Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Freedom of Information Section: Reboot - Part 2

Reboot: I want to make three points.

• It is NOT not a WP:BLP violation if we cite reliable sources. Yes, there are some exceptions (such as outing someone's sexual orientation) but they currently don't apply to this topic.
• No one is saying (at least I hope not) that the FOI allegations are true, and nor should our article say such a thing. We can, however, cover the allegations.
• There are plenty of reliable sources we can cite. Unfortunately, I do not have enough free time to do much research right now, but the New Zealand Herald and The Telegraph articles spring to mind. I'm pretty sure that the Associated Press and FactCheck.org articles cover this as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP is about far more than just citing reliable sources. Otherwise WP:BLP could have been as simple as "use reliable sources", rather than the 40K of text that's there now. I direct your attention in particular to WP:BLP#Writing and editing, especially the "Criticism and praise" subsection. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the alphabet soup, but if you're strictly following WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (which I always try to do anyway), WP:BLP is largely redundant. Sure, it adds a few extra conditions such as not outing someone's sexual orientation, but they don't apply to this situation. WP:BLP specifically says:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example

"John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe."

Example

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is :a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. [emphasis mine]

The Criticism and praise section says:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

I propose we do exactly that. Now that we are on the same page, and we have the attention of ArbCom and the Admin noticeboard, will you be willing to work with me and our fellow editors in adding this section to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO: I await your response to why we shouldn't add this content if we strictly follow WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue was archived without a resolution so I am reposting it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly support re-creating this section, and have previously posted a start towards it, with RS's. So, should we put up a draft here? (or, better, on a separate subpage, since the 1.5 day archive is a nuisance). -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I would like to get this resolved as well.Jarhed (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We should be mindful in mentioning the scientists that facts should be obtained from news stories, not editorials, and that opinions should be attributed to the persons who made them and not be presented as fact. (I note the NZ Herald item is an editorial while the Telegraph item is a news story.) We should rely on major mainstream newspapers close to the story, i.e., the London broadsheets. Also weasel words should be avoided. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these caveats, provided the facts reported by the reliable sources get into the article, and provided reliable sources are used in all cases (*edited to remove blog names*). Let's strive for NPOV and let the reader make up his or her own mind.Jarhed (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone describe the the current text and the prospective text, along with the sources that are used, and the sources that will be used, along with the specific part of the to-be-used sources that justify the changes. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to. We can use the following two articles from FactCheck.org[1] and the Associated Press[2]. The follow are excerpts from both sources which justify the change:

Source: FactCheck.org

Ben Santer e-mail, Nov. 12, 2009: My personal opinion is that both FOI requests [for data related to a 2008 paper and for correspondence dating back to 2006] are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. … McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.

Source: FactCheck.org

It’s clear from the e-mails that there are people with whom the scientists would rather not share. What’s less clear is whether any deliberate obstruction actually occurred — that’s one of the subjects of the East Anglia investigation.

Source: FactCheck.org

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

Source: Associated Press

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it. The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method.

Source: Associated Press

Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."

Source: Associated Press

There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.

Source: Associated Press

"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre

Based on the above, I suggest we add the following subsection to the Content of the documents | E-mails subsection:

==== Santer e-mail of 12, Nov 2009 ====

In one e-mail, climate scientist Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory writes about a request for data and correspondence from Steven McIntyre under the British Freedom of Information Act (FOI):

My personal opinion is that both FOI requests [for data related to a 2008 paper and for correspondence dating back to 2006] are intrusive and unreasonable. ...We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.

According to FactCheck.org, it's clear from the e-mails that there are people with whom the scientists would rather not share. Whether any actual obstruction happened is one of the subjects of the East Anglia investigation.

Santer told the Associated Press that he and other scientists are flooded by frivolous requests that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists." McIntyre disagrees with allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him. McIntyre believes that climatologists are "overreaching" in their conclusions given the data available. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he told the Associated Press.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not been following this aspect of the incident, so I am not aware of how significant it is and cannot speak to WP:WEIGHT concerns. With that said, it seems that what A Quest For Knowledge has written is presented in a manner that puts Stephen McIntyre (and his FOIA requests) in a positive light. This is not necessarily wrong, but if it is indeed true that McIntyre's requests have negatively-impacted the work of the researchers it would seem that there is a wee bit of an NPOV problem with this proposed text. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, the layout of the info gives the last word to McIntyre, and gives undue weight to his minority views. Better balance needed. . dave souza, talk 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who isn't an expert on the science, and should not be quoted as a source as to the appropriateness of the inferences made. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey: It's a first draft. Feel free to tweak it.

Dave souza: I'm confused by your "yet again" comment. This is the first time I've made this proposal. As for his "minority views", this is not an article about global warming. Whether Santer violated FOI requests or not, is neither a majority view point nor a minority viewpoint as we simply don't know. The matter is being investigated. All we can do is report what reliable sources say about the matter.

Guettarda: Again, this is not an article about science so much as it's about a political controversy. McIntyre is an involved member in this controversy whose specifically named in Santer's e-mail. His qualifications as a scientist might matter in an article about global warming, but not here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. When we're discussing the quality of the science, we use expert sources. Otherwise we might as well use Rush Limbaugh, since he's far more notable than McIntyre. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not discussing the quality of the science. That's where you're mistaken. We're discussing whether McIntyre was making frivolous FOI requests and whether Santer violated those requests. McIntyre is an involved member in this controversy whose name is specifically mentioned by these scientists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then what is this about?

McIntyre believes that climatologists are "overreaching" in their conclusions given the data available.

This is a comment about the nature of the inference. Which is, of course, a comment on the science. Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a statement about what McIntyre believes, not whether his belief is right or wrong. In an article about the controversy, we have to explain what the controversy is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But this is not an article about the controversy. The controversy is only part of what this article is about. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's certainly one of the biggest parts of it. Yes, the article currently downplays the controversy, but that's one of the WP:NPOV issues that I would like to see addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what 'the controversy' is. All we have are the editorial opinions of various media outlets and those of the people they have chosen to interview. When the UEA enquiry returns some actual further information, then we will have something else to report. That's why, at the moment, this is an article about an 'incident' and reactions to that incident. Because that's all that's happened. If anyone is sacked or arrested or something else, then there will be more facts to report. Until then, all the rest is speculation. --Nigelj (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FactCheck.org[3] and the Associated Press[4] are reliable sources. Would you care to be bring this up at the reliable source noticeboard and allow uninvolved editors determine whether FactCheck.org and the Associated Press are reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, UEA have decided to hold a formal investigation, and the police have decided to open criminal investigations. According to you, they both needn't bother - they could just go to these two US websites and find out the full truth from there? --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please address what I am saying, not some Straw man. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am, like everyone else here, addressing precisely what you are saying: Your proposed text is unacceptable for this article because it is based solely on uninformed media speculation. Please learn to debate with more civility and to assume more good faith and intelligence in those who disagree with you. And while you're at it, please don't keep 're-booting' the same old arguments over and over again on this page, based on such speculation. --Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

When did I say that the UAE and police shouldn't bother holding investigations and should just get the truth from the mainstream media? Please cite the diff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, they appear to give a more balanced overview than the proposed summary. Will try to revise the proposal, and as usual more sources giving expert opinion would be welcome as a way of improving this section. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"It's a statement about what McIntyre believes, not whether his belief is right or wrong". It's not an explicit reply by McIntyre to Santer. The comments are juxtaposed in the US News & World Report article, but there's no explicit connection. It's a general comment by McI on the science. Which he may be proposing as justification for his actions, but there's no specific reason to consider it a comment on Santer's response, rather than anyone else's. This isn't a section about McI, it's a section about Santer. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FOI requests (deleted 26 November 2009)

Here's the original start, from here. A bit out of date, but Regalado's reports are good-quality, definitely a RS.

Antonio Regalado, a journalist at Science Magazine, wrote in Science Insider: "[U]niversity researchers may [...] find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." The hacker who released the documents used the name "FOIA", Regalado pointed out, adding, "the emails, which appear to be genuine, though their authenticity could not be confirmed, indicate a concerted effort to fight the FOI requests that may itself have slipped into questionable territory." Regalado quoted one purported email said to be sent by Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, to Michael Mann. Jones declined to comment about it, but Mann responded to Regalado, "I did not delete any emails at all in response to Phil Jone's [sic] request, nor did I indicate to him that I would." Regalado wrote that the e-mails showed some scientists were concerned about wasting their time by being drawn into controversies if some of the documents were released in response to FOI requests.

The UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) oversees the FOI process there, and issued the following statement:

"Destroying requested information outside of an organisation’s normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure.

--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Public or private

I haven't actually be able to find a source to verify that the UEA is a public university. It is entirely conceivable that despite the comment from the ICO quoted above, the CRU may not be required to submit to FOIA requests, at least in part, because it appears much of their funding is from private investment. Does anyone know any better? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A point of context that needs to be shown: the first FOI request to CRU was in 2007, according to this page. Our article shows the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as coming into force in phases, with the first "general right of access" on 1 January 2005, it appears that Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005 was at that time when it was being first phased in. There are various exemptions, and Jones was right to point to exemption of personal data protected by the Data Protection Act,[5] though his informal wording doesn't look great in the light of publicity. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, it was just my first attempt at writing the section. How about we drop one of the last two sentences about McIntyre? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source readily to hand, but I do know that the FOIA issue is substantially complicated by the fact that CRU received considerable project funding from the DOE which is supremely subject to FOIA. I would be suprised to find out that CRU isn't subject at least partially to FOIA due to funding agreements.Jarhed (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Draft tweaked, with comment

The following aims to present the information related to this specific email in context as shown in the sources:

==== Santer e-mail of 12 Nov 2009 ====

In one e-mail, climate scientist Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory commented on a request for data and correspondence from science blogger Steven McIntyre under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI):

My personal opinion is that both FOI requests [for data related to a 2008 paper and for correspondence dating back to 2006] are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. ... McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse....We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.

In an Associated Press interview, McIntyre disagreed with his portrayal in emails, and said "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he told the Associated Press.

FactCheck.org noted that the great majority of CRU's data is already freely available, and the scientists were reluctant to supply their own correspondence, code and data to people whose motives seemed questionable to them. It is not clear that any actual obstruction happened, and emails show the scientists discussing with university officials and lawyers their obligations under the new legislation, informing critics that data is already freely available, or that the information has been sent to them. This question is to form part of the East Anglia investigation.

The Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005 subsection covers the same issue, and it could work better to have a FOI section describing the phasing in of the FOIA from 2005, then showing both emails in context. . . dave souza, talk 20:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support the addition of something like this ot the article Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also would support Souza draft, in context, within a larger FOIA section. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave's draft looks fine to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

1 The misnomer given to an incident where one or more thiefs hacked into servers at CRU and stole data.

2 A term coined by some media sources to describe the controversy surounding an alleged theft of data and emails from CRU that led to considerable world-wide commentary on the issue of AGW and that may have affected the outcome of the COP15 United Nations Climate Change Confrence.

3 An incident where email correspondence between leading climate researchers at CRU revealed that they may have conspired to present scientific findings falsely, and that they may have broken federal laws in the destruction of data that was requested in accordance with FOIA laws.

I understand that this is a controversial topic and that there are lots of editors with some strong emotions about this issue. Still, it makes no sense to me that we can't just start with something like #2 above and produce a halfway decent article that is reasonably NPOV. Thanks for letting me share.Jarhed (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2 is much better than 1 and I would rather go to 2 than stay with 1. However, 2 is problematic in that perhaps what the controversy is about would not be stated. I think that 2 is not stable, and would inevitably become 3. I think that is why some here fight so hard to keep the article at 1. [As an aside maybe some US scientists broke Federal law, I'm unsure, but more to the point is that CRU scientists may have broken UK law. [Nested aside: Of course if the feds produce a warrant, the UK authorities are now obliged by treaty to surrender their citizens. Perhaps that's what you think the CRU scientists should be worried about?  :-) ]] Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Mr. Beardsell, I consider #2 to be the unarguable NPOV truth and I do not understand why any reasonable person could not agree with it as a starting point. Nor do I see it devolving. Only further facts could change it, and I doubt that any more facts will be forthcomming. Ever.Jarhed (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Whereas, Sir Jarhed, I consider #2 the NPOV truth, it is not the whole truth. What is popularly known as Climategate is not what is documented here or would be documented at #2. The scandal is the behaviour seemingly revealed in the documents hacked/leaked. For the moment Climategate, Climategate scandal and Climategate controversy all link here. While that remains the case the pressure will remain for this article to actually be that described as #3, above. Further facts that be forthcoming, you are wrong IMO. There will be the findings by the police into allegations of the theft of the info, findings by the police into allegations of the breach of the FOI. Findings by the University into both the same but also into the conduct of scientists at the CRU. Speculatively, the insider who so carefully compiled and leaked the info will come forward or be discovered. These new facts will all become part of the story to be reflected at this article, or some fork thereof. But my support for #2 as a step on the way remains unabashedly enthusiastic. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and I agree with your point that this article needs to address the behavior seemingly revealed by the stolen emails. Trying to get some consensus on a plan to move forward seems like a reasonable thing to try.Jarhed (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I'd hope that something along the lines of 2 is the target here, but that "incident" is inherently an outcome of the unauthorised distribution of data reported as stolen from CRU servers, and to understand the media controversy the science has to be clearly shown, in accordance with reliable scientific sources rather than mainstream media. As for 3, how could they have broken federal laws? CRU isn't in a federation. Still, to fully describe the controversy it would be good to find third party sources on such conspiracy theories, and show them as such. . . dave souza, talk 11:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Souza, don't you think that what you just said belongs in a properly written NPOV article? I do.Jarhed (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I said it because I think that a properly written NPOV article describes the theft or leak, describes the science involved and also describes the media controversy, taking care to avoid undue weight to minority views in terms of science. . . dave souza, talk 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that as well.Jarhed (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 3, the UK isn't (yet) the 51st state of the USA. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I know, I just don't know the FOIA lingo in the UK.Jarhed (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point: we should have a link to Freedom of information in the United Kingdom and, given the date and phrasing of the email, possibly to Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as it's quite possible that the FOIA of 2000 (2002 in Scotland) didn't apply to the data or to universities which are, I think, private rather than public bodies. People in the US understandably find it hard to appreciate that at that time the full disclosure of what had previously been private discussions was a considerable culture shift, with many voicing concern that it would prevent frank private exchange of views. There should be sources that have dealt with this misunderstanding. . dave souza, talk 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My desire is to try to get some consensus among us editors on how to proceed on this article, not to work on details.Jarhed (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the effort in trying to clarify the "controversy" part of the incident (#2, in my mind), currently it's barely showing at all even though that's where the media coverage is. I'm fine with having a part of this article deal with the science as long as another part (or if it should be split into two articles) deals with the controversy and media coverage. It's not up to us to say that the media coverage is of no importance and to delve into scientific details - there are better articles for that which we could link to. Troed (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The climategate controversy is interesting to anyone who follows the news. I think that we could move forward on the various aspects of the controversy at least.Jarhed (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia is not news, and dealing with the news media controversy in isolation without a third party source analysing that controversy would tend to replicate the news without explaining the issues. At present the various points of "controversy" are described and explained very briefly under the Content of the documents main heading: it might make sense to change the E-mails heading of Controversial points in emails. In a more organised way than at present, each email would be described together with the basic interpretation of that email, the claims of controversy and the scientific majority view response to these claims. That would satisfy NPOV requirements, including WP:LAYOUT. . dave souza, talk 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but I am having problems discerning the point of your comment, other than to lecture me about what WP is and is not.Jarhed (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion seemed excessively focussed on the controversy in the news, which has tended to be superficial and seems to have largely faded away for now as the news moves on in the normal way. Any article has to describe the leak or theft, and the items singled out as being controversial. We do that at present, the debates are mentioned in a rather unorganised way. My suggestion above was a possible way of making it clearer that these are the areas of controversy. In each case we would show the basic interpretation of the document or email, the claims of controversy and the scientific majority view response to these claims. That's not well covered at present. In looking at the Santer e-mail of 12 Nov 2009 proposal, it strikes me that it might work better to have headings relating to subjects: FOIA issues would cover that email and the Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005. . . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

that led to considerable world-wide commentary on the issue of AGW and that may have affected the outcome of the COP15 United Nations Climate Change Confrence. are both wrong. There was precious little discussion of [commentary on] actual climate issues; and the effect on COP15 was negligible / invisible William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to please take care not to put words in my mouth. I did not say "discussion" I said commentary, which has been considerable, world-wide, and notable. I said "may" have affected because the issue is debatable and explainable, and moreover is one of the things that a reader is likely to want to know. I assure you that I am just as adamant for this article to be decently written and NPOV as you are. I think that editors who share that goal can cooperate toward it.Jarhed (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Commentary / discussion makes no difference. Please don't waste time on trivia. I've edited my reply above to use "commentary" - see, nothing changes. The *commentary* has been widespread, on the hacking itself, yes. But on actual climate issues? No William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider it trivial that you misquoted what I said and called it "wrong". Call me wrong all you wish, just when you do, I will thank you to keep your comments accurate. As for the rest of your comment, it is pure POV and unbelievable.Jarhed (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. It ties in with the conclusion of the two sources being discussed above, that the incident and subsequent claims failed to undercut the scientific consensus.[6][7] It does seem that the brief storm of media controversy was more to do with the reputations of individuals than with the broader issues, and from what I've been reading there's been a focus on trying to explain the scientific context of a decade ago rather than current science. We'd need a good source to show any effect on COP15, and I make no claim to understand its outcome. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Some sources claim that the scientific consensus has been undercut. I think that an exploration of this claim would be useful in this article, balanced as you said earlier by scientific "weight", and assuming that reliable sources are used. Our main limitation is what the reliable sources report, but from what I have seen I think we can cobble a solution together.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we already do?

and related climate change are not of the highest quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity

but did not support claims that global warming science had been faked...The AP sent the emails to three climate scientists they selected as moderates, who did not change their view that man-made global warming as a real threat.

IPCC has "a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which ensures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.

The word travesty refers to what Trenberth sees as an inadequate observing system that, were it more adequate, would be able to track the warming he believes is there

The integrity of the scientific evidence... has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished

We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."

On December 5, however, concerned that public confidence in the science had been damaged by leaked e-mails, the Met Office indicated their intention ..... The Met Office remained confident that its analysis will be shown to be correct[58] and that the data would show a temperature rise over the past 150 years.

In response to the incident, 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK Met Office declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."[67] Met Office chief executive John Hirst and its chief scientist Julia Slingo asked their colleagues to sign the statement "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change."

Climatologist James Hansen said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" and that while some of the e-mails reflect poor judgment, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming

The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science.

documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous

None of it affects the science one iota. Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do so

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

The American Geophysical Union issued a statement expressing concern that the emails were "being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change" and reaffirming their 2007 position statement[78] with regard to human influences on climate. They stated that "Science and the scientific method is seldom a linear march to the 'correct' and indisputable answer. Disagreement among scientists is part of the energy that moves inquiry forward."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has "expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions". Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, ..... It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."

The statement noted that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected the view that the leaked e-mails had damaged the credibility of climate science.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that there is no doubt about the scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference

During a press briefing on December 7, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate ... on the science is kind of silly."

We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt on the scientific consensus that there is. That is very dangerous and irresponsible because the scientific consensus is clear

Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.

Obviously the article needs work and I'm sure we could work more on the notion that this release undercuts the science but we clearly already address that notion and with numerous explainations from people of why they don't think it does. In fact the size of what I quoted above should give you a hint that it's one of the major things we are addressing. Note I cut some of the explainations for brevity. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2 questions

Several of the editors here horrify me, and I am deeply disappointed. I believe it should be clear that there are two questions which Wikipedia is obligated to address:

1. the release (passive) or obtaining (active) of the packet of documents, which could be illegal, or just immoral, or a laudable "liberation" (possibly illegal) of unethically concealed information, cf. the Pentagon Papers, and

2. The conduct and attitudes revealed by the documents which have been obtained.

Treatment number one I suggest be called "Climategate", because of the common usage, and the second "Climate Science Scandal", since it satisfies every definition of that word. This is most likely, I think, one of those instances when (Emerson's foolish) consistency needs to be reconsidered. I think it is confusing (but hopefully not deliberately so) to conflate the two questions.Oiler99 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)oiler99

Your belief and horror is noted, your grasp of Wikipedia's policies seems rather shaky. Firstly, no personal attacks. As for what appears in articles, see WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR for the basics. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I cannot see Oiler99's violation of WP:NPA and I think your grasp of that policy may be shaky. The wikilawyering brandishing of inappropriate policy is why several of the editors here horrify me too. I do not think the WP:ABC weapons you wield support your POV. Oiler99 is far from alone in thinking that WP should be dealing with the issues he describes, in much the way he describes them. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All editors must assume good faith of other editors, and these are not "WP:ABC weapons", they are essentials of the five pillars which are the basics of what we do here. My statement was rather rushed, it is also appropriate to mention the talk page guideline which requires us to focus on improvements to the article, making specific proposals backed by sources, and not on commenting on other editors. Oiler99 is of course welcome to contribute, and will profit by following that guidance. . . dave souza, talk 11:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I share your disappointment and I understand your emotional reaction to some of the things that have been said on this article. I think that some editors here are hyper-agressive, for example, accusing people of violating WP policies in many instances when they have not. It might be good to consider that the agressiveness seems to have come from both sides, and to try to be patient.Jarhed (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of e-mails

The American meteorologist dr. Neil Frank has stated the following in a article in Houston Chronicle (largest daily newspaper in Texas, USA):

"Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

[…]

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

— Neil Frank, Houston Chronicle, Climategate: You should be steamed (Archived at 2010-01-04)

This quotation can be used to write more into the E-mails section like "The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptical scientist was twofold. The AGW supporting scientist gained control of the main climate-profession journals, and make them block papers and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers and the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations." (it could probably be written better, but what's important here is to get out some information about what the emails indicates). Nsaa (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in the opinion section of the newspaper so it'd have to be filed under "reactions" or something similar. Still, feel free to throw down another proposal for including it in the email section while indicating its editorial roots.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful to distinguish opinion pieces from straight reporting. In my view the article already has too much of the former and too little of the latter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it appears to be rather ill informed. What papers were blocked? From what I've seen, an email gossiped about wanting to prevent publication of an incompetent paper, it was published anyway and subsequently shown to be incompetent. Peer review should mean that unsuitably low quality work isn't published, but it doesn't always succeed. . . dave souza, talk 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more about the emails before you comment on them. Here's one example: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/22/climategatekeeping-schmidt-2009/.Jarhed (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

About "trick to hide the decline" – removing well sourced comments?

Why is a well sourced paragraph like this

Stephen McIntyre states in this paper that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted in discarding the tree ring data starting from 1961, because the proxy data for this years demonstrated a sharp decrease of temperatures, contrary to the real data - casting therefore doubt on reliability of all the tree ring data reconstruction.

removed? It's an area expert ("climate statistician"), and it's not only quoted from him but from a WP:RS source. Nsaa (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Per #Jones email 19th take two above, there a number of issue with this, and it's not a reliable source for science. . . dave souza, talk 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus in that section to remove it. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@dave souza: Why isn't it a reliable source? It's used in our FAQ A5 and in the article several times (See [8] [9] [10]). What's called? Cherry picking? Nsaa (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at #Blog-sourced material removed below. . . dave souza, talk 11:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre's not an expert. McIntyre's "paper" is a blog post. A blog post by a non-expert is not a reliable source. And there's no such thing as a "climate statistician"; even if there was, McIntyre has no advanced degree in that field. He has just the one co-authored publication in the peer-reviewed literature, and that pub has few if any positive citations. He's not a reliable source for the science. Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that McIntyre is not an expert in this area is clearly incorrect. McIntyre has at least 3 peer-reviewed publications on this specific topic, and you wouldn't expect many positive citations of articles that criticize the quality of the research of some of the biggest names in the field. His research has had a notable impact on climate science, and he has engaged in debates in the peer-reviewed literature with the biggest names in the field. I think your obvious dislike of McIntyre is beginning to bias your view of his notability. His views belong in this article. SkipSmith (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Three? I'm only aware of one. What are the other two? As for "obvious dislike" - I honestly have no opinion about the man, one way or the other. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two Energy and Environment papers (2003 and 2005), and a Geophysical Research Letters paper (2005). A lot of people like to slam 'E&E' for having incorrect politics, but it is a peer-reviewed journal. SkipSmith (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RealClimate is a blog as well, but there appears to be no issue with using them as a reliable source to explain the "hide the decline" comment. TruthOutThere (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

I would appreciate it if someone would explain this disagreement to me, because I am having problems understanding it. RealClimate and ClimateAudit appear to me to have similiar reliability: they are both blogs and can be credibly accused of pushing an agenda. Therefore, in an effort to reach NPOV, we should agree to either include or exclude them both as credible sources.

BTW, you don't have to spend much time reading McIntyre's blog to admire him for being a class act: he works hard to present his findings, data, and opinions reasonably and verifiably. He even polices his commenters, something that RealClimate most assuredly does not do. In any case, personal attacks on McIntyre are not helpful in the context of this article.Jarhed (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Either RealClimate and ClimateAudit are both in, or they are both out. SkipSmith (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be wrong

The article says: "Selected information from these documents has been distributed by opponents of the case for anthropogenic global warming in a controversy dubbed Climategate.[3]"

All sorts of outlets have distributed "selected information", like newspapers and the BBC and ABC, or the Reuters article that is referenced here. So, it's not just "opponents of the case for anthropogenic global warming", which is a rather clumsy description in and of itself. Alice Lyddel (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. What if we delete that sentence, and then change the first sentence of the next paragraph from this:

"The controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded[6] to withhold scientific information,[7] interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,[8] deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,[9] and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.[9]"

To this?:

"The controversy, dubbed Climategate,[include here the source from the sentence in question] arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded[6] to withhold scientific information,[7] interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,[8] deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,[9] and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.[9]"

This seems to me to include the meat of the sentence while cutting out the disputed content. Thoughts?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine of 7 Dec 2009 addressed the issue of who calls it what here. I've taken out the disputed line and added another line at the place you suggest that describes the alternative names for the controversy and the inferred meanings behind them. I think it's important to note that "Climategate" is meant to convey a specific POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh? What POV is that, because I have no idea.Jarhed (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Time states "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up." Hipocrite (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Blog-sourced material removed

I have removed this material added by User:Psb777, which was sourced to a blog. Please note that per WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources must not be used to source "claims about third parties" and they "should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Restoring this material will constitute a violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. I would like to remind people that "citing unencyclopedic sources" is a form of disruptive editing, which the current article probation forbids. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not add the material originally. We have been through this again and again. There is no SELFPUB here. Undeniably the Daily Mail is a reliable source, whether you like the newspaper or not. If a newspaper reports the statement of someone we can report it. And it matters not whether that statement is spoken or in a blog. So says WP:RS and countless resolutions at WP:RSN. I note the allegation of WP:V and WP:BLP violation and deny there is either. Having been thru this again and again I cannot believe you do not know it. Therefore I hold your reversion to be disruptive and your reasoning specious, and remind you of the article probation in turn. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed as well that some editors keep getting reverted on unfounded claims of policy violation. Clearly such deletions are disruptive in violation of "article probation" and just plain common courtesy.Jarhed (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, can you explain why you did that instead of agreeing to my proposal to change the source of that paragraph to an undisputed WP:RS instead? Troed (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What now? As the article is under probation can I just sit back and wait for intervention/arbitration or must I specifically ask for that? Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it specifically meets the exemptions in WP:RS, blogs should not be used as sources for anything. If an otherwise reliable source says something and cites it to a blog, we should evaluate if the reliable source is putting it's reliability on the statement, or if it's just repeating blogging. If the later, I would seriously question if it's worth including. Hipocrite (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that ChrisO has no objection to the other pro-CRU blog being cited. Here the McIntyre blog is not used as the source, the Daily Mail is. If the DM says McIntyre said something to their reporter on the phone we would accept that as WP:RS. When the DM reports what McI says in his blog we would not? C'mon! You're making policy on the hoof. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a fullsome discussion about your proposal above at the "Jones email 19th take two" section that resulted in what appeared to be agreement that, at the very least, the appropriate source was the CNN panel, and that a 1997 paper should be included in the mix. I wonder why you didn't take any of that thread, which you participated in, on board when you made your edit. Hipocrite (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have now explained twice on your Talk page, I did not introduce either version to the page. Someone else did. I agree they could have introduced the better version. I agree that I could have re-introduced the better version rather than revert the deletion. You do not criticise the deleter for not improving instead of deleting. But I accept your criticism and I move now to include the better version, with your implicit approval. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note what Hipocrite says - a blog should not be used "unless it specifically meets the exemptions in WP:RS". I presume your objection refers to the use of RealClimate as a source on the hacking of its own server. It is quoted under the exemptions in question, just as Climate Audit is quoted as a source on the hacker's use of that website in a failed attempt to disseminate the files that had been uploaded to RealClimate. I wonder why you are objecting to RealClimate as a source on that issue but not to the use of Climate Audit? There is no exemption for the use of a blog as a source on a third party, especially not a living person ("never" means "never"). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> The paragraph concerned included a link, supposedly to "a paper", but actually to McIntyre's blog: confusingly, the blog page concerned only gives two diagrams and a link to the Daily Mail article which is cited inline at the end of the paragraph. The Daily Mail is a tabloid with a particularly poor reputation for science reporting, and as such is unsuitable for a statement on science, particularly one with the WP:BLP issue of accusations that a living scientist committed fraud. Per WP:RS, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." Note also that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts" and WP:SELFPUB applies. The first link implies McIntyre's endorsement of the article, but the article contains blatant errors as well as the misleading slant which is shown in the summary. So, we can use this material with care to explicity state McIntyre's views as published in the tabloid, but must not give the impression that it's a scientific paper or that it's anything other than a minority view, and must show the majority view of the questions it raises. In accordance with the layout provision of NPOV it would be better placed with the other "criticisms" of the email, and followed by an explanation. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial editors on this article

It's not appropriate to insinuate other editors are acting in bad faith. Either post proof or don't comment.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Perhaps I am slow, but I just noticed that there is at least one editor on this article who is himself a part of the controversy. Has this issue already been discussed and is everyone ok with that? I would think that, considering how scrupulous everyone apparently is about BLP, that such would be a BIG violation thereof.Jarhed (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) No editors here appear to be parties to the controversy. Please be mindful of WP:BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It depends upon on what you mean by "the controversy". I had thought that two editors here are mentioned in the hacked/leaked material. Am I wrong? Certainly two have very close connections with the CRU. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I suggest that you are treading on, if not over, the line. If you have evidence that editors here have a COI, present it, don't pussyfoot around it. Hipocrite (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Anyways, there has been this COI case that found no COI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I didn't say there was a COI. But William is mentioned in the e-mails hacked/leaked e-mails. That is all I said. That they are a party to the controversy. No allegation. But it does depend what you think the controversy is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes not discussed here

A few recent changes to the article have been made without discussion here on the Talk page despite the article's probation status. I intend to revert them, creating a sub-section for their discussion here, where a consensus as to their inclusion can be found, one way or the other. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Probation does not mean that every edit has to be vetted through talk. I would suggest you discuss first and revert later, unless there are edits that you strongly feel are unacceptable in itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Indeed, those edits which I genuinely feel are uncontroversial and that no one will complain about I intend to leave alone. I will try very hard to maintain every appearance of neutrality, and I ask you correct me should I fail to do so. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan. I strongly advise against engaging in disruptive editing, as it is likely to lead to an enforcement request. You have already been formally notified of the article probation, and you have indicated on my talk page that you are aware of the requirements. Please do as Stephan suggests and discuss your issues with the changes first. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan too. As he suggests, except where edits are controversial plainly, I will first discuss. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I have formally notified you of the article probation and it is your edits I am finding problematic. My edits of the article are good faith attempts to reflect the consensus here. Yours, I suggest, are not. Your repeeated assertions of my poor behaviour are unsubstantiated by particulars. Now, please leave me alone, there is no need to warn me, I know what I am doing and I take full responsibility for my actions - I will not claim ignorance as an excuse. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any problems you have with any changes that I have made. What are the issues you have with them? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am about to. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll await your comments and will do my best to respond to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you, but I'm going to get some sleep. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tree ring data is rubbish but so what?

This edit is problematic. The point does need to be made that the lack of the tree ring data does not destroy the climate warming argument. But the way we do this, here, makes it seem we are editorialising, embarking on some type of WP:SYN synthesis. It isn't for us to quote a WP:RS saying A=>B and another WP:RS saying B=>C and then to say haha A=>C. But let's be clear here, in the section where this edit I don't like appears, the section is about the e-mail, and why it is controversial. The issue here is not whether AGW is occurring, but about the e-mail which *some* say shows cheating by *some* scientists. We aren't saying the e-mail admitting the "trick" doesn't matter because even if the tree ring data is rubbish AGW is occurring anyway. No, the e-mail still matters and requires explanation/excuse/uderstanding. So this edit is improperly juxtaposed here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre's promotors, if not his own writings, spread the idea that the tree ring data is the only proxy, and that the changes made to a graph on the cover of a report show all the continuing research and updating of ideas to be cheating. Science doesn't mean that if one part of a data set shows problems you discard all the data, it means investigating the problems and that's been a continuing process. We have to give due weight to the majority view, and not obscure it when describing minority views. . . dave souza, talk 13:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, once again, I agree, or not, so what? That does nothing to minimise the controversy over *this* e-mail. That controversy is not fairly dealt with by showing AGW is occurring. Or not. The controversy over the e-mail remains even if Greenland melts tomorrow. (although we would have other things to worry about) Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think Hipocrite should discuss the phrasing here at the talk page. While I believe the edit to be in good faith and an attempt at conveying the consensus from earlier it's out of place to start discussing a paper on the divergence problem as if it was part of McIntyre's quote. The actual new phrasing of the quote also reads a bit funny since it starts of with tree records and immideately goes into the "divergence problem". That should at least just be a proper link, maybe to another article where the 2008 paper is discussed in detail? This is after all an article on the email incident/controversy and not yet another article on the science of climate change. There are better articles for that. Troed (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You both raise a good point. I'll clarify. Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken another stab at it. Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to the section was unclear, I've modified it to reflect more fully the cited sources, and added a 1997 source discussing the divergence problem and recommending that tree ring proxies post 1960 should be discarded. The positioning of the McIntyre para remains problematic, as it should be made clear that his is a "skeptic" minority view and the points he makes should be shown in the context of the majority view, which the 2008 paper shows. If we want a reference relating it to the article, RealClimate: The CRU hack links to its article on that paper as "the recent discussion in this paper", shown in the RealClimate statement in the article. . dave souza, talk 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think that disregarding the data when it fails to support your hypothesis is accepted practise by the scientific majority! Therefore, that McIntyre is a member of the skeptical minority seems hardly relevant. We use McI here because he is the one who has been most clearly raising the flag on this issue. The argument which Jones, Mann et al have to address is whether or not the parts of the tree ring data are being rightfully ignored in their post hoc justification. Now, they seemed to be doing a good job of that until Jones unfortunate e-mail language (i.e. the controversy of this section) which so many scientists are charitable enough to assume is playfully sarcastic! But I digress! Who cares if McI is a member of the skeptical minority? He's the guy to quote here. We are not in the business of constructing Jones' defence here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your description of "disregarding the data when it fails to support your hypothesis" is blatantly inaccurate, either you've been misled or you've not examined the sources which show that they published the data, published the problems and proposed ways of investigating the divergence problem, and continued that investigation. While it was in progress, the defective part of the reconstruction (not data) was omitted from a figure showing a graph of three reconstructions. The only one ignoring the work on the divergence problem seems to have been McIntyre. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My argument was made slightly tongue in cheek. Continuing in the same vein: they were doing so well with their "divergence problem" until the language of Jones' e-mail which now demands sympathetic explanation for your POV to hold sway. And it is that e-mail which is the subject of the section the editing of which we are discussing. That is what we are discussing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also had a go. I think the problem is that we're including too much; the second half (McIntyre also says that since the cause of the divergence problem is unknown, and may have existed in earlier periods, tree ring records can't be used to estimate temperatures in the past.) just isn't relevant here. It belongs over at divergence problem (the issue does; that McI quote probably doesn't). This isn't the page to debate climate science. All that is necessary is to explain what the phrase means, and what it consists of William M. Connolley (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that we shouldn't repeat reports of climate science here duplicating efforts in other articles, this article is about the incident/controversy and McIntyre is used by WP:RS to explain "the trick" amongst others. Dave souza is on the right track in how to report a minority view, but your edit made a mockery out of all the attempts here at the talk page in how to phrase this paragraph. We should discuss it further. Troed (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We have two options: we can confine the article to explaining the documents and noting the "controversy", as is done in the remainder of the section, or we can go into more detail on specific skeptic claims, presenting them properly as minority scientific views and showing clearly the majority view of these claims. In this instance McIntyre deceives by omission, something apparent both in the CNN program and in the tabloid article. Whether his cryptic comments are a notable part of the "controversy" is questionable. . . dave souza, talk 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing I think what others are saying: The controversy over the e-mail remains whatever the underlying science. I suggest that it is not for us to explain away the controversy over Jones' e-mail by synthesising an argument calling McI into disrepute. The point is plain, surely: The language of "trick" and "hide the decline" remains problematic. It's not for us to make excuses for Jones, here. We seem to be constructing the defence he will be using at the UEA enquiry, m'lud, (that's how it reads!) not just dispassionately saying why there is a controversy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the correct solution is to explain why we're mentioning McIntyre here. "Stephen McIntyre, a scientist often mentioned in the leaked emails, give the following opinion on "the trick" when asked by MSM" or something to that effect. (Note - I do not suggest my specific wording above, but you get the idea). That satisfies why, who's opinion it is etc. Troed (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole section needs to be redrafted entirely because it is too long and too quote-farmy. I will try and do that but it will be bold and I expect no-one will like it. I don't support long descriptions of people who are already linked, as it can lead to well-poisoning, and don't think either that it's necessary to describe McIntyre as a scientist. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, describing McIntyre as a "scientist" might even be somewhat misleading, because the assumption of the reader will be that he is a scientist in this specific field (which is disputed). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is that disputed? He's factually a published scientist in exactly this field - the whole "remove the decline" issue is over presenting a better looking hockey stick - the same stick McIntyre originally found statistical flaws with. Again, it's not up to us to assert WP:TRUTH here, we go by WP:RS and they clearly thinks McIntyre's comments on this controversy are worth something. Thus, we should report that. Troed (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He's a bloody clever statistician to have gotten them to re-assess the N.American temperatures downwards by 0.7 deg without having access to their models. For which he was thanked. Precious few tenured PhD climate scientists in ivory towers have single handedly made such a significantly contribution. He is a published scientist with a good quality maths degree and some postgrad experience to add to decades of real world experience, who is now a scientist in the way they were 100 years ago. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But he's not a climate scientist. He's a mathematician who worked in the minerals business, and then began applying his knowledge of statistics to support his skeptical stance towards anthropogenic climate change. He's very good at crunching numbers and mining data, but his scientific background with respect to climate change itself is essentially nonexistent. His own bio corroborates this. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a common response, but it's not correct. Most scientists with good input into climate science are not "climate scientists" - but paleogeologists, atmospheric physicists, sea level specialist etc etc. Since there's provably statistical problems in some papers about climate the proper scientists to point that out would be those with expertise in statistics. It's of no actual importance whether data comes from "climate proxies" or not when falsifying the use of improper statistical methods etc. Troed (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Troed's quicker than me. (ec) What is a climate scientist? As I understand it you do one of chemistry, physics, maths, biology together with geography and then you're a meteorologist, maybe. There is no one route to becoming a climate scientist. You'll find a very mixed bag of backgrounds amongst those describing themselves as climatologists. With everything so firmly based on models being an applied mathematician might be the very best qualification, if you were to try and break into the field. That's McIntyre. And precious few of them have single handedly managed to make a contribution like that of McIntyre's which I described. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. McIntyre is not equipped with the necessary qualifications to offer a scientific opinion on, for example, tree rings because he is simply a number-cruncher who saw a tree once. And the "contribution" you keep referring to is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

have it your way: My point stands. Any number of individual PhD+tenure brandishing fancy-title holding scientists would be please to make such an un-significant contribution. McI's contribution is better than many other mainstream scientists. A scientist is not what you seem to think it is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. He is however qualified to offer a scientific opinion on the statistics of tree ring reconstructions, since statistics doesn't care where a data set came from. Incorrect use of statistical tools is actually a huge problem in many disciplines, worth noting although it's outside our scope here. Troed (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to your suggested changes. Troed (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I shortened the section so see what you all think. Let's please keep some issues separate a) whether we think McIntyre has done good work, b) whether we personally think he meets the criterion for "a scientist", and c) whether we think he should be described as "a scientist" in this article. C) is the only one that ought to be discussed on this talk page. I already said what I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it! (Some markup to fix, and it's somewhat "he said", "they said" repeating - but a lot better). My main objection to the resent change was to present other research as part of McIntyre's quote. You splitting that up makes the section much more readable. Good job. Troed (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too, thank you! Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it streamlined the issues and I've made some further clarifications. . dave souza, talk 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But I have a niggle with the subsequently added "The other two reconstructions also used other proxy data, including corals, ice cores and lake sediments." which destroys the connection between the two paragraphs it now separates. Jones was not talking about ice cores or corals or lake sediments in his e-mail, he was talking about tree rings. We continue to rehearse the climate chnage argument, but this is a section on *that* e-mail. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a clarification direct from the source, to avoid the misperception that all the reconstructions were based on the tree rings. Jones states that one reconstruction used only tree rings, leaving it unclear what the other reconstructions used. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I summarised just from the quotes that were already in the article and didn't go back to the sources. Ideally people will now go to the sources to check that there has been no inadvertent cherry picking. And I know the style is now very boring but perhaps it is still better than having a quotefarm. When we're ready to go for GA then we can get the article properly copyedited. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, with thanks. That's what I've been doing. I've now moved the clarification on proxies to the start of the paragraph, to meet Paul Beardsell's concern about it interrupting the connection to the following paragraph. The graph concerned is what *that* e-mail was discussing, and we need to be clear about it. . . dave souza, talk 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agenda Driven Editors

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not accusing fellow Wikipedians of being "agenda-driven" because of some derogatory press coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP has been charged in the press with inaccuracies on AGW articles due to agenda driven editors. I have observed behavior on this article that seems to confirm those charges. Not only can the charges not be discussed, but debate on the subject is arbitrarily prohibited. I have been told repeatedly that BLP applies to this article in order to protect the individuals named in the charges. If that is so, then BLP also prohibits such individuals from editing this article, due to the *fact* that it is almost impossible for them to be NPOV. I'm not sure why this is controversial, because it seems both commonsense and in accordance with the spirit and letter of WP policies and guidelines. If I am wrong, I would like to know why.Jarhed (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) This is a completely inappropriate place for discussions like this. Unless anyone objects, I will be collapsing this thread shortly. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not really sure what you're referencing? What do you want to have happen?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Throughout analysis of many of the emails - including full source listing at assassinationscience.com - yet another source to be added to the e-mail section?

At http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ (archived) it looks like a quit good walk thru by John P. Costella, B.E. (Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. of many of the emails released in this scandal. This source has also given the full zip-file Copyvio removed by Hipocrite (talk). For example

(Massive quote snipped by Hipocrite (talk))

And so it goes on and on. Maybe a new article just going through all the emails is appropriate? Article found here. Nsaa (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, in the least. The individual in question is a 9-11 truther, a JFK conspiracy theorist, a Wellstone conspiracy theorist and is a little bit... off. I've removed your massive quote from his website. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Opppss I didn't see that "a 9-11 truther, a JFK conspiracy theorist, a Wellstone conspiracy theorist and is a little bit... off". Totally agree with you on that it's a bit ... off. Bad proposal by me. Nsaa (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Title change replacing "e-mail" with "[nothing]"

Note: I'm going to go ahead and do this tomorrow if I don't get any serious objections. It seems like people are okay with this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Since the contents of the data breached is at least broader than "e-mails," including files of code and word-processing documents, can I, ever open to further, even better titles, change the name of this article from "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" to "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"? Whether it's a "good" title or not, in reading your comments it seems to me that most of you would agree it's "better." --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - at least until something better can be sorted out. By the way, since nobody has been able to come up with a good word to describe the emails/code/data/documents/navel hair/whatever that got stolen from the CRU, I wish to formally suggest that most excellent word stuff for consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, "stuff". Sounds promising ;) Guettarda (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I used to think so, but how much attention have the other files gotten? Guettarda (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

*shrug*. There's a section in this article on the release of code, for one example. More generally, though, the hacking wasn't of "e-mails," tout court, so the title is odd in itself.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Incident" is so bland. I always liked the word "imbroglio," or maybe "brouhaha." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

'CRU e-mail, source-code and other stuff hacking/theft/release/liberation imbroglio and brouhaha 2009-10'? Where do we start voting today? --Nigelj (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Per the terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I'm placing this under a 1 revert rule restriction indefinitely at this time (although this can obviously be changed in due course if needs be). All editors should refrain from reverting more than once in any 24 hour period. Clearly, there are other forms of disruption that could occur and these would also be met with a warning/block under the terms of the probation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is "This"? Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident or Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident or both? Nsaa (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope there won't be any reverting on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident apart from obvious vandalism! ;-) So it's just the article. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you make sure you attach a clear warning of the 1RR rule to the article? It'd be ashame to see someone topic-banned on account of not waiting to read the talkpage before making edits.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it's a valid point - I'm not sure how we could do it though. We can't put it on the article itself - We could perhaps make an edit notice - I'll look into it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click edit now on the article, there should be an edit notice to alert editors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks great to me. Thank you!--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased reporting on Climategate Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows - remove from our e-mail section?

In Washington Times there's a interesting editorial (EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows) about the Associated Press coverage (Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty) where the closing sentence is "East Anglia and Penn State are not the only two institutions that need to answer questions about what is going on behind the scenes. " and further up "If AP refuses to explain how it could have given readers across the planet such a distorted view of Climategate, maybe an explanation can be found buried in the article itself. One of the reporters, Seth Borenstein, […] " . We have used that AP piece in a big paragraph under the email section Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#cite_note-ap_2009-12-12-27. Maybe this source should be reconsidered since the lead writer connected into the scandal himself? Nsaa (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An editorial isn't going to outweigh or discredit a news piece alone. Prodego ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but then this should be added as a sentence below the Claims by AP? Somethings like "Washington Times has in an editorial called the AP article content "such a distorted view of Climategate" ". Here's our use of that particular link LinkSearch www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/12/climategate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty_print.htm Nsaa (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This was never much of a "news" article, I'm afraid -- lead author Borenstein was quoted in the Climategate emails making cozy with the "Hockey Team", and the article itself is a shameless (and obvious, and rather pathetic) whitewash. Not too different from this one, actually.... So, yes, I'd encourage you to post the reaction, and also search these Talk archives on Borenstein's name for that email, though I think the source of that reaction was a blog. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has already been discussed. It is an opinion piece by a conservative-leaning organ owned by Sun Myung Moon, and not a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The reaction to the article is relevant, as it shows that the scientists interviewed by AP were actually mis-quoted. Otherwise just remove the AP reference altogether194.74.151.201 (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It shows that an editorial in Sun Myung Moon's rather disreputable organ disputes the mainstream findings of the AP, not a reliable source or a news item. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not partisan editorials. . . dave souza, talk 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The objections here seem disingenuous. The Wash Times piece quotes the scientists who claim there views were misrepresented by the AP. Their allegations (not the WT's) speak directly to the reliability of the AP as a source on this. Those who are objecting seem to be saying that the AP story is reliable because it's the AP (evidence to the contrary be damned), circular reasoning at its finest.Jpat34721 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't appear to quote them claiming that they were misrepresented. Rather it quotes them "[giving] a quite different impression". The "misrepresentation" bit is appears to be the spin put on it by the WT, not the scientists. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, WT doesn't quote them as merely alledging their views were misrepresented by AP. They go one better and quote them contradicting the AP quotes!

AP quotes him as concluding that there is, "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

When The Washington Times talked to Mr. Frankel, the scientist gave a quite different impression. The e-mails, he said, are not sufficient to reach any judgment at all on whether the data or science was faked or misleading. "You can't do that on the e-mails alone, you can't do it on the e-mails or the program," he concluded. For that reason, Mr. Frankel supports investigation of East Anglia and related allegations of fraud at Pennsylvania State University.

The other three follow the same pattern. Repeat the quote of the AP and the scientists response which contradicts the AP spin. There can be no reasonable objection to including their clarifications if the the original AP story is going to be sourced. Jpat34721 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It remains an editorial, not a news item, in a newspaper which is very dubious as a reliable source on science, and the fact that you seem to swallow the spin alleging rather unconvincingly that the remarks contradict each other doesn't give any more credence to the source. . . dave souza, talk 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only spinning going on here are by those (like you) who seemed determined to spin this WP article. The burden falls on you to explain how the AP's use of these scientists to make an editorial point is "news" while the WT's quoting of the same scientists is opinion. Jpat34721 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of opening section

I've attempted a non-speculative, POV neutral opening that concisely states the facts of the case without implying, as the current opening does, that the controversy is primarily about the hacking rather than the e-mail contents.

Proposed Title: Climate Research Unit Unauthorized Publication of Documents incident

The Climatic Research Unit Unauthorized ReleasePublication of Documents refers the unauthorized publication of thousands of e-mails and other documents obtained from a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, U.K. The documents, which included e-mails, research data and computer programs, were placed on a Russian server by a person unknown without the permission of the CRU. The University of East Anglia reported that "data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites"[1].

The ensuing controversy, dubbed often referred to as Climategate (sometimes Swiftgate or Warmgate) in the popular press, centers around allegations that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information,[6][7] interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,[8] deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,[9] and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.[9] The climate scientists whose emails were published issued rebuttals and described the incident as a smear campaign,[10] accusing the climate change skeptics of out-of-context and selective quoting in an attempt to sway public opinion and sabotage the 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.[11]

On November 24, the University of East Anglia announced that independent review of the allegations would be carried out by Sir Muir Russell[12] and subsequently announced that the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, would stand aside from his post during the review.[13]

Jpat34721 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember to give the "previous" version you're proposing changes to as well, please. Also, if you could give actual citations that'd be great. You can add a mini "references" section to this talkpage section.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "mini references" section. The reference numbers in my proposed rewrite are unchanged from those in the current article. Jpat34721 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Added the reflist template -- just copy in the cites. And presumably the "previous" is the existing article....

I think it's a good start, and much closer to NPOV than present. I'd omit the alternate neologisms for Climategate, as non-significant per WP:weight. Thanks for the draft, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is unlikely to succeed due to a number of inaccuracies. For example, the incident was not "dubbed Climategate in the popular press". It was jokingly thought up by a blogger and extensively promoted by the oft-mentioned professional bullshitter commonsense-denier James Delingpole. Most popular press refers to "Climategate" in quotes to indicate it is not their term. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The main reason for mentioning the various neologisms is not to spin the story one way or another but rather to provide assurance to the reader that what they are reading is in fact the correct entry for what they may have read somewhere else and to provide a touchstone back to this entry if they encounter the terms later. The origin of these terms is completely irrelevant to the facts of the story. With this in mind, I propose the top three should be mentioned with the relative weight of the two minor terms indicated by a parenthetical as in the above edit.Jpat34721 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not accurate, not neutral. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Without specifics your objection is of little weight.Jpat34721 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Scjessey pointed out that your summary had many inaccuracies. I agreed with his assessment. And, per discussion above, favouring one neologism over others is obviously non-neutral, given the lack of sources on usage of these "names". All the information you needed to interpret my response was there. I figured you'd be able to work it out on your own. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Scjessey pointed out that your summary had many inaccuracies." He/she pointed out only one which I corrected, replacing "dubbed" with the origin-neutral "often referred to". If you have other constructive criticisms, please point them out and I'll correct those as well. Jpat34721 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is the term in use. By everyone, by non-skeptical (spit!) scientists too! It is the shorthand term in use. Imagine you go into an Internet cafe and you don't want to log into WP. How do *you* (each of all of *you*) think you'll find this article? You would be wasting time if you did not just type "Climategate" into the WP search box. And I'll call any of you disingenuous if you dare disagree with me! Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Approve new proposed opening paras. Doubtless tweaks will be made, but very good and very fair. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles for emails

Why are descriptive titles needed for the emails, as added in these edits? Surely this is a misuse of section headings at the very least, and an example of some pretty blatant cherry picking for "shock value". Has a consensus been sought for these obviously unnecessary edits? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These "descriptive" titles are inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Tillman would do us the courtesy of restoring the original headings? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My purpose in doing this was to add some user-friendliness, especially to the TOC: Titles such as "Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999" aren't very helpful to the reader, while "Hide the decline" has already entered the pop-culture legacy of Climategate.

If you could give some specific examples of what you consider "cherry picking for "shock value" ", we can discuss those. All of my descriptive titles were drawn directly from the email snippets we've already quoted. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, all of them? Or at least all of them except Mann of March 2003 are hideously POV. They all focus on the bits that have been spun into "wrongdoing". It amounts to an endorsement of one set of accusations...and not just accusations, but accusations that have been mostly explained. In other words, it's cherry-picking POV elements. Which isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The subtitles have added value, providing the reader with the information necessary to tie a non-WP reference to the specific email quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as editorialising. If nothing else we must agree about section titles to have a hope in hell elsewhere. And I'll be using this reasoning to argue once again for the removal of "hacking" from the title of the article. Sauce for the goose, eh? Scjessey & Guettarda? Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As at least an interim measure, I've modified the disputed subtitles to describe the issues involved in neutral language rather than cherry picking quotes used by skeptikal kritiks. As the next stage, it seems worthwhile to me to group together all the FOIA related emails, including the one discussed above, to cover that issue as a whole. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any consensus have been reached here, and your version of the title is totally not-neutral. You are trying to guess what the author is trying to say. Please revert them as they were. The original version was as neutral as it could be, they were just referring to what was written on the email, you are clearly trying to use eufemisms.Echofloripa (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The original titles were neutral when they simply gave the author and date of the email, as discussed above the cherry picked comments from the emails were clearly not neutral and I've changed them to reflect in a neutral way the subject of the email. You've split this discussion by opening a new section below at #Use of eufemisms on the title of the emails, my suggestion is that everyone discuss proposals for changes in that section. . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So Time isn't a reliable source...?

Oren0 (talk · contribs) whitewashed all mention of the pro-science take on the "scandal" with the edit summary Remove swifthack from lead per consensus on talk. WP:UNDUE to the only WP:RS anyone has pointed to using this term. Not only was there no consensus to remove "swifthack", there was certainly no consensus to remove all mention of the idea that it was "an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change." And of course, his/her claim that Time is not a reliable source is completely untrue. Posting this with the hope that Oren0 explain her/his edit. Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion and there was no consensus one way or the other. I'm personally somewhat opposed to using the term, but falsely claiming consensus isn't helpful to keeping things on track in a contentious article like this (and Oren0, as an admin, really should know better). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts.

Oren0 justified his edits poorly, but I don't think "Swifthack" should be mentioned on a par with "Climategate" just because consensus hasn't been reached yet as to its inclusion. Pending consensus on its inclusion, I added several references to the nickname "Climategate" (none of which mention "Swifthack") and kept the Time analysis of that nickname. For the record, I would totally support removing the Time analysis as it seems to me to be uninformative.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, let us not take valuable space in the lead paras of the article trying to introduce a neologism with which no one is ever going to be familiar. WP follows with terminology, it does not lead. Maybe Time's PC term will catch on but it certainly has not. It is not for WP to publicise / encourage its use. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As to Time being a RS. I think no source is a RS all the time. The highly respected UK Telegraph has Delingpole (whom I like but I recognise is partisan and not always quite thorough enough). If Time is always a RS then you'll have to put up with people citing Delingpole as an authority. Similarly, in my view, it is not the case that the Daily Mail is always rubbish, or that the blogs can never be cited. Depends upon context. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my claim of consensus. As of right now, I summarize the responses in the above section as follows:

Remove "Swifthack" from the lead

• Myself
• Troed
• Paul Beardsell
• Sphilbrick
• Poujeaux
• Arzel
• Jpat34721
• Heyitspeter
• Echofloripa

Keep it

• Hipocrite
• ChrisO
• Nigelj

Remove both

• Guettarda
• Scjessey

WP:NOTAVOTE applies, but 8-5 is a pretty solid majority. I'm not disputing that Time is a reliable source, but it is currently the only source I've seen using this term, compared to hundreds using Climategate. To give Swifthack twice as much coverage in the lead based on one source is an egregious abuse of WP:WEIGHT. It may merit a small mention in the body of the article, but are you really pretending it is anywhere near as common of a term? To make that claim, many more sources are needed. WP:NPOV does not require that we mention both names in the lead, if one is used in many times more sources than the other. Quite frankly, I haven't seen any reasonable argument for its inclusion in the lead. Oren0 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the important issue is not so much the nickname as the point of view that it represents - i.e. that it was an "invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change." I've therefore added this quotation to the end of the sentence describing climate scientists' reactions. I suggest that this represents a compromise that we can hopefully all live with. Incidentally - this is something we've discussed before - there is absolutely no need to add five separate citations, all saying essentially the same thing, for the word "Climategate". We've used the Reuters source that describes it for some time, so I've trimmed the excessive citations down to this one. There's no need to go over the top; it's unnecessary and it hinders readability. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the duplicate sources and I'm happy with this change in general. I do think it goes on a little long and it could be trimmed a little (smear campaign and the quote are somewhat redundant). Oren0 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really redundant, since it identifies the perceived source of the campaign, which supplements the first bit of information in that line. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

8-5 is a pretty solid majority - dubious, but 8-6 definitely isn't; I'm with the "if you use climategate, also use swifthack" folk William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting is evil, WP goes on consensus and not simple majorities, and, as with William, you can add me to the "if you use climategate, also use swifthack" tally, with the modification that "Warmergate" should also appear. Since Echofloripa has chipped in, that makes it 9–7 . . dave souza, talk 12:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Channel 4 News is (nearly always, in general, yada) reliable and it said "emailgate", so where do we stop? My vote is for "remove Swifthack". Agree with Chris about trimming citations. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

None of these neologisms are appropriate unless they are introduced in a neutral manner (since they are all POV terms). I've suggested this before, but I believe that they should all be purged from the lede and added in to the article later as a group. "The incident and resulting controversy has been variously referred to as "Climategate", "Warmergate", "Swifthack" and "Emailgate" by commentators." Something along those lines. Doing it this way would make it easier to cite as well. But if we are going to be excluding any of them, then it must be all of them (including the beloved-by-skeptics "Climategate"). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And no, Oren0, I never said "removed both". My point was "be careful", and "don't use one without the other". As for vote counting - to begin with, you can't count your "vote", and then claim to be the adjudicator of "consensus". In addition, you can't really count an editor whose first action in three years is to turn up here and start voting.

More importantly, you have now repeated your claim that the Time article is not a reliable source. Care to explain? Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Poujeaux and Arzel's "votes" is based on Google hits, despite the fact that s/he misinterpreted them. So anyone doing more than vote counting would have discounted that opinion. So by your own summary it would have been at best 6-5. Because, you know, it's not a vote. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard "Swifthack", so I vote to remove it. "Climategate" should stay, since it's probably the most common term for this controversy. Alice Lyddel (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Climategate", so I vote to remove it. "Swifthack" should stay, since it's probably the most common term for this controversy. Of course I don't have sources for my claims either, and both descriptions are non-neutral and garbage. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here. How many times do I have to say "I don't dispute that Time is a reliable source", [11] [12] yet you keep saying I dispute it. Time is the only reliable source yet provided using this term. One source doesn't provide enough weight. Also, I don't understand your argument that Google results have been misinterpreted. Are you disputing that hundreds of reliable sources have used the term Climategate?

@Scjessey: I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or sarcastic or what but it's unhelpful. How about this: you provide as many reliable sources using the term "Swifthack" as you can and if I can't provide over 5x as many using "Climategate" I'll eat my hat. I just can't believe that your argument could possibly be serious.

@Others: Yes, vote counting is a lousy way to measure consensus, but I maintain that if I go by strength of argument the consensus to exclude "swifthack" is even stronger. The argument is simple: the WP:WEIGHT of one source provided thus far versus hundreds. Either way, there is certainly no consensus to include this term. If someone wants to open up a thread on removing "Climategate" from the lead/article, we'll see what kind of consensus that generates. Oren0 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of euphemisms on the title of the emails

De souza is trying helplessly to change the email's titles to use eufemisms. I reverted his changes as this is clearly an attempt to soften the content. He changed "Hide the decline" for "decline in tree ring proxy" judging what hide the decline would mean. "Redefine peer-review" for "standards for journals in IPCC reports", when Jone's clearly said "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!". "I'll delete the file" he changed to "disclosure of station data", "Can you delete any emails..." to "disclosure of emails" and "It is a travesty..." to "measuring global warming". I don't know if it is only me but I see here someone trying to mask the content and concluding the meaning of those emails.Echofloripa (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The version you prefer was objected to immediately it was introduced, as cherry picking phrases used by proponents of one side of the controversy and clearly not neutral. My revised titles describe the issues raised by the emails. This approach has the advantage that we can logically group together the three FOIA emails in a subsection dealing with that issue in an integrated way. If editors prefer to return to simply giving the date and author of the email, or wish to discuss alternative emails titles, that should be discussed here first. We've both already reverted once, so no more reverts for 24 hours and we'll see what comes out of constructive discussion. . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC) modified 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't cherry picking, it was the most relevant part of the emails, and what the mainstream media was refering to. The worst case I see here are:

• "decline in tree ring proxy": This tries to distort what "hide the decline" was referring to. This was the justification used by Jones.
• "standards for journals in IPCC reports": I struggle to see how "Redefine peer-review" would be describe by this.
• "disclosure of station data": I would prefer: "FOI: Deletion of data", "FOI: Deletion of emails". This way you could still get the grouping.

The right thing to do until we reach a consensus is returning the titles to what they were before. You won't be able to revert not only because on the limits of reverts but because you edited the section since then. Would you like to do it or should I do it?Echofloripa (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Discuss it with the other editors whose views were indicated in the previous discussion – show some patience, and note that you also won't be able to revert as 1RR is imposed under the article probation. Your proposals are noted, the "decline" is agreed by McIntyre and by all the reasonably informed statements as being a decline in tree ring proxy reconstructions. "Hide the decline" is uninformative partisan cherry picking. Similarly, the "Redefine peer-review" issue is about whether papers are of a standard suitable for IPCC reports – proposals for improved wording welcome. The problem with your "deletion" suggestion is that the consensus of uninvolved reports seems to be that no data or emails were deleted in contravention of the FOIA which was new in 2005. So, other views? . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The selection of pull-quotes was and is OR by SYNTH by a wikipedian. If the selections were the titles of emails, that might have been acceptable. Both versions as they exist, however, are poor. Hipocrite (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Only the original, simple titles are acceptable. I totally agree that applying some sort of short description is a form of original research, although I'm sure the change was well-meaning. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns about OR and I suggest that removing the short descriptions would be the most appropriate way forward. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Already pulled that trigger. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, above, these additions to the titles are OR. And, since the privilege one perspective on the matter, they also fail WP:NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. One issue is that all the emails conerning the FOIA could usefully be dealt with together: would it work to introduce a Freedom of Information Act subheading with the individual emails then being sub-subheadings under that? . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Much seems to be made of the FOIA issue, but it has always been my understanding that most of the information was freely available anyway. The fuss seems to have derived largely from too many requests for information and the suggestion that these requests were starting to impede on the scientists' ability to conduct their work. I'm concerned that doing this might leave the section open to exploitation, if you get my drift. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there are common factors it might help to deal with them together, but at present it reads reasonably well. Note that the Santer e-mail is out of date sequence, but it reads logically to have it before the Trenberth e-mail which is on a different topic. . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Real problems with an edit.

I have real problems with this edit by Wikidemon. He has asserted that Climategate was dubbed by "media sources" when the Time article clearly states "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate."" He has removed the sourced statement that "other advocates of action on warming issued rebuttals and described the incident as a smear campaign," leaving the only rebutters as "Some implicated in the controversy," I'd ask that Wikidemon self revert. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed some material that had crept into the lede in the past week. Among other things it downplays the frequency of the common term for the controversy, and includes empty statements of oposition. Saying that somebody issued a denial is not very informative, and promotes opinion over substance - of course people on one side of the issue deny it, and people on the other promote it. That is all subsumed in the more specific language I left in, which is that it was described as a smear campaign intended to sabotage the climate change summit. Regarding the name, it's pretty obvious that the common name for the term, used in plenty of media sources, is "Climategate". We discussed this fairly extensively a week ago and there seemed to be support for saying that the controversy over the emails (as opposed to the data hack or the underlying scientific dispute) had been dubbed, or called, or was also known as, Climategate. There seemed to be a general believe that saying it was only known among skeptics / deniers as climategate was inaccurate. It's hard to tell who added what, when, but I think this is mostly the "R" part per WP:BRD. If you don't trim back excessive changes once in a while the article quality drifts by Brownian motion. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that you failed to adress my concerns. I've made a change to the article - perhaps it is acceptable to both of us. Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Two points: sourced information seems to have been deleted rather than being moved into the body of the article, which would be more appropriate. As for the "climategate" moniker, that was clearly introduced and promoted by "skeptics", and has been used more widely but not exclusively. We should briefly indicate that progression from partisans to news media. Saying "Some implicated in the controversy" is weasely and inaccurate, a better phrase would be "Scientists and official bodies have issued rebuttals". Having now seen Hipocrite's changes, they seem reasonable. The "dubbed" point is accurate, and given how common the name has become guess we don't have to spell out that it's been adopted more widely . dave souza, talk

You're right about the outright deletion of sourced content. This strikes me as inappropriate, particularly when you consider Wikidemon's edit summary (what is "impertinent commentary" supposed to mean)? I suggest that Wikidemon should bear in mind the article probation and be a little less inflammatory in his edit summaries. - ChrisO (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't all that inflammatory. Some editors like to use edit summaries for rhetorical flourish. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Impertinent" has the meaning of "cheeky" or "disrespectful", which I simply don't see in the content he deleted. I feel that a fuller explanation is needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't appropriate, but I don't think it is worth your while making a big issue out of it. No need to strike down upon [them] with furious anger. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not angry, I'm just mystified, since I really don't understand what Wikidemon was getting at. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review definition #1 here,[13] a more specific version of irrelevant. The definition you are thinking of would normally apply to a person or their behavior, not a section of prose. Sourced content may be deleted, there's no rule against that. Sources should be in the body, but I think everything I deleted was either in the body already or wasn't pertinent there either. Hipocrite did not ask about those things, but I find that long-ish formal statements made by parties to a dispute do little to elucidate the dispute or their role in it, and do not fit with the summary style of a lede. The University's claim that personal information was compromised is not very noteworthy, that seems to miss the point of the affair. The death threats are also a little off topic and indeed only a small number of sources chooses to cover them, but I left them in because at least that's a more significant issue. The main problem, as I said, is that left to itself the lede keeps getting bloated without actually saying more. It has to be trimmed back every once in a while, a common problem with heavily edited articles. Hipocrite's partial revert was just fine, and Dave souza is spot on regarding the origin of the term. The name was invented by media advocate "skeptics", then entered wider usage. Suggesting it is only used by the skeptic side downplays that the scandal entered the mainstream, but suggesting the origin was neutral downplays that the advocates created the name and the scandal too. So I think Hipocrite's partial reversion was an improvement, and just fine, but I also see that someone has reverted my version, complete with the citation tag. It's hard to keep track of who is doing what, and when any given thing got added, with all the fast editing here. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lang

It is safe to assume, I take it, that this article is meant to be in British English (except in the case of quoting someone using American English, or some other evil spawn of the best language EVAR), correct? I just wanted to make sure. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. And that's the Queen's English to you. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I like to call it English English (see userbox on my user page). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Received pronunciation will do, but for goodness sake not the Queen's –"Mai husband arnd Ai..." . . Yours (in Scots), dave souza, talk 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dinnae fash yersel' aboot us Sassenachs 'n' seppos, haul yersel' off to http://scots.wikipedia.org... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another inconsistency in the article is the use of full stops with quotes. About half the time they're inside the quotation marks, the rest of the time they're outside. There are different schools of thought regarding this (as I learned from userboxes!) and we need to pick one and be consistent. Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See the MOS section WP:TQ – the standard isn't usual practice for many Americans, but has been agreed for WP purposes. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Thanks Dave. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If we must use British english, could we at least go with the best British English around?

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail 'ackin' incident came ter light in November 2009 wiv the unaufforised release of fousands of e-mails and uvver documents reportedly obtained frough the chuffin' hackin' of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich.

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd make the edit you requested, but I suspect that someone with no sense of humour would find it "disruptive" or something. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, all references to "scientists" must be replaced with "boffins". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I was talking about. Third and fourth paras, of the Unauthorised publication section.

• "a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents."
• "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia".

In both cases, the full stop is "part of the quote" inasmuch as they're both the end of the sentence. But it's also the end of our sentence - if our sentence had continued, the full stop wouldn't be there. So which usage is correct? Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would always put the full stop inside the quote if it was part of the quote, even in the case of a following reference. A quick glance at the article reveals numerous inconsistencies, but anyone going through it to do corrections would need to check the references to see what the actual quotes did. In some cases, this may be complicated by the style adopted by the reference publisher as well.".".".".".".". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) ."."

Of tangential interest

Not directly related to this article, but of tangential interest, is this "Decade in review: ten words to banish from your vocabulary" piece from Gillian Grace in the National Post:

9. -gate as the suffix to any scandal. This isn't exactly new—the horrors of "Camillagate" harken all the way back to 1992. But, people, Watergate was 37 years ago. "Plamegate" and "climategate:" really?

Actually, the whole piece is quite amusing, but I thought folks here would find this bit interesting. It's worth reading some of the comments as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw "Crashgate" on the TV today regarding the Formula 1 race-fixing incident from last year... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...my mind corrected that to "gate crash" as I read it. Which didn't make much sense. But that would be a great name for unauthorised people getting into the White House: GateCrashGate. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns?

I don't see the BLP concern in this. Could someone clarify? Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the correctness: [14]. Prodego ^talk 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. There does seem to be some logic to that removal. Quite a strict interpretation, but essentially correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "quite a strict interpretation" is needed here. I assume "Mike" is Michael E. Mann, and "Keith" is Keith Briffa, but can't be sure based on the article text, and i'm not on a first name basis with either. I assume the RealClimate post explaining the "trick" was at least partially by Mann, or he concurred with his colleague's statement, but can't really be sure. Editors may not see a problem with the section, but readers, unfamiliar with the background and the people involved would be confused and maybe misled by the content.—eric 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote including the unidentified names are cited to mainstream reliable sources: can you assist with checking these sources to see if they are identified? . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked them over, The Guardian and The Telegraph both publish the extract without giving the second names of the individuals. It seems reasonable to do so, and I don't see them as being accused of wrongdoing. The context does indicate that it's Keith Briffa, as it was his reconstruction that was being supplemented: that information was clear from the article, but would involve synthesis to say it was Briffa without another source: can keep looking, but do we want to go beyond the mainstream press in naming individuals? . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking..., but also consider this sentence: "Some critics cite this sentence as evidence that temperature statistics are being manipulated." Which of the three are being accused? My understanding is that it is Mike and Phil, but not Keith. Is that correct?—eric 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My reading was that it's a general complaint against "climate scientists" or "the establishment", which ties in with Guettarda's point that we should say who makes such claims. Good point. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the three articles cited explicitly identify the individuals, and they either use "alleged emails", state that those involved refused to comment on the accuracy of the emails, or provide no context at all.—eric 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that not one of the most quoted emails. We can't not deal with it. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the editor who removed it would consider revising it instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

While it's my clear understanding that RealClimate meets the standards as a reliable source of expert opinion, all references to them could be deleted and the remainder of the paragraph would stand alone. Assertions about quality of writing don't justify a deletion without any clear description of an actual BLP issue. Note that RealClimate is cited to supplement other sources, which support the statements on their own: in particular, the Briffa 1998 paper gives a reference for their recommendation that the post 1960 part of their reconstruction should not be used. I propose restoring the non-RealClimate content as an interim measure until this is resolved. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The RealClimate post is probably the clearest explanation of what's going on, but before summarizing it in the article you need to know (and let the reader know) whether or not Mann had a hand in writing it. If you have to put the section back, please identify Keith and Mike, and let the reader know which of Keith, Mike, or Phil is being accused of wrongdoing.—eric 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of another concern - "some critics" and "critics" are peppered through the article. They all need {{who?}} tags. Especially when we're talking about accusations of wrongdoing. We need to say who's saying what. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article would be much better without any of the email sections. State there is a controversy, but trying to explain that controversy to readers—when all we have to go on are various opinions on a current and controversial subject reported by "lazy" (per TS) journalists trying to grab headlines—is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Wait until the investigation(s) report, then maybe go into more detail.—eric 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be discussing the topics dealt with surrounding individual emails - what is "hide the decline", what is it said to mean, and by whom - but we can do that without presenting every cherry-picked email. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the current format makes it appear as if we are analyzing the content of each email and deciding which issues, opinions, papers, etc. are relevant. Some other source (if available), should do that for us.—eric 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Of course, the real problem is with the way we present the emails. They shouldn't be presented in their own sections and then discussed. Rather, the issues should be discussed and the emails quoted from as necessary. Imagine that these were fair use images, or better yet song clips. We wouldn't discuss an album by starting with a song clip and then discussing it. We'd either discuss the album as a whole, and reference the tracks as appropriate or (less ideally) we'd discuss the tracks individually. But we would not start every section with a sound clip. The same logic applies here. We need to (a) present coherent text, and (b) minimise fair use. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, that particular section made use of very reliable sources, in particular the CRU update 2. It could indeed make sense to deal with it under a heading such as "Decline in reliability of tree ring proxy post 1960", with divergence problem as a main article. It would be possible to paraphrase the quote from the email, leaving out the first names of other individuals. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the removal of that one section. If people really believe the article would be better without individual email sections, gain consensus and rewrite it that way. But what we're currently left with is the removal of one of the most well-sourced emails, "hide the decline", and the associated alleged controversy it has generated. Maybe it should be rewritten in another form, but unilaterally removing it is unhelpful. Oren0 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

eric, can you re-add the section you deleted while removing the RealClimate references? I agree with you it's not an RS, but it would be a shame if wikipedia didn't have a quote (or any mention, really) of one of the most controversial emails.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Large removal

Is this removal supported by consensus? The discussion section mentioned has User:EricR tacking on to an apparently finished discussion about citing RealClimate and effectively talking to himself by the end, saying "ninety percent of the article" should be removed, then saying he was going to remove the whole section, which he then did. I don't see where anyone else chimed in on the matter. I'm not sure what the BLP concern is here, the section seemed well cited. People are allowed to be criticized, provided those criticisms are well sourced. I therefore support reversion of this removal. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Look up two sections. Prodego ^talk 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the "beauty" of BLP. You don't need consensus to remove, but rather to re-add. Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When a (partially)-BLP page is under sanctions, it's disruptive to be able to remove a very long-standing section unilaterally and then say "now you have to build a consensus to put it back." Major edits, such as the removal of many-paragraph sections, should get consensus first, or at least be discussed by >1 person. Oren0 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From an enforcement of BLP point of view, I would not enforce this as a BLP violation. It looks like a content issue to me. Prodego ^talk 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i did say that i hated to use the magic "BLP". I think it is problematic until you identify which of the three are being accused of wrongdoing, and clearly state whether or not the RealClimate post was written by Mann or not, but if others don't see it that way then i wouldn't object to putting the section back.—eric 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry Oren, it's not disruptive. While I disagree with the removal of the entire section, it clearly deals with potentially damaging information about living people. So Eric was within the letter of the policy. That's not disruption. Guettarda (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Eric, here is a RS third-party source cited elsewhere in the article explicitly and unequivocally naming the people who wrote each email, and not by pseudonyms. If this is your only problem with the e-mails' inclusion in the article then can you add the block of text back? We can cite the names with this source.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The RealClimate post is attributed to "group", which doesn't help us much. Why the particular concern about Mann, and can we find a form of words? Also, is this issue specific to the paragraph which quoted RealClimate explicitly? . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I only saw a problem with the one paragraph. The concern about Mann is that the post is defending "Mike's Nature trick". We need to make clear whether or not Mann wrote it. Unfortunately they didn't put any names on the post. I don't think we could tweak the wording to fix that...maybe if we could find another source stating "Mann and colleagues made such and such a statement"?—eric 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about... Can you clarify? Are you responding to me?--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Re-insertion - Come on folks get real. This deletion eliminates the "hide the decline" e-mail most often cited in accounts of this controversy- we can't just pretend it doesn't exist. That being said, it seems to me the prior revision had a lot of OR analysis. I propose reinserting the email quote, inserting a link to the divergence problem and re-inserting Dr. Jones' explanation and leave it at that.Jpat34721 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

While "re-insertion" sounds quite exciting, I'd like to see it figured out here first. BLP concerns are valid, and we should not have iffy material lingering. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved from above as chat has moved on:

If requested and agreed by eric, I could add such an edited section quite quickly. To meet some of eric's concerns, instead of showing the contested quote we could open the section with:

An excerpt from one November 1999 e-mail authored by Phil Jones referred to a "trick" of having a graph of paleoclimate reconstructions show measured real temperatures from 1981 onwards for two series of climate reconstructions, and from 1961 for a third series "to hide the decline."

That omits the names of Jones' colleagues. We could also change "Some critics cite this sentence as evidence that temperature statistics are being manipulated." to "Critics have alleged that this shows that temperature statistics are being manipulated by climate scientists". Just a thought. . dave souza, talk 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, no problem.—eric 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, have done as an interim measure until issues can be resolved. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, we need to name the critics, or otherwise identify them. Otherwise it's just gossip. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but unfortunately we're using sources which say there are critics without naming them. Have changed it to "Claims have been made that the email is evidence that temperature statistics have been manipulated." but it will be better if we can find a source naming critics. Maybe FactCheck? No time at present... dave souza, talk 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no point pussy-footing our way around this. We have reliable sources [giving the text of the e-mails along with the full names of their authors in no uncertain terms.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You've misread eric's concern. That particular email gives the first names of two other scientists who are not identified in the sources, including that article. . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why we're not giving the text of the e-mail. We don't need to talk about who "Mike" is to talk about data manipulation that "Mike" has allegedly carried out.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, i'm having trouble keeping up with all the comments and try and get some work done at the same time. I think it is very important to identify "Mike" for a few reasons. First, the section does not make a whole lot of sense to the reader w/o knowing that it is Mann. Y'all are familiar with those involved, but should assume that the reader is not. There are accusations of misconduct—it should be very clear to whom those accusations apply. Also the section later quotes from Mann defending the content of the email, it should be clear to the reader that Mann is not an independent third-party, but someone mentioned in the email.—eric 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair. So given that, let's put the full-text in, ever careful not to claim that Mann was the subject of the e-mail until we get a RS saying so, and keep the commentary on that e-mail. As long as we don't say "Phil Jones is talking about Michael Mann" without a citation we should be fine, right?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

<blush, feels very slow and blames having a cold> Oops, I hadn't figured out it was Mann, but the Philly Enquirer article we're citing for his statement does make that clear. Unfortunately it doesn't make it explicit that Keith is Briffa, though the CRU source shows that it's Briffa's curve that was curtailed because of the divergence problem. The source does name one critic, MIT's Richard Lindzen who says "Anyone familiar with these issues would say these [e-mails] explicitly refer to falsification and rigging of data" and is rebutted by other experts, as well as it being noted that he had already taken the same line before the leak. Gotta go for a bit, can someone review or find a source so that we can name Keith? . . dave souza, talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)