Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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

Lede still violates WP:NPOV

From Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_33#Lede_still_violates_WP:NPOV

Here is the 4th version of the proposed first paragraph of the lead, crafted to take into account feedback given over the course of the process.

(4): The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change skeptics argued that the emails cast doubt on global warming. Reports in the media claimed the emails showed evidence of efforts to withhold scientific data and to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others, of attempts to remove journal editors with whom the researchers disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked, and of failures to appropriately fulfill requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC also raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of the CRU's coding methods as prompted by coding documentation released with the emails. The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitspeter (talk • contribs)

No, that's POV rubbish. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Please refactor your comment and replace it with constructive commentary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead ok, as discussed

The current lead includes the statement "Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy." which is accurate and does not give undue weight to the relatively minor criticisms allegedly made by non-skeptics once the controversy began. The second paragraph of the lead covers the points "that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices", The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information", and "although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose." The balance is reasonable as an overview of the article and the "controversy". . dave souza, talk 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to does not accurately summarize the information contained in the article. The media did not publicize skeptical allegations, they made independent allegations. And not allegedly. There are many RSs in the article that contain those allegations. Nor are these allegations minor. They include for example extremely well-publicized statements made by the british government.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh? By the way, the ICO isn't the British Government. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're mixing american and british terminology. It is the British government in American.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't – it's an article about what is primarily a UK topic, and as such is written in UK English. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have allayed the concerns raised here

I'm just giving a courtesy 24 hour 'warning' indicating that I will add this text by then if I don't hear any further response from people. Consider this encouragement to raise concerns if you have any.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What text is that? Sorry but I'm a bit unclear on that. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! A lot of this discussion was left in the archive by request to avoid cluttering the page. Maybe we should have brought more out.

I'm referring to (4) in this section, which would replace the first paragraph you see on the main page.

Let me know if you have any other questions or comments. I don't mean this subsection as a threat or anything, I'm honestly looking for feedback and won't post the text if approximately serious concerns are raised.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Must say I'm totally lost as to what the fighting is over. Sometimes these discussions are like the old soap operas. If you miss an episode it's hard to catch up. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The current edition of the lead describes the controversy as restricted to: allegations from skeptics that the case against climate change is weakened by the leaks. (4) would bring the lead in line with WP:UNDUE (WP:NPOV) and WP:LEAD by summarizing the controversy as it has been treated in the main stream media.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or diff (as if I know how to find a diff!) to that archived material? Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff of the archive is at the top of the section Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_33#Lede_still_violates_WP:NPOV. As for the substance of this change, I can see what you're trying to do here, which is to make a more informative lead, which is objected to as being POV. What I don't understand is why you feel that the milder wording is POV. It conveys the same information, but in less explicit detail. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The milder wording? Can you explain what you're referring to? (It may be worth reading comment directly below in case I've inadvertently answered your question).--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your version (No. 4) is more explicit in describing the emails, hence is milder than the more restrained language there now. The discussion below is helpful in clarifying the issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happens to the lead, it has be noted that sentiment that these documents reveal misconduct is held primarily by climate change skeptics. The "Reports in the media claimed" wording is doesn't make this clear. Suggesting it is a non-partisan POV fails WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that that is not correct, NickCT. The view that these documents reveal misconduct on the part of the researchers is certainly held by climate change skeptics, and notably, as is displayed in (4). However, there have also been well publicized reports by reliable sources that the documents reveal misconduct ([4] includes reports from the Wall Street Journal and the BBC). And there have been extraordinarily well-publicized statements made by the British government that the documents reveal misconduct as well. These latter two categories are notable, are not skeptical, and are not covered by the current lead in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (4) fixes that. I hope I'm making myself clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're still trying to give relatively obscure issues undue prominence in the lead. To make your case, you need to show the sources here for discussion, and not just have the tags hidden as inline cites. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

These are not relatively obscure issues, they define the controversy. To describe only assertions made by skeptics, when numerous main stream media reports and government organizations are also making these assertions (occasionally identical ones), violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That's the last thing I'll say about that to you as per WP:HEAR.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how to insert the sources here. But all of them are included in the main article under the same refnames. If you want to look through them one by one you can check there. Or look at the archived part of the discussion which includes versions of the proposed text that go into more detail about which newspapers and govt orgs we're dealing with here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can provide links to them for discussion. However, this really looks like original research on your part – there were clearly many news reports of "skeptic's claims", and some that looked into issues without making it explicit, but you really need a secondary source assessing the proportionate importance rather than doing it yourself. There's also the problem of making claims in one paragraph of the lead, only to show them being dismissed by the reports of independent inquiries in the second. So, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to these baseless claims by showing them out of the context of more up to date reports. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's silly, dave souza.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your response shows a failure to appreciate WP:NOR and WP:STRUCTURE policies. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As sources have shown, the controversy was initiated by skeptics and most of the allegations were directly attributed to skeptics. It's unclear what news sources Heyitspeter's using to try to support your the assertion that these were general, but for one example the WSJ is notoriously skeptical and not that typical of mainstream media on the issue. The proposal gives undue weight to detailed issues, which as stated are dealt with in the second paragraph, and misleadingly attributes skeptical claims to the mainstream. Not acceptable. . dave souza, talk 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV of the article has to move with the times too. At some points in the the history of this 'controversy' some media reports may have said this or that, but then the enquiries and the reviews started to appear, and it was found that a lot of the sceptic hoo-har was in fact baseless. That has to be taken account in the lede. There is no point in trying to turn the clock back to December 2009 and present in the lede what people didn't know then. The present wording summarises the current situation well. --Nigelj (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nigel in general terms. Dave, can you articulate please the problem with No. 4? You have to admit that it is more informative. What's the problem with it? What am I missing here?ScottyBerg (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Two issues. Firstly, going into detail of accusations without the context of the findings gives them inflated weight, and attributing the accusations to media rather than to skeptics reported in the media is, in general, inaccurate. There are some cases of issues being raised or discussed without explicit reference to "skeptics", but essentially the media were responding to a "skeptic" agenda. Similarly, the deputy commissioner making an improper and unofficial statement got blown out of proportion, and the more measured language of the finding gives better concise coverage of the issue. Presenting ill founded accusations out of context gives undue weight to them. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the problem here. I think the overarching problem is that since the allegations were rejected, it doesn't seem right to include them in such detail in the lead. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it gives a misleading impression if the accusations are stated in isolation without the more nuanced conclusions of the investigations to date, and the lead isn't the place for the sort of detailed context that's needed. . dave souza, talk 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're supposed to assign weight based on prominence given in third-party reliable sources. We used to have a WP:NPOV version of the allegations in the lede but it was edit-warred out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is quite clear: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context..." We should be defining the topic and establishing the context, not going into the level of detail proposed in (4) regarding one side of the controversy, leaving para 2 to put the other side - the actual and official one. I know that analogies will always fail at some point but I'm reminded of the way the media speak before a trial compared to afterwards (when they can say "murderer" or "innocent person once accused of murder" without further qualification. I'm also put in mind of the fact that even the most strident 'skeptic' campaigners have moved on from this cause now that the reviews are coming in, to focus on "The IPCC is a political pressure group", sunspots and what-have-you. What they were campaigning on six months ago is now too specific for the 1st para. "Allegations by climate change sceptics that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy" says it just fine. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that a version that doesn't go into too much detail can be constructed. Heyitspeter's suggestion looks like a good start. I know that as a reader I would like to know what all the fuss was about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the concern here. This proposed lead goes into copious detail, overshadowing the fact that it had all been repudiated, which is at the bottom. I don't think this does the reader any favors, and on balance is misleading. If the charges and early news coverage had been confirmed it would be a different story entirely. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The skeptical response is not more notable than the response of the mainstream media and foreign governments. Either we include all of it or none of it. Since we obviously can't include none of it, and since something like (4) includes all of it, we need something like (4). If that leaves us with a long paragraph, that leaves us with a long paragraph. WP:LEAD fully supports long leaders if they contribute to the quality of the article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, can we think of a way to shorten Heyitspeter's version without it overshadowing its repudiation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain that his version is an appropriate basis for a lead. We may be in an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" situation. The problems with his version weren't immediately apparent to me at first, but became evident when I gave it a wee bit of thought. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this? I tried not to change too much while still attempting to explain what the controversy is/was about.

"The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. Various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010. The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews. Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA concluded that there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones, though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices. The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information" and although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose. The reports concluded that Phil Jones had no case to answer and that better statistical methods might not have produced significantly different results. The CRU's detractors were also criticised, with one of the reports deploring the tone of their criticism and finding that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable". The findings of the third review have yet to be published." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You haven't taken account of the section in WP:LEDE that I partially quoted earlier. In an article about a controversy (especially one that's now largely over), you don't have the first para state one side of the story (now largely repudiated) and the second para give the other (mainstream, consensus) view. This first para should introduce all aspects of the story. In our case the 2nd para then goes on to explain the mainstream findings, per WP:FRINGE. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. To be honest, I didn't like it either, but I was trying to make as few changes as possible. The fact that the mainstream POV isn't explained until the 2nd paragraph is the way the lede is currently written. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In very brief form, the current 1st para has, "Leak from CRU. Server hacking. Allegations, publicised, controversy. Rebuttals. Criminal investigation." That's why I said 'all aspects'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Refocus

To refocus discussion: the view that these documents show misconduct is certainly held by climate change skeptics, and notably, as is displayed in (4). However, there have also been well publicized reports by reliable sources that the documents show misconduct ([4] includes reports from the Wall Street Journal the BBC and the British government). These sources are notable, are not skeptical, and are not covered by the current lead in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (4) fixes that, and does so within the space constraints laid out by WP:LEAD. I hope I'm making myself clear. How are people feeling about its inclusion right now?--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion (like each of its three brethren) has already been rejected and the long discussion archived. You resurrected it, and again at least 5 people have explained to you how it is not an improvement according to various standards, policies and yardsticks (as well as AQFN concluding "That's a fair point" just above). So you put a new heading and want start all over again. I don't see anybody else arguing for the proposed text apart from you. --Nigelj (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see several requests for clarification, some complaints and a new proposal by AQFN (it was this proposal that he was referencing when he admitted that your point was fair). I do not see a 'rejection', and do not believe such a thing as a rejection tout court exists on wikipedia. I believe the complaints were addressed sufficiently and would like to refocus discussion in a less cluttered environment. Please stop the rhetoric and rejoin the discussion constructively.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your tendentious proposal has been rejected multiple times by many editors. Please find something more constructive to do with your free time. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second Viriditas's motion. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean to conclude anything. I had hoped someone would take my version and attempt to improve it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? A glance through the archived discussion linked to at the beginning of this section shows that the proposal was not rejected at all. In fact, the first version of the proposed lead received widespread support. It was rejected solely by a group of editors, yourself included, who consistently and doggedly remove material that they do not like regardless of consensus. Hence the myriad of counterproposals designed to appease you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On to number five, shortened to adress concerns raised here. We would go all the way from:

(1) The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. The emails prompted allegations by climate change skeptics and widespread publicity in the media. The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to withhold scientific data and to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others. Reason reported that the CRU evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. The ICO made a statement that the emails revealed that freedom of information requests were 'not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation' but that they could not prosecute due to statute of limitations. The BBC and Computerworld also raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of the CRU's coding methods as prompted by coding documentation released with the emails. The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data.

to

(5) The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. The emails prompted allegations of misconduct by climate change skeptics, the mainstream media. and the British government The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data.

Footnotes; peer-reviewed journals

I've changed footnotes #8 and #87. They directed to this page instead of this one. I also added a quote that the scientists seemed to be trying to keep skeptics' articles out of peer-reviewed journals. (It would be SYN for me to try to reconcile that statement with the one that said they weren't perverting the peer-review process. The two statements seem contradictory to me, so we need to put both in, imo.) --Yopienso (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to syn, the report is explicit. On pages 21–23 he MPs noted the various claims, and the responses by Jones which in part stated that he just did not think the papers were very good. The MPs concluded that "73. The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email Review should look in detail at all of these claims." The sentence you were quoting was an editorial view by the AP reporter, not something said by the MPs. In science there is this process of discussion and peer review, where scientists are allowed to say that papers are rubbish, and that E&E publishes rubbish. . . dave souza, talk 10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, I have it sorted out now. Satter was harking back to initial suspicions after, in proper "inverted triangle" journalistic fashion, giving the results first. Sorry for the trouble. And thanks to NuclearWarfare for fixing my footnote. I did at least replace a dead one! :P --Yopienso (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive duplication of prior discussion

In a single edit this page was increased in size sixfold by the reposting of material from an archive page. The archives exist for a reason, and the repost is likely to make any new discussion difficult to find. Would somebody please kindly replace this massive word-dump with an internal link to the archived material? Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted. I agree the current version is better.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Muir Russell to report July 7

The Muir Russell website now says the report is to be published on July 7. The article still says it's due out the end of May.

http://www.cce-review.org/News.php

Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done as requested, the old source didn't seem to be used for anything else so I've removed it. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this tag: "The findings of the third review have yet to be published.[original research?]"? Does somebody seriously believe that the findings of the third review have already been published? If so, where? Refs please, or let's remove the tag. --Nigelj (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If there were a ref, there wouldn't be an original research tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEADCITE, citations are only required for material "that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations", as long as the information is cited in the body of the article, which in this case it is. I can't imagine any reasonable person challenging the statement. Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine any reasonable person challenging the statement. Are you new around here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, just so. I've removed the tag - its addition was just silly. AQFK, here's a hint for you: July 7 comes after June 19th, therefore the report has not yet been published. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that assertion on those two exact dates proven in any peer-reviewed paper. It wouldn't be true for a time traveller. --Nigelj (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I was the one who added that statement to the lede. I didn't think it was an objectionable statement. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's referenced in the body, it should be easy to provide a reference. This is a relatively brand new article; there's no good reason why we shouldn't be providing cites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

July 7 comes after June 19th, therefore the report has not yet been published. WP:SYN.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. --Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. No position is being advanced. The report has not yet been published according to the sources. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources? Cool, can you cite the sources and just add to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? Try reading this thread and the reference in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's a source to this statement, then just add it to the lede. I don't know why this is so complicated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The source was provided at the beginning of the thread, and it was provided in reference 48. What part of this isn't making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you already have a cite, then just add it to the lede - why are you arguing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read this thread, paying special attention to the editors who have 1) given you the cite (first post in the thread and in ref 48), and 2) explained why it doesn't belong in the lead. What part of this isn't making sense? Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If a cite has been provided but I missed it, then the matter is simply solved by repointing me to the correct cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith. Is there a problem here? Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I simply asked for a cite but was repeatedly attacked for a very simple thing. 04:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to help you again: Do you see the title of this thread? It's called "Muir Russell to report July 7". Do you see the first post in the thread? It's dated 20:08, 18 June 2010.[6] Did you see dave souza's edit to the article on 20:26, 18 June 2010 [7] and his response to the original poster of this thread at 20:28, 18 June 2010?[8] Is there still a problem? Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) "No position is being advanced." Of course a position is being advanced--the position that the Russell report hasn't been published yet. And of course I'm being facetious and will butt out, but this is exactly what has been done to me on numerous occasions, including one about whether a journal had or had not published a paper. (It had, but then withdrew it.) A few hours ago I deleted a remark here before posting it and should not have posted the one I did, but honestly, the wikilawyering gets tiresome, and I saw a chance to point out just how silly some of those arguments can be. I understand and agree with the spirit of WP:V and WP:TRUTH, but strongly disagree with twisting them to keep out inconvenient facts. With this post I am ceasing and desisting from my cant, realizing that instead of helping to make an important point I have probably only incurred wrath or at the least been a nuisance. --Yopienso (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, having been in similar situations. But no matter how frustrated we also must heed WP:POINT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand the OR policy. Please feel free to raise this issue on the OR noticeboard for further insight. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that WP:OR is allowed if you promise that WP:RS are forthcoming? If not, perhaps you can provide some clarifation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Nope - rather, OR does not apply to simple mathematical calculations. Such as, calculating the difference between today and July 7 and classifying that number as positive or negative. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeez. Are you guys still arguing about this? I have been impressed by the standard of debate found on some WP talk pages, but this is very silly. WP:CITE gives some basic advice: "You can also add sources for material you did not write. Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia." AQFN asking others to cite the simplest, most obvious statement for him, while he repeatedly tags it... Well it's enough to drive an intelligent person to find something more interesting to do with their free time. --Nigelj (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is mindbogglingly silly. Who is disputing that the report has not yet been published? Is there any suggestion from anyone at all that the report has already been published? What exactly is in contention here? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing the factual accuracy of the statement. I'm pointing out that we have a sentence without a source. What is so wrong about citing references? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I refer to my response several yards up the page - it doesn't need to be cited per WP:LEADCITE, but if you want to cite it, then go ahead. Mikenorton (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:LEADCITE states "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations;". This article is quite current, and obvious controversial, so I will say that it's better for the community that we add this source, than fight over tagging the article by adding[9][10] and removing[11][12] tags instead of just insert the necessary ref(s) - I will shortly try it. Nsaa (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this change is enough per WP:SYN (is it ok to say that it's not released when the source just states a date in the future? For this case yes. In others no, since this may have implications like when was an paper eligible for use by IPCC etc. ) and WP:PRIMARY (it should be ok to just state the fact that they plan to release the report on 7 July), but I suppose it's good enough. Nsaa (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Penn State Review

I don't understand why the Penn state review isn't mentioned in the lede, but the 3 UK reviews are? Is this some sort of anti-American bias or something? It seems to me to be just as notable as the others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue, does anyone know if the final part of the Penn State review has been released? According to this article it was supposed to have been published by June 3rd, but I've not heard anything about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek Report

• Begley, Sharon (June 25, 2010). "Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done". Time.

Found it while reading Pharyngula. Use if you wish. NW (Talk) 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The story should have been retracted 24 hours after it was first reported. Instead, it was given legs by large media conglomerates, using op-ed pages as a platform, and few if any science journalists. This is a great reason for anyone interested in this topic to make their way over to WP:RS and change the guideline so this doesn't happen again. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for the tip. Note, however, that the Newsweek blog title is misleading: the retraction had nothing to do with the "Climategate" this WP article treats. Although Begley first drags the red herring of Phil Jones and Michael Mann across the trail, the subject of her deliberately confused blog is what she calls a retraction but the Times calls a correction regarding a "bogus rainforest claim" by the IPCC based on a WWF report prepared by what the Times called "'green campaigners' with 'little scientific expertise.'" The Times acknowledged the report was accurate and peer-reviewed. It also apologized for twisting the words of Dr. Simon Lewis.

Oddly enough, I can find neither the original report from January nor the June 21 correction on the Times website. The new reports are widely disseminated across the internet, mainly through blogs. This "Green" blog from the NYT is the most reliable report I've turned up, with a link in the 5th paragraph to a copy of the "retraction," a link to a PDF of the original article, a link to a PDF of Lewis's 31-page claim against the Times, and a link to a scan of the "retraction" that omits the date and the last line or two. --Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sunday Times deleted the original report from its website but I gather it only ran the correction in print, not on the web - which rather makes you wonder how serious they were about publicising it... -- ChrisO (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The blogosphere is gung-ho on publicising it! Even more oddly, this March 12, 2009 Times report is still available. The third paragraph states:

Up to 40 per cent of the rainforest will be lost if temperature rises are restricted to 2C, which most climatologists regard as the least that can be expected by 2050.

--Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See also the recent article in the Sunday Telegraph by Booker [13], who is pretty much standing by the original story. But as noted above "Amazongate" is not "Climategate", so I doubt any of this has much relevance. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

s/article/opinion column/ Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"s/article/opinion column/"--Please translate. --Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Geekspeak. It means substitute "opinion column" for "article". From Linux, I believe. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag, again

As near as I can tell, HiP re-added the tag purely because V called him an SPA (bases on HiP's comments). This is clearly wrong; also, again as far as I can see, HiP's reasoning has been rejected by numerous editors. so I've re-removed the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the POV dispute been resolved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please state the nature of the POV dispute in two sentences or less, and I will reply to your question. Remember, the burden is on the editor adding the tag, not removing it. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See the other section with the word "NPOV" in the title, which editors were directed to in the text of the tag by way of explanation, and which WMC apparently missed. I will be readding the tag now. WMC, you are not to remove the tag until the dispute is resolved as officially stated. "I don't like it" is not an argument.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that this page is on 1-revert. I'll readd the tag after 24-hours are up, though I encourage another editor to do it themselves when they see this. It requires only an undo of WMC's most recent. Cheers.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I'll be removing the tag. Heyitspeter, the links you provide in your above reply do not answer the question I asked at all, and in fact, have nothing to do with this topic. It's entirely possible that you made a mistake and added the wrong links, but you need to stop threatening to hold this article hostage because you think it deserves a POV tag. That's not how we edit Wikipedia, and if you persist, you could be blocked. To recap, the person adding the tag has the burden of proof. If you can't answer a simple question about why you feel the need to tag this article, then the tag obviously doesn't belong. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are threatening to make a direct violation of WP:HEAR. It isn't threatening and is of course actionable. Happy editing. I will not be commenting further in this section.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has obviously not been resolved. I am restoring the POV tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What dispute? Please provide what, specifically, violates NPOV. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide what, specifically, violates NPOV. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You can find my suggested rewrite of the lead here.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'd like to rewrite the lede" != POV tag William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What he said. "Please provide what, specifically, violates NPOV." Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight isn't being assigned accordding to proportion presented by reliable sources. Now, I've given you the reason along with my suggested fix. What more do you want? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem by removing who orchestrated the scandal. I hope that allays your concerns. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. How does that even address my concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Weight on what? If you want to tag this article, it should be clear why William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight to the critics. There's no explanation of what there claims are in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which claims from critics need mention in the lede, specifically? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims that climate scientists:

1. Colluded to withhold scientific information
2. Interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published
3. Deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act
4. Manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide sources, and the current status of those charges? How should we include charges that are now debunked? Would you like a seperate paragraph in the lede detailing each of the charges, and then how those charges were debunked? You agree it would obviously be a violation of NPOV to say "skeptics charged that scientists colluded to withhold scientific information," without also including the sourced fact that "charges that scientists colluded to withold scientific information were rejected by XY and Z, right? Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per H. Those claims have all been examined and refuted by investigation. They are part of the *history* of the incident, but not part of its current state William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Could you provide sources, and the current status of those charges?"

Sure, but give me some time to find them. I'll get them to you within the next day or so. Is that acceptable to you?

"How should we include charges that are now debunked?"

I think that should be included as well.

"Would you like a seperate paragraph in the lede detailing each of the charges"

No, just a single sentence would be fine.

"and then how those charges were debunked?"

That should be there, too.

"You agree it would obviously be a violation of NPOV to say "skeptics charged that scientists colluded to withhold scientific information," without also including the sourced fact that "charges that scientists colluded to withold scientific information were rejected by XY and Z, right?"

Yes, I do. We should include both POVs and assign weight based on their prominence in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting on your sources. It's a shame that you couldn't work this out on your own - I mean, who would ever propose an entire change that merely reflected their own personal PoV on a contentious page like this and expect it to reach consensus? How many times do people need to realize that you have to insert a little of something you don't want and a little of something you do want? Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you've been editing this article for months. I assumed that you were already familiar with the article topic by now. In any case, I will honor your request and provide sources within the next day or two. I hope that we can work together to resolve this dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that the claims have all been refuted, what exactly would be the purpose of putting more emphasis on them in the lead? We are not back in December 2009 when the full facts weren't yet known. The verdicts are in and the scientists involved have been given a clean bill of health, as Lord Oxburgh put it. If there's one thing we mustn't do with this article, it's give a false impression about the status of the now-refuted claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an article about a scandal. It behooves us to explain what all the fuss was about. Also, the charges were largely discredited, but not completely. The FOI charges turned out to be legit, and there's still an charge against Mann that remains outstanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A fabricated scandal with unsustainable allegations, it behooves us to take more care with these blp issues. The FOI charges turned out to be misrepresentation of an informal briefing, and the current investigations into FOIA issues have not yet reported. As for the "charge" against Mann, that report certainly seems to have got lost in the long grass. Presumption of innocence remains. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything will be sourced to third-party reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and in strict accordance to our policy on biographical information on living persons. But if you spot any specific BLP issues, please let me know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What sources? Also note that incorrect claims must be shown in the context of their refutation to meet the high NPOV standards required on blp issues. As I'm sure you know. . . dave souza, talk 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, give me some time to find them. With the ArbCom case and everything, it'll take a day or two. Yes, absolutely the claims should be should in context with their refutation. BTW, it looks a recent edit is being sourced to a blog. That probably needs to be taken out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gaggle

I really wish you'd read WP:RS, specifically the part that reads ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS many times and I'm one of the regular contributors to the Reliable sources noticeboard so I am familiar with this guideline. In any case, is this blog subject to the news outlet's full editorial control? If so, please state your evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(a) Apparently current practice is to assume as much; (b) this is not a BLP issue, so that's beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek publishes official announcements on the gaggle - see [15]. That makes it quite clear that their official blog is under their editorial control. Hipocrite (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which part of that link supports the argument that this blog is under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The part where they publish official statements on the blog. What part of that is hard to understand? What leads you to believe it's not under their official control, exactly? Do you apply this assume-not-official stance to all blogs in all articles you follow? Could you show me some examples of you suggesting other blogs are not under editorial control? Hipocrite (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they issued an official statement about a blog. I'm not sure what that has to do about whether their blogs are under their full editorial control. Can you please just answer my question: which part of that link supports the argument that this blog is under their full editorial control? Yes, I do assume that all blogs are not under the full editorial control unless evidence is provided otherwise. You can check my contributions to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article if you want evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they released an official statement ON the blog. Please read the links I provide for you, in full, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But I don't see where it states that blogs are under their full editorial control. Can you please point me to the statement where it's stated that it's under their full editorial control? I've asked you three times now (this makes four) and so far, you have failed to do so. BTW, you are now citing a blog as evidence that a blog is reliable. The standards for reliability are really starting to drop, methinks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand - you insist that I provide a statement from newsweek, not on the blog, that says "the blog is under our full editorial control?" I suggest you wait for results from RSN - please don't disrupt that process. I'm not jumping through your hoops anymore. Hipocrite (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to argue that this blog falls under the full editorial control, then you should provide evidence. OTOH, if you think that WP:RS is wrong, I suggest that you take this up with the editors at WP:RS. If you can get the editors there to change the guideline, please let us know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG applies. . . dave souza, talk 07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite:

• You asked what the POV dispute was about and I've provided an explanation about the weight issue.[16]
• You asked what specific claims I think should be added to the lead and I've given you a list of the specific claims.[17]
• I've also provided my suggested fix.[18]
• Now, you've also asked for me to provide sources and here they are.[19][20][21][22][23]

I've done everything you've asked of me. Is there any other information that I can provide for you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you could read what has already been said to you. The point is that newspaper reports from back in November, or those that pre-date the reviews findings, are badly out of date. So you need to review your list of newly provided sources and remove those that pre-dates the inquiries. On a quick scan, they all fail William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are all old. I thought you were going to put each of the claims in context - to note that all of them have been rejected by further findings. Are you not doing that - above, you agreed it would obviously be a violation of NPOV to say "skeptics charged that scientists colluded to withhold scientific information," without also including the sourced fact that "charges that scientists colluded to withold scientific information were rejected by XY and Z - but you only provided the charges, and your proposed change only adds the charges to the lede, unless I misread something. Hipocrite (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't even make any sense. Are you saying that the critics didn't make these charges? If not, why were there investigations? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you might consider choosing your words somewhat more carefully, as well as reading mine somewhat more carefully. Yes, it makes sense. The point is that newspaper reports written *then* don't really describe the situation *now*. Without checking, I would guess that our article on WWII doesn't have in the lede stuff from 1939 newspapers about how maybe there might be trouble ahead. You see the point, I hope William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. Provide reliable sources about the article topic that don't explain the article topic. I've provided my sources, now you provide yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you renegging on your statement that merely including the charges, without including the resolution of the charges would be a violation of NPOV? Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. Your suggestion is fine with me. Both the accusation and the refutations should be included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you intentionally proposing edits that fail NPOV, then, or are you just providing a framework for someone else to fill out when they get around to it? Hipocrite (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. The refutations are already in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you're going to include specific charges in the article, it's imperitive that right after said charges are noted, it's also noted that they were all rejected. I mean, it's like saying "Timothy Evans was accused of murdering his daughter. He was convicted of the crime. (many paragraphs about the trial, his biography). Timothy Evans was actually innocent." You might want to read Timothy Evans to see how we deal with charges that are later proved wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion with the caveat that the charges were largely rejected. The FOA violations turned out to be accurate and there's still an outstanding charge against Mann. Can we please write this article in a neutral way? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for your ability to follow NPOV. I've tried to include the information about largely rejected charges in the lede. Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite should self-revert.

He has apparently violated 1RR on this page and when quietly asked to rectify that he refused and banned the requester from his talk page. I then politely and quietly asked that he honor his pledge to self-revert if asked by someone that had not already reverted the page, which I have not, and again he apparently refuses to comply with his own pledge. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like only one revert to me, please provide diffs. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR was not my claim, see the diffs provided by someone else on Hipocrite's talk page. If this is not a 1RR violation then fine, I am not an expert. However I can read his pledge plainly enough and interpret his (lack of) response in that regard. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(As of this typing), Hipocrite has not violated WP:1RR. OTOH, Hipocrite is citing a blog without providing evidence that this blog is subject to the full editorial control of the publication. This appears to be in violation of WP:BLP. Editors should be more careful regarding potential BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have accepted, above, that it was an official statement on the blog. Per WP:BURO, that's not a hair worth splitting. In addition, of course, since this isn't a statement about a living person, I'm not sure how the 'full editorial control' issue matters anyway. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see any evidence that this blog is under their full editorial control. At least, so far, none has been presented. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek has responded to my email enquiring if The Gaggle was under their editorial control with: "Yes, it is.

Elizabeth Isaacson Newsweek Letters Department" I believe this resolves the issue. Would someone not currently revert limited remove the reliable source tag? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)