statements made by the ICO to this point have only been preliminary findings, and these may differ significantly from those found at the conclusion of the investigation.

Clearly, WMC's comment about the FOI stuff being "broken" is absolutely correct, although I disagree with the rest of his comment because we don't actually know anything yet. I submit that the most appropriate action would be to remove the ICO-related stuff from the article until the conclusion of the investigation, beyond a simple acknowledgment that the ICO are investigating. Claims of "breaches" or "no breaches" are premature at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the pointer to the Times article. This is yet another so-called "RS" which isn't; the headline is a fantasy invention whicb is not supported by the rather boring article text. The Times has a problem: it bought all this fluff, and now looks silly, so it won't back down gracefully. But that doesn't mean we should be using it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about why you are puzzled. The Times is clearly a WP:RS. We, as editors, don't have the privilege of being able to personally select when we want to accept a given source as WP:RS on a case by case basis. WP:V is controlling, not our individual assessments of the truth. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Times has made numerous errors in this, as has the Torygraph. We are not obliged to repeat the errors of "RS"'s, and should not do so, when other sources have made those errors clear. There are countless examples of errors by newspapers; wiki, correctly, does not insert them all William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you personally judge that they have made errors is irrelevant, actually. That's why WP:V sets the standard where it does. Your claims of errors are WP:OR and have no place in determining the content of the article. Policy controls, and WP:WEIGHT suggests that, in fact, we are obligated to include the views presented by the Times and the Telegraph because they are WP:RS. Presenting all of the views found in WP:RS and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions is precisely how things are supposed to be working based on existing policies, as written. --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, other more reliable sources than the Times and the Telegraph have documented the errors that WMC refers to in the coverage of these incidents. We are charged with considering the sum total of sources not just the reports by newspapers. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are somehow under the impression that my stance is that we should ignore certain sources. This is not the case. The main views expressed in WP:RS should be covered in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. So, if you have sources that contradict the Times and the Telegraph they should be covered in the article along with the Times and the Telegraph accounts.

You seem to stress "more reliable" sources. Forgive me for wanting to verify that claim. What are these sources and by who's determination are they purported to be "more reliable"? Is that authority generally or universally recognized as being fit to make that determination on the relative reliability of these sources involved? If this has already been discussed please direct me to that thread. --GoRight (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: You states "I'm puzzled by the pointer to the Times article. This is yet another so-called "RS" which isn't; the headline is a fantasy invention whicb" referinmg to this article University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ (archived 2010-02-27) in The Times published 7 February 2010. Your judgment that the article title is fantasy speaks for itself. Even if we should not analyze and judge a secondary source we can just take a quote from the text that fully support the title you are so categorical about (its 'fantasy'): "The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.". Nsaa (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC: You have partially reverted the edit[27] without achieving any sort of consensus or even addressing my concerns. Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed addressed your concerns. You appear to have bought into the Times headline, which is fantasy. Read what the article actually quotes and a rather different picture emerges. It is now plain that there has been no finding of law-breaking by the FOI people, despite what this wiki article has been incorrectly saying for rather a long time. That is embarassing to wiki in general, and to the people here who have fought to include the bad text. A clear demonstration of why NOTNEWs would be a good policy to follow William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only did you fail to address my concerns, you didn't even bother to try. I asked for corroborating third-party sources to establish WP:WEIGHT and you've done no such thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems like something of a red herring. If you consider the facts in my previous comment, you should draw the conclusion that the media has made a mistake and have misrepresented the truth; however, the chances of the media actually admitting to their fail are essentially nil. There aren't going to be any sources in the MSM that say the MSM has screwed up. That being said, removing all the ICO-related stuff is the only surefire way of making sure the article is accurate per WP:NOTNEWS. We can revisit the matter when the investigation is over and we have real facts to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you feel that your stated position about the truth here is anything other than synthesis and WP:OR? This is precisely why WP:V is written the way that it is, namely to avoid the introduction of personal points of view based on WP:OR using exactly the type of argument you are attempting here. The solution is to present all sides from the media and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. --GoRight (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't care. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if you were right (you're not), you should already know that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Go start a blog if you want to complain about how unfair reliable sources are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should care if you want to help rather than hinder. There's more to writing an encyclopedia article than concatenating the newspaper headlines you prefer and saying "verifiability not truth"! If something has clearly been shown to be imprecise or misguided, then it becomes questionable, and fringe. WP:PSCI tells us what to do about sources that "are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked." --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why you believe WP:PSCI has any bearing on the present discussion of whether UEA breached FOI laws as reported in a WP:RS? I don't see the connection since this isn't even a discussion related to a scientific topic. --GoRight (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The link WP:PSCI is a convenient shortcut to a section in the WP:NPOV policy. The section is called 'Pseudoscience and related fringe theories' (my emph). A newspaper reporting the results of an ICO prosecution that has not taken place is certainly "considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence". Read more carefully: There is nothing 'scientific' about some of the examples given in that section, and quoted above, either. --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize but this hasn't really cleared the matter up for me. You've highlighted "related fringe theories" which seems, by context, to be referring to fringe scientific theories. I don't believe that the discussion at hand can be construed to be related to a fringe scientific theory and hence my continued confusion on this point. --GoRight (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Read more carefully: There is nothing 'scientific' about some of the examples given in that section, and quoted above, either." - Having done as you suggested it appears that every bit of that section is talking about science and/or pseudoscience neither of which accurately describes the topic being discussed here which is legal. --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the mainstream view. The claim that the OCA is wrong is the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. In this case, the misinterpreted statements have not been verified by additional reliable sources. In fact, they have been questioned (and some might say discredited) by the other sources available to us. So your WP:V claim is false, and your argument is wrong. Maybe you should "go start a blog if you want to complain about how unfair" reality is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect on these points. The fact that something has been questioned or discredited by other WP:RS (I assume you have other WP:RS for your claims) only implies that those assertions should be added to the article, NOT that the current assertions should be removed. Removal based on your own analysis would constitute WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The fact that ICO said that the UEA has been verified by numerous reliable sources. In any case, let's get back on topic. Can you please address the WP:WEIGHT issue I described in my original post? The silence has been quite deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a source that reports on the MSM's misinterpretation of the ICO's statement, and we even have the ICO's letter that confirms that they aren't responsible for the misrepresentations made by the media. That's verifiable proof that the reporting that has taken place is wrong, and so WMC's suggestion that WP:NOTNEWS should've applied has proven accurate. All the ICO stuff, beyond a simple statement that they are investigating, should be removed from the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But you're completely ignoring the fact that the ICO is sticking by its statement. If you have a specific concern about something in this article that might be inaccurate, you should state it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And you are completely ignoring the fact that the ICO is sticking by its statement because they don't feel obliged to make the effort to clarify themselves when their statements are misconstrued. "The ICO is not responsible for the way in which media and others may interpret or write around an ICO statement." -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So I'll ask a second time. What specific statement(s) in this article do you think is inaccurate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a really weird headline...it contains quotation marks but the quoted text doesn't appear to be in the article text. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If we quote the UEA as saying "there is no more than prima facie evidence" (my emphasis) then for NPOV we have to quote the ICO saying "It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence" and suggestions that UEA might have been seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained. --Rumping (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rumping makes an excellent point. WMC's edit is a textbook example of cherry-picking. We're not supposed to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the UEA unaware of the meaning of "prima facie" or are they hoping their readers are uninformed? They make it sound like a mere bagatelle. While prima facie evidence is rebuttable, absent a solid, convincing rebuttal case, the claim they violated the law will stand. they have a COI in asserting that the media are misreporting, and furthermore, they offer no evidence in support of their claim. Their claim would be like a defendant asking for a case dismissal because the prosecution claim is based upon nothing more solid than peer-reviewed science.--SPhilbrickT 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently one editor thinks we are not allowed to know what the ICO and a Liberal Democrat member of the committee think about the UEA's behaviour.[28][29] What follows is the deleted paragraph. --Rumping (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The ICO's response to the UEA said "The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this."ICO response to UEA 29 January 2010 Evan Harris, a member of the Select Committee was quoted as saying "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained." University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010

I suggest you re-read what the Deputy Information Commissioner actually wrote in his letter. He refers to a potential offence under section 77 of the FOI Act and refers to prima facie evidence. He speaks of the ICO looking at "the question of whether an offence under 77 had been committed" and says that "the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit". He does not say at any point that it is proved that the UEA committed an offence. Note that he speaks only of a potential offence. He makes it clear that because of the statutory time limit, he can't investigate any further. Saying that "the claim they violated the law will stand" misrepresents the position of the ICO, which is that an offence may have occurred but that question cannot now be resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How bizarre this hair would be split in an article that prolaims an offense that never may have been committed in its title. The notion that the Statute of Limitations may have expired does nothing to negate the fact the law may have been broken. And since in this article the precedent is to allow an accusation to have merit and stand on its own until disproven. --David Crabtree (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Read as: Guilty until proven innocent!91.153.115.15 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The full paragraph that ChrisO refers to reads as follows:

"Meanwhile, the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. Given that this was in the public domain and has been discussed in the media and on various websites over a number of weeks, the ICO's view, as I indicated when we spoke yesterday, is that the University must have understood that the question whether an offence under section 77 had been committed would be looked at. In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit."

So, ChrisO is correct that this letter only speaks of a potential offence and so we should seek to represent it as such. The letter also speaks of cogent prima facie evidence which indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information and so it seems legitimate to mention this as well, along with the fact that no prosecution on the matter can be taken forward due to the statutory time limits. Is this a fair summary of the facts related to the content and statement made in the letter, ChrisO? --GoRight (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the correct thing to do would be to exclude this stuff until we have actual results from the investigation (per WP:NOTNEWS). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@GoRight, I agree that your reading is correct.

@Scjessey, with all due respect, I don't think it's really credible to exclude the ICO stuff given that (a) it has received extensive coverage and (b) it is not just newspaper or blog speculation - both the UEA and the ICO have issued statements on the topic. We should mention it, but not give it undue weight or misrepresent it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - If you read my comments above, you will note that my recommendation was to remove all the stuff that was the "he said/she said" crap that was misreported, and cut it back to the salient point that the ICO is conducting an investigation. I did not suggest purging the article of ICO completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, might it be possible to apply this same reasoning to the way Wikipedia covers the climate change controversy? By this I mean, until a few years ago, the New Ice Age theory was popular, and now the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has superseded it, but Wikipedia covers AGW as an established fact. Would it be more correct to reserve judgment, since these climate theories seem to have a short shelf life? Goodranch (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? I think you'll find that anthropogenic climate change (I hate "global warming" because it is inaccurate and misleading) is a theory that has so much supporting evidence it is functionally equivalent to established fact. And each new piece of evidence improves the science and reinforces the theory. In contrast, the little spat between the ICO and the UEA has been going on for a couple of weeks, not decades. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@scjessey - Nonsense. You must be joking. Climate change is enshrined in data from time immemorial. The anthropogenic part is not. In fact, there is no evidence for it aside from models, which should not count as evidence in a rational person's eyes. Of the various deleterious effects that our species has on the well-being of the planet (as currently configured), CO2 is the only one that can in theory have a major effect on climate. And if CO2 does not cause warming, then man can have no effect on climate. Where is the evidence for CO2 forcing warming? Certainly not in the last 10 years. Certainly not in the Medieval Warm Period of blessed memory, nor the Roman Warm Period (ah, those were the days!), nor the Holocene Climate Optimum. Very probably not in the Eocene Optimum, nor in the Ordovician Ice Age, when CO2 was 4,000 ppm in the atmosphere. Back to you, sir. Oiler99 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing the science with someone who evidently gets facts from those who deny it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)