Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 35

Minority Report

This has gone far afield of discussion related to article improvement. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY links to all .gov sites from antony`s site :) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your promotional link to a problematic blog with respect to BLP issues - the report you refer to is located at [1]. I don't see how this is related to improving this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it, it is not against policy to link to a blog in talk, this helps the artilce as it is about this very thing, do not edit my posts or i will bring an RFE aganist you mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite – what is the basis for claiming BLP issues? While the blog post says “some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles “, which could potentially be a BLP issue if it were made up, the actual report says, “scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles” so it isn’t the case that the blog post is misstating the findings/ I confess I haven’t thoroughly read all text, but if there are BLP issues, please point them out. Otherwise, I think the reversion is unwarranted. SPhilbrickT 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The blog is peppered with BLP violations. Perhpaps not this article, but certainly multiple other ones, and absolutly the cesspool comment section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Last warning, stop editing my posts, this is a useful source for those who wish to discuss the findings of the commite to add to the article mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Mark, the link I posted is a useful resource. The link you posted is spam. How many reverts do you have at this talk page, now? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on what I’ve observed at various talk pages, the rules for what are acceptable links in Talk are looser than what are acceptable in an article, im particular, links to blogs, where they contain some information very relevant to the article, even though they might not be an acceptable cite for the article itelf, are often permitted. if that is contrary to policy, I’d like someone to point out the policy (I am aware that BLP violations are not allowed in talk, but that’s not the issue here). I do not believe the reversion of Mark’s link here is warranted.SPhilbrickT 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The blog posting above is a link to the report I directly linked to, some advertising, some links to copyvios, and a bunch of worthless comments. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Marks link is useful as the blog entry is short intro to the 84 page report. Saves time, leave it alone.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing and/or proposing improvements to the article. While some latitude can be afforded, linking to a highly-partisan skeptical blog that is trumpeting a largely meaningless "report" by skeptical politicians is inappropriate. Mark should've been pleased when Hipocrite found a more legitimate link that would seem less agenda-driven, but instead he chose to react in a disgraceful manner. Not good behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this post is highly objectionable. I agree that this page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the CRU incident, and the link is specifically discussing a Senate report on the incident. It couldn’t possibly be more on topic. Linking to a blog is not (AFAIK) verboten in a talk page. Linking to skeptics should be a positive, not a negative, if one is interested in hearing all viewpoints before making informed decisions. Calling it “highly partisan” is an opinion, but not one that helps advance the discussion. Calling a Senate Report “meaningless” is very tendentious. What evidence do you have that it is “meaningless” None offered. Mark’ actions were regrettable, and I don’t agree with them, but the decision to revert a link to a highly relevant site is inappropriate. While this is not a blog, it is actually bad manners to deep-link rather than give the credit to the place you found the information, so in the blog world, Hipocrite’s choice would be considered bad form. yes, ir ealize this is not a blog, but the concept of courtesy applies here as well.SPhilbrickT 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
FTR, I disagree with some of the Senate report’s key findings, but disagreeing with policy recommendations of even with factual finding is far different than labeling a Senate Report “meaningless”.. I hope Scjessy will reconsider and refactor intemperate remarks. I don’t know that it is possible to refactor edit summaries, but I urge Mark to use more civil language.SPhilbrickT 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The report is totally meaningless. It's from the Senate Minority. It has no teeth. It has no consequences. It does absolutely nothing except rally the science-denying troops. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You must be using a new definition of "meaningless". Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Mark has apologized for his remarks. Your's, however, seem quite pointy and indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which is what we are now, as a community, attempting to downplay. Perhaps you too could offer an apology for your own remarks which are definitely not in line with promoting a collegial atmosphere on these pages. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not going to happen. Your claim against me is utterly ridiculous, and my remarks were accurate and appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, no they're not. (An argument in your style, i.e. by contradiction). Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, since when does something have to come from the party in power in a government to have notability or meaning in Wikipedia? We just report what is going on, not the party line of whoever is in power, right? Moogwrench (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This "report" has all the value of a press conference. It changes nothing at all, and there is certainly nothing in it applicable to this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
C'mon! Construct an argument! Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not even from the party not in power. It is a Senate Committee minority "report", in reality not much more than the opinion of Senator Inhofe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Doh! The very first sentence in the "Background" section, starts off with something that we know is incorrect.... "On October 12, 2009, email correspondence and other information belonging to the University of East Anglia‘s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were given to a reporter with the BBC network" - not a very good sign. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
What, exactly, are you quibbling about here? See [2] which states:
"The first leak occurred after 9 October, when one of the BBC's regional weathermen, Paul Hudson, wrote an article arguing that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures. On 12 October he was forwarded a "chain of emails", including some which subsequently appeared in the hacked documents. Last night the BBC confirmed Hudson had been forwarded emails written by two of the scientists, but refused to disclose the source."
And see [3] which includes the following positions of the BBC:
"Stories are decided on merit. What started as a blog on the weather website had touched on an important point that views about climate change are hotly contested. BBC News strives to report on a range of views and stories on climate change, and felt that the information Paul Hudson used in his blog was also worthy of coverage on the news website.
His story ran in a section of the news website where people interested in climate change and environment would expect to see such stories. Paul Hudson is a BBC Climate correspondent for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. He's also a weather presenter for Look North."
and
"Your first point: we don't recognise the question – news is news and, as we have already said, it was worthy of coverage.
The second point you make: we regularly use correspondents from the English regions to cover stories of national interest. Paul Hudson is a BBC climate correspondent for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. He works for BBC news in the same way that other correspondents work for BBC News."
These clearly seem to confirm that the story in question was a news story and that the BBC considers him a climate correspondent. So he write a story, it was obviously reviewed and deemed newsworthy, and he works for the BBC as a climate correspondent. So what's incorrect about the statement you quoted? Is there something that has come out subsequent to these articles that contradicts this? --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Think I sorta lean towards sPhil's POV here. While Nutley was probably trying to make a point, probably wasn't right to tamper with his posts. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

His posts were never tampered with, except once, when I replaced his link with a link to the actual report, which he promptly reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
@ nickct, no i was not trying to make a point, the blog post has a nice condensed version of the report, it gives people a good overview of the senate`s findings. That is the only reason i linked to it, so people could get an idea of what happened and if it could be worked into this article. @ Hippocrite His posts were never tampered with, except once, when I replaced his link with a link to the actual report dude, that is tamering mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The blog post is the press release, copied word for word from [4]. "except once," means that once I "tampered" with your post to replace your link to a blog with a link to a reliable source. The other times I either removed your post entirely and rewrote it under my signature with my words, or removed your post without comment, or collapsed the entire section. Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
@Nutley - "no i was not trying to make a point," being familiar with some of your previous work, forgive me if I take your denial with a pinch of salt.
@Hipo - If you edited Nutley's post in a way that he considers "tampering", you tampered with his post. Best avoid editting others' posts unless you 100% sure they will believe it's in good faith. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume the assumption of good faith. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(chuckle)... I think we both know that one went out the window with this debate a long time ago. Sad, but true...... NickCT (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you don't believe that MarkNutley will be assuming good faith, you have an obligation to request he be stopped from violating fundamental principles. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
@ NickCT, consider yourself forgiven :), @ Hipocrite, if you are asked not to edit anothers posts but continue to do so then were is the good faith to come from? mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Mark, you continue to state as fact that I edited your post multiple times. That fact is not accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I am counting 5 times i had to revert you, that¬s multiple dude mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's see. this is one of your reverts. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


What here you accuse me of spamming? Not really assuming good faith there are you? mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I believe strongly that you are being honest, and that you think the encyclopedia, and yes, the world, are improved by your spamming of this blog post. That you are wrong doesn't mean you are not being honest, or trying to damage the encyclopedia. On the other hand, Mark, you've accused me of pretty much every wrongful thing possible. The difference in approach is that I'm assuming that you are misguided but with good intentions, but you are assuming that I'm an asshole with a cause. You'll have to change that thinking, and I'd very much like to repeat that I only edited your post once - I collapsed it, removed it, I rewrote it under my own signature, but I only edited it once. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to Hipocrite that his repeated references to spamming are unhelpful and that he should drop the whole issue. This is especially true in light of that fact that several other uninvolved editors have already agreed that Mark's link was fine and that it provided additional value to the editors here (i.e. a summary of the report to which you, yourself, linked). Please find something more useful to argue over, or better yet please try to be less argumentative (directed at both). --GoRight (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You accuse me of "repeated references to spamming." In reviewing this page, here are the times I used spam unprompted - "The link you posted is spam." I did not repeat this reference untill Mark asked me to justify my statement that the link he posted was spam. I'm perfectly willing to drop the whole issue, but I'm going to get the last word in - Mark accused me of editing his post more than once - this was an error on his part - I edited his post only once. I tried to find other solutions with him - even though he was cursing up a storm at me the entire time. To this moment, I've been nothing but civil with him, yet he continues to accuse me of assuming bad faith. So, I can either drop the issue with lastwordism right here, or Mark could up and apologize, again, for being unable to assume my good faith, or we could keep going. I never stated his link didn't add value - I stated that another link added value without subtracting more value, and attempted to replace his mediocre link with a better link. I'm not accepting, at this time, mushymouthed "everyone is bad," conclusions, when the fact is that one editor was impecibly civil and tried multiple solutions while the other, to put it bluntly, didn't. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This conversation no longer bares relevance to the article. To your user pages please gentlemen. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur with NickCT - both have aired their points, let's move on, and to the extent wrongs need to be righted, let's take them to the user talk pages.--SPhilbrickT 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

US Government Reaction to the Incident

Greeting. I'd like to see a new section on US Government's Reaction, to follow UK Government Reaction. The following text could be a start: "Republicans on the Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have released a report titled, "‘Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN's IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC's flawed science impacts the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes. " Source here. [5]

Others are welcome to add stuff from democrats if they wish, to balance it out. I see no reason to hide that fact that US senators can't agree on issues. Request to others: stick to topic please. Thanks Sirwells (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A minority report from a Senate committee amounts to even less weight/importance than a dissenting Supreme Court opinion. The losing side of a debate doesn't get equal prominence to the majority opinion. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Tarc. What evidence do you have that those who believe "the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles" are on the losing side of a debate? Sirwells (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The majority POV is that some of these scientists may have engaged in sloppy, unethical and/or illegal behavior. This is NOT an article about AGW despite what both warring factions might have you believe. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That is not what the article is about, despite your numerous attempts to move it in that direction. But besides that, neither of the above two comments actually address what I said; a minority report of a senate committee is barely a ripple in the political pond. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
My numerous attempts? I'm just trying to follow WP:NPOV. Whether this 'helps' or 'hurts' one (or both!) sides of the AGW debate is not my problem, quite frankly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, perhaps you are getting hung up on the word "minority". In politics, you call it a "minority" report because the staff members who released it belong to the party who currently holds the minority of senate seats. A situation which changes frequently. It doesn't mean the report itself represents the "minority" opinion in the context that you are used to. I'd like to ask you again what evidence you have that thier views are on the losing side of a debate, or somehow a fringe viewpoint, as you seem to be implying. You ignored my question the first time. Do have any evidence, or are you expecting us to just take your word for it? Thanks. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the US system, my understanding is that the Republicans aren't in power, so this should properly be described as the opposition party reaction. The government reaction has been to announce new measures to further improve the already open access to climate data and methods – this was reported in The Guardian, perhaps one or two US publications noted it. . .dave souza, talk 08:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is essentially Inhofe's blog dressed up nice. It's not the opinion of the US government or the US senate or even the republican caucus in the senate. It is certainly not reliable for anything but its authors opinions, and its hardly notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. This can be very much regarded as a fringe faction (supported by lobbyists from the energy industry) of the minority party. I am unclear as to why this is being discussed again, when it was debated in the previous section. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's because the last discussion of it became a name-calling routine rather than a discussion (as is typical of discussions on this article).--64.244.99.100 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm against anything but maybe passing mention of the "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy". I'd call it barely notable on the basis that it's an obviously partisan POV report. Wikipedia shouldn't really be a mouthpiece for this kind of thing.
Additionally, as Scj noted, this thing has been given significant consideration now, I suggest we cease considering it and move on to better things. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hacking?

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

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

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

The only thing 'virtually certain' is that the computer files being made publicly available was unauthorized. How they were accessed is still pure speculation. CRU had been upgrading their network and server security in the months preceding the disclosure. In the course of that process, they likely authorized database access to a number of third party individuals. If one of them copied it and sent it to a buddy in russia or turkey to be sorted through and posted online, the information would not have been hacked, it simply would have been stolen. Or if, in the course of those security upgrades, the data briefly became accessible to an intern who happened to be looking for a personal file and he copied it and sent it somewhere, it would still be an issue of theft, not hacking. Even if it is one day proven they had been legitimately hacked, such use of the term in an encyclopedia article's title is just gawdy.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the speculation, but it's not really useful. Most reliable sources say "hacking", and have done so consistently since the story came to light. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I do not think titles of articles in newspapers are reliable sources of choice of words in the title of articles in the encyclopedia. The choice of words in the texts of them are relevant. Most of the texts referred to above included "hacking" or "hacker" as well. (The Sunday Times article by Jonathan Leake did not.)
That said, I prefer "leak" myself if and only if we can have a consensus that the use of the word "leak" does not imply denial of such action that has been called "hacking" here. (Tessa Chapman in the Sky News article referred to above says "whether the emails were leaked or hacked". I do not want to adopt "leak" in that sense.) I personally think that it is very likely that cracking into computer systems occurred. I think that calling such action "hacking" is disrespectful to those computer programmers who call their creative actions "hacking". --Masudako (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee - University of East Anglia

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

I like your wording, but does it need to be repeated 3 times? The lead and one elaboration would be better, I think. Ignignot (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point, I've trimmed the timeline mention to a reasonable minimum, and focussed the detail in the UK Government section. It'll be interesting to see what happens on Monday. . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that support the language about "prima facie", etc.? The UEA statement reads more like a pleading rather than an objective assessment. Can we stick to reliable sources for the text? As we all agree, there's no deadline. Better to wait for some more reporting on this. Ronnotel (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It's covered by three reliable sources, the statement itself and two news stories, and shows a significant difference from the misleading news reporting of the secret statement made by the ICO. We don't do literary criticism of the UEA's prose, I suspect they thought about it a bit. If we don't put it in, we have a knowing BLP violation by sticking with an incorrect description. dave souza, talk 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct link to the House of Commons - Science and Technology - Memoranda [7] which include the CRU statement and all other submissions.91.153.115.15 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, quite a list of names. This should be interesting. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Institute of Physics response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee request for evidence is particularly interesting, featuring another use of the term "prima facie" [[8]]: "The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law." Oiler99 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with all of the respondents listed but the IOP [9] appears to be a neutral party as in no conflict of interest? Other neutral parties? Royal Statistical Society? Plenty of people on the list defending themselves and others with an axe to grind. Fair assessment?91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text on Mann/UPenn

Proposed text

[Rescued from the archives to close and apply.]

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". The committee pointed to the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report[1] which found that "Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but noted that since that report the purloined CRU emails "give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science." Noting the public outcry from some quarters "may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically" but that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee chose to constitute a multi-discipline, faculty committee to further consider that specific allegation.[2]

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

It's very much not. There is e.g. nothing like your first or second "but" in the report - neither literally nor implied. The only mentioning of "public outcry" is in a very different context. Your suggestion is longer (too long, but then the whole section is too long already, given that this is not an article about Mann), but in fact less accurate than the previous (disclosure: "my previous") version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough but if we are going to mention the NAS report we have to talk about, as the committee put it, "what has changed sicne then" (the emails). My version I think follows the logic of the committee if not in the same order presented in the report.JPatterson (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to revise

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee chose to constitute a faculty committee to further consider that specific allegation, as the allegation "revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists". [2]

Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Better, but it misses one crucial point, namely that the committee declared itself incompetent to reach a definitive finding on the last point. This does not suggest or imply any differences in the committee or conflicting evidence, this is the committee saying "we are administrators, this is question that only faculty can decide (to the satisfaction of the public)". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Permit me to re-revise

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter." [2]

Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. Still too long, though ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I disagree about it being too long. It's a nuance that is important to capture and that would be difficult to do with less prose. JPatterson (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking over then proposal again, I'd suggest one more change. The committee did not actually say that they were unable to reach a finding. So I propose the following:

The committee did not issue a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter." [2]

Comments? If not, I'll insert that version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems okay to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Nit pick alert - can you change what appears to be a hyphen followed by a space to an em dash? Otherwise, looks fine.--SPhilbrickT 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposed text reflecting my suggestion:

The committee did not issue a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry—whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter." [2]

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

More on the Scandal

Which now seems a relatively benign term to refer to the incident. The world is passing you all by, at warp speed. Here, Mojib Latif, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University and no skeptic of AGW, was interviewed on the German public TV station ZDF, where he had harsh words for the IPCC, referring to its some of its activities as "A Fraud on the Public" [[10]] The station ZDF sandwiches its interview of Dr Latif with segments on the substantive problems in the IPCC, including the issue of economic catastrophe losses. Dr. Latif comments on the misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in very strong terms, and a reviewer whose first language is German translates [www.prisonplanet.com/mojib-latif-on-zdf-a-fraud-to-the-public.html]]: "This is a very obvious fraud, on the public and on the colleague in question. One has to categorically reject such a thing and we must now try, should such things really have happened, to make sure they don’t happen again next time." And then says "On a sliding scale of words referring to matters of dishonesty, 'Betrug' is the strongest and most serious accusation, used in the sense of criminal deception. As even in Germany libel cases are no longer quite so rare, using this word can be quite risky." The word "betrug" (fraud) (at 3:17 on the tape) is shown to refer to:

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

its misstatements (CLIMATE CHANGE 2007) on:

Himalayan glaciers disappearing

40% of Amazon forests burning

african agriculture diminishing

hurricanes increasing

sea level rising

population water stress increasing

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

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

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

Is there a proposal to improve the article in there somewhere, or is this just another example of Wikipedia being used as an organ for propaganda? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Oiler99- I think your posting really belongs on the talk page of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not here. This article is about the CRU, not the IPCC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I think this pertains to the naming of the article and the proposal to split off the scandal component (which has been contested) from the hacking/liberation component. It has clearly become reasonable, if not decorous, to rename the scandal component Climategate, for reasons that have been adumbrated many times before. The current title, as has been noted, is a subject of jest. Oiler99 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
CRU is not mentioned in the ZDF report, and neither are the hacked documents and email. This is entirely unrelated. The PrisonPlanet analysis is, of course, without any value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't whether CRU is mentioned, but whether "ClimateGate" was mentioned. I didn't listen to the whole piece, but I didn't hear it. --SPhilbrickT 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I did hear it through - and it doesn't. Watching it again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In which case I concur with CurtisSwain - while I've noted the concern that the subject matter of the term "ClimateGate" is expanding, and it may cause us to reconsider our coverage, this does not appear to be an example, so for now, it belongs with either IPCC or more naturally Criticism of the IPCC AR4. --SPhilbrickT 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate has been violently resisted as a title to this or any article on the basis of the wiki guideline of not using pejorative words in titles. But - correct me if I'm wrong - this is superseded by the policy of using the common term as long as it doesn't ADD any notion of wrongdoing. Therefore this reference pertains to the IDEA of "Climategate" even - or perhaps especially - if the word itself does not appear. Much the same as discussing the intentional taking of innocent human life without using the word MURDER. Note that the Spanish Wikipedia has the title Climagate[[11]], without abandoning overall support for AGW. This article has already branched far afield from the email incident so that the elements of (perceived) scandal are not adequately described by the title, and should be split off as a separate article under the proper name. Oiler99 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only does "Climategate" fall foul of WP:WTA, because the "-gate" suffix is used almost exclusively to refer to scandal and controversy it violates WP:NPOV as well. You may consider your wrongness corrected. It is deeply troubling that this matter is being continuously raised. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@scjessey, I suspect it's continually raised because the current practice seems tenaciously wrong-headed to some. The WP:WTA clearly states that for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. The term Climategate, as a title, satisfies the wiki policy of using the common term, and does not violate NPOV since it is descriptive only, albeit pedestrian, and does not add an imputation of scandal not previously recognized. Oiler99 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you now talking about the ZDF report (which has no connection at all with the CRU emails or the term Climategate) or about a title for the article dealing with the CRU emails (which has nothing to do with the ZDF report)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Adding "-gate" to anything instantly brands it as somehow "scandalous" or "controversial", and this is not a scandal by any reasonable measure. Furthermore, there is nothing descriptive about the word "Climategate" whatsoever. It suggests some sort of scandal involving "climate", and that's about it - vague ambiguity. I applaud you for coming up with all sorts of interesting new ways to try to get this article titled with this non-neutral term, but you have gone way beyond the level at which this kind of agenda-driven behavior is called disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That is an opinion which many do not share. Even the ever politically correct Swedes have titled their Wikipedia entry "Climategate or the Climate scandal". This is clearly a scandal relating to climate research. It appears almost all other language versions of this article are titled Climategate.91.153.115.15 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the Swedish article is relevant. I'm also not sure making sweeping generalizations about the political-correctness of certain countries is appropriate, either. Unless you are going to say "all British people are awesome" of course. I am not aware of any "scandal" relating to climate change, unless you are referring to the scandalous denial of science by certain US politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"I am not aware of any "scandal" relating to climate change ..." - You seem to be somehow suggesting that your personal level of ignorance should somehow be a factor in the evaluation of which content is appropriate to this or other articles. This seems an odd stance to take so I can only assume I am mistaken. Can you please clarify your meaning? Content decisions are based on WP:RS and WP:V, among other policies as you are no doubt aware. --GoRight (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not only the Swedish article that is relevant. If most other language versions use climategate there is a clear consensus supporting the use for it. I accept I took some liberties in labeling Swedes politically correct but I do not think most Swedes would object. (Digging deeper) In Swedish society there is tradition of vigorous debate which often results in a consensus... which on occasion manifest itself as overt political correctness. There is no shame in that. My point was Sweden is awesome, they have a great debating culture, they and pretty much everyone else find climategate acceptable. Why can't we?91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice try, but I think you will find that consensus on one language version of Wikipedia is not transferable to another. There is actually a longstanding, clear, unambiguous consensus against the use of "Climategate" on the English Wikipedia. If other language versions use "Climategate" then I respectfully suggest their standards are lower. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hardly unambiguous. The consensus at the last poll was for changing from 'incident' to 'controversy' as a compromise. Climategate was a pretty popular choice.91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not true. No consensus was found, and no change took place. "Climategate" was only popular among a small group of editors, which is the same as saying it was not popular. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but, quite apart from the fact that its hard to figure out the context, he does not talk about "the revealed actions". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Then get everything post-email-revelations out of this article as currently named, and into one called Climategate that can pertinently address all the various controversies. That does not require abandoning AGW support. Oiler99 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: You are well aware that both Scandal and Controversy is widely used by reliable sources. You can take a short look at this very short list Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Climategate usage That it doesn't fit your personal feeling about it is realy irrelevant and you – as an experienced editor – should refrain from comments like you do above: "as somehow "scandalous" or "controversial", and this is not a scandal by any reasonable measure. [...] agenda-driven behavior is called disruptive. -- Scjessey" [12]. Nsaa (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care what you think, since your editing behavior indicates that you're only interested in furthering your agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Right. I do NOT wish to be seen as pushing for the use of the word Scandal in the title of an article. I merely wish to point out that the perception of scandal is, and has been, widespread (for example, in the IOP report to Parliament[[13]]) and that the use of the title Climategate adds NO ADDITIONAL imputation of scandal. It merely reflects common usage. Those who shriek that there is no scandal in this matter seem to be blinkered. Oiler99 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

should climategate still redirect here?

There seems to be an awful lot of talk about climategate that doesn't really trace back to the email incident.[14] I think it might be time to start thinking about breaking the link and having a fuller page called climategate which can lead to redirects to there for glaciergate, africagate, et al. If any of these mini-scandals goes hot, then we can break them out into their own page but right now they're each too small to merit one. In any case, the idea that climategate = CRU hacking is no longer founded, if it ever was. TMLutas (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting and potentially useful link, a piece which uses the term as a blanket term for assorted Criticism of the IPCC AR4 and not this incident. Were you thinking of a sort of disambiguation page, with little more than links to relevant articles? It remains a pov term, and obviously care would be needed with neutrality. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there should be care taken to not slip into POV. I just don't see how we can avoid it without being POV. Climategate seems to be a popular term and growing in popularity. I think that a disambiguation page *would* be an improvement. An article itself might be even better. TMLutas (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
+ urbangate NCDC UrbanGate: how the urban warming was exported to U.S. countryside
I read that paper—potentially very interesting, but the selection of one site per state doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not putting much weight on it until either someone convinces me that it does make sense (hard to believe) or it is redone with a better selection process. I don't even like 5x5 but it is better than one per state. (just so there's no confusion, I'm commenting on "UrbanGate" not Kintisch)--SPhilbrickT 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Kintisch blog post was mentioned here before. It may indicate an expansion/change in usage, and if that catches on, it may be appropriate to replace the redirect with a dab. No rush, best to wait a while. Guettarda (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Institute of Physics

Have released a memorandum on climategate, I`ve not fully read it yet but am looking at adding some of the info from their statement here, any thoughts? It is the implications on the sciences which interested me and i figure this impact on trust in science is quite interesting. worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research mark nutley (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Same info as pdf from IOP.[15]91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking into why they take an interest at all. The question is answered in the history section of their website. 'Royal Meteorological Society' was (re-)merged into the organization in 1960[16]. The 'Science Board' took part in creating the draft. Unknown people to me[17]. 'Council' [18] ditto.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I reckon the reason they took an interest is this statement The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context They are worried that the scandal will impact on the peoples perception of the scientific method, people now doubt those who work in the climate related fields, how long before they begin to doubt scientists in other fields? mark nutley (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a plausible interpretation. Read again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mark. The emails have been acknowledged to be real and published unabridged. There is serious cause for concern.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the statement by Mark about what he thinks is the claim of the Institute of Physics? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Stephen, what part of this are you having trouble getting? credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context Seems like a fairly obvious interpretation to me, why do you feel it is not plausible? mark nutley (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree here, Stephan. How are YOU interpreting that statement if you believe Mark is wrong? --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
GoRight, read to the end of the thread before trying to restart old, and settled, discussions. We're not interpreting anything here as that is not our place. We're waiting and seeing what others make of all the evidence presented. --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're confusing me again. In what way is this discussion either old or settled? The section appears to be open for further discussion. SS made a claim that Mark's reading of the statement was incorrect, I don't agree but am open to being shown some alternative interpretation (since I might learn something), and so it seems perfectly acceptable to ask him how he interprets the statement since he believes Mark's reading was incorrect. This all relates to how the article should take such things into account so I fail to see how this is even off topic. Waiting is fine but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it in the mean time. So, Stephan, what do you think they meant if not what Mark thinks they meant? --GoRight (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

<-Have you seen the list that this submission is part of?[19] The government have asked for submissions with regard to the current enquiries, and this is just one of them. Why not rely on our usual policy of secondary sources, or at least wait until the enquiries have weighed all their evidence themselves and published something. Cherry picking and doing our own evaluation of individual items of evidence in advance of a committee report sounds to me like the worst kind of OR. I'd agree with a mention that the evidence is being collected and a link to the list page reffed above. --Nigelj (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A very good point. I see that the issue has been dealt with below. Let's wait and see. We are talking days or a week perhaps?130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
In the article, I have just extended the logic and consensus arrived at here on the IoP submission to this committee, to the UEA submission. This was discussed in far too much detail, based on nothing more than the primary sources represented by these submissions, and some correspondence between UEA and ICO. There are 55 such submissions listed, they are primary sources, and they will be evaluated by the committee, not by us. What is sauce for the goose (over the IoP submission) is sauce for the gander (the UEA submission). --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We have at least a WP:RS that says The real reason for AGW: Post Normal Science and comment on this issue ... "The Institute of Physics has ... It argues that the behaviour of the scientists involved has “worrying implications” for “the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”" Nsaa (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That is a Delingpole blog! We are talking about evidence to a Parliamentary Committee here. I'm afraid that does not cut it. I just undid swift reversion of my careful edit, where you said there was no discussion here. I see you have now found it, but you'll have to do better than that. Have you read the earlier comments in this thread? --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Delingpole`s blog is wp:rs what`s the problem mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
WMC`s comment in that diff makes no sense, the times article is spot on, and the times is also wp:rs sorry but nobody gets to choose which storys in a paper are reliable mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The IOP statement is a secondary source for the emails and the topics which the IOP is describing. The UK inquiry will be a secoondary source which describes the IOP statement. We use a newspaper article as a secondary source for a car accident, and then we use a history book as a secondary source about the news coverage. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


This source UK Physicists on Climategate Intolerance, sub prime stats, wider enquiry needed (archived) in The Register is at least WP:RS and then we have the nail in the coffin for the excursionists I assume. Now we have three WP:RS sources. The org. govenment site, Delingpole and The Register. Nsaa (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edit

The following edit has two major problems[21]. First, it cites a primary source without corroborating third-party reliable sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. Second, the content was added to the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article. Without multiple independent sources, there is no evidence that this is important enough to include in the lede. Therefore, I removed the material explaining that "Per WP:UNDUE. Find some independent, third-party reliable sources to include this in the article. Find many more to prove this is important enough to include in the lede". Dave souza then restored the content without addressing either of my two concerns.[22] True, a token reference was added but the cited source does not support the content. Indeed, the cited article[23] only contains a single sentence reference to the UAE's failure to comply with FOA requests, "The university also denied suggestions that it had breached Freedom of Information rules by refusing to release raw data.". It says nothing about "no breach of the law has been established; the evidence the ICO had in mind was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request had been for private emails". Since neither of my two concerns were addressed, I have removed this content from the article. Please do not restore this content until consensus has been reached on the article talk page. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the above, I still don't understand the grounds on which you removed references to these important statements. It looks to me as if you're reading some policy or other as saying we cannot report one of the principal party's statements about itself or its interactions with a key deliberative body. Perhaps you could try explaining in English why we shouldn't include such material. As for your objection to putting this in the lede, obviously the gravity of the alleged offence alone merits putting it in the lede. We don't need multiple sources to establish that. --TS 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Read the section above. The same reason no additions should be made. Let's wait to get the whole story.130.232.214.10 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
More on the whole story: CRU correspondence with ICO[24]. Article in the Times[25]. Trying to refrain from comment but unable... This University is complete s**t at damage control.91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've read through the article and the correspondence, and several points have been made clear:
  1. The ICO has essentially admitted that (as the UEA alluded to) media coverage has been inaccurate, misrepresenting ICO statements.
  2. That despite (1), the ICO cannot be bothered to clarify their statements because they don't feel responsible.
  3. Absolutely nothing has been asserted, and the investigation has months to run.
  4. Statements made by the ICO to this point have only been preliminary findings, and these may differ significantly from those found at the conclusion of the investigation.
Clearly, WMC's comment about the FOI stuff being "broken" is absolutely correct, although I disagree with the rest of his comment because we don't actually know anything yet. I submit that the most appropriate action would be to remove the ICO-related stuff from the article until the conclusion of the investigation, beyond a simple acknowledgment that the ICO are investigating. Claims of "breaches" or "no breaches" are premature at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the pointer to the Times article. This is yet another so-called "RS" which isn't; the headline is a fantasy invention whicb is not supported by the rather boring article text. The Times has a problem: it bought all this fluff, and now looks silly, so it won't back down gracefully. But that doesn't mean we should be using it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm puzzled about why you are puzzled. The Times is clearly a WP:RS. We, as editors, don't have the privilege of being able to personally select when we want to accept a given source as WP:RS on a case by case basis. WP:V is controlling, not our individual assessments of the truth. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The Times has made numerous errors in this, as has the Torygraph. We are not obliged to repeat the errors of "RS"'s, and should not do so, when other sources have made those errors clear. There are countless examples of errors by newspapers; wiki, correctly, does not insert them all William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you personally judge that they have made errors is irrelevant, actually. That's why WP:V sets the standard where it does. Your claims of errors are WP:OR and have no place in determining the content of the article. Policy controls, and WP:WEIGHT suggests that, in fact, we are obligated to include the views presented by the Times and the Telegraph because they are WP:RS. Presenting all of the views found in WP:RS and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions is precisely how things are supposed to be working based on existing policies, as written. --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, other more reliable sources than the Times and the Telegraph have documented the errors that WMC refers to in the coverage of these incidents. We are charged with considering the sum total of sources not just the reports by newspapers. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe you are somehow under the impression that my stance is that we should ignore certain sources. This is not the case. The main views expressed in WP:RS should be covered in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. So, if you have sources that contradict the Times and the Telegraph they should be covered in the article along with the Times and the Telegraph accounts.

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

We discuss the unreliability of the Times below, but more importantly, if one source is found to be less reliable than another, we use the more reliable source. WP:NPOV#Balance only applies when the two sides are equal. In the global warming politics, the science is fairly strongly in favor of what the IPCC has summarized and so sources that are honest about this fact tend to be more reliable in the same way that sources that don't deny the reality of evolution are more reliable when sourcing the Creation-evolution controversy. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
@WMC: You states "I'm puzzled by the pointer to the Times article. This is yet another so-called "RS" which isn't; the headline is a fantasy invention whicb" referinmg to this article University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ (archived 2010-02-27) in The Times published 7 February 2010. Your judgment that the article title is fantasy speaks for itself. Even if we should not analyze and judge a secondary source we can just take a quote from the text that fully support the title you are so categorical about (its 'fantasy'): "The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.". Nsaa (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


WMC: You have partially reverted the edit[26] without achieving any sort of consensus or even addressing my concerns. Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed addressed your concerns. You appear to have bought into the Times headline, which is fantasy. Read what the article actually quotes and a rather different picture emerges. It is now plain that there has been no finding of law-breaking by the FOI people, despite what this wiki article has been incorrectly saying for rather a long time. That is embarassing to wiki in general, and to the people here who have fought to include the bad text. A clear demonstration of why NOTNEWs would be a good policy to follow William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Not only did you fail to address my concerns, you didn't even bother to try. I asked for corroborating third-party sources to establish WP:WEIGHT and you've done no such thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That seems like something of a red herring. If you consider the facts in my previous comment, you should draw the conclusion that the media has made a mistake and have misrepresented the truth; however, the chances of the media actually admitting to their fail are essentially nil. There aren't going to be any sources in the MSM that say the MSM has screwed up. That being said, removing all the ICO-related stuff is the only surefire way of making sure the article is accurate per WP:NOTNEWS. We can revisit the matter when the investigation is over and we have real facts to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you feel that your stated position about the truth here is anything other than synthesis and WP:OR? This is precisely why WP:V is written the way that it is, namely to avoid the introduction of personal points of view based on WP:OR using exactly the type of argument you are attempting here. The solution is to present all sides from the media and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. --GoRight (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't care. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if you were right (you're not), you should already know that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Go start a blog if you want to complain about how unfair reliable sources are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you should care if you want to help rather than hinder. There's more to writing an encyclopedia article than concatenating the newspaper headlines you prefer and saying "verifiability not truth"! If something has clearly been shown to be imprecise or misguided, then it becomes questionable, and fringe. WP:PSCI tells us what to do about sources that "are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked." --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify why you believe WP:PSCI has any bearing on the present discussion of whether UEA breached FOI laws as reported in a WP:RS? I don't see the connection since this isn't even a discussion related to a scientific topic. --GoRight (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) The link WP:PSCI is a convenient shortcut to a section in the WP:NPOV policy. The section is called 'Pseudoscience and related fringe theories' (my emph). A newspaper reporting the results of an ICO prosecution that has not taken place is certainly "considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence". Read more carefully: There is nothing 'scientific' about some of the examples given in that section, and quoted above, either. --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologize but this hasn't really cleared the matter up for me. You've highlighted "related fringe theories" which seems, by context, to be referring to fringe scientific theories. I don't believe that the discussion at hand can be construed to be related to a fringe scientific theory and hence my continued confusion on this point. --GoRight (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"Read more carefully: There is nothing 'scientific' about some of the examples given in that section, and quoted above, either." - Having done as you suggested it appears that every bit of that section is talking about science and/or pseudoscience neither of which accurately describes the topic being discussed here which is legal. --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is the mainstream view. The claim that the OCA is wrong is the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree with you more. In this case, the misinterpreted statements have not been verified by additional reliable sources. In fact, they have been questioned (and some might say discredited) by the other sources available to us. So your WP:V claim is false, and your argument is wrong. Maybe you should "go start a blog if you want to complain about how unfair" reality is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that you are incorrect on these points. The fact that something has been questioned or discredited by other WP:RS (I assume you have other WP:RS for your claims) only implies that those assertions should be added to the article, NOT that the current assertions should be removed. Removal based on your own analysis would constitute WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Completely untrue. The fact that ICO said that the UEA has been verified by numerous reliable sources. In any case, let's get back on topic. Can you please address the WP:WEIGHT issue I described in my original post? The silence has been quite deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a source that reports on the MSM's misinterpretation of the ICO's statement, and we even have the ICO's letter that confirms that they aren't responsible for the misrepresentations made by the media. That's verifiable proof that the reporting that has taken place is wrong, and so WMC's suggestion that WP:NOTNEWS should've applied has proven accurate. All the ICO stuff, beyond a simple statement that they are investigating, should be removed from the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
But you're completely ignoring the fact that the ICO is sticking by its statement. If you have a specific concern about something in this article that might be inaccurate, you should state it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
And you are completely ignoring the fact that the ICO is sticking by its statement because they don't feel obliged to make the effort to clarify themselves when their statements are misconstrued. "The ICO is not responsible for the way in which media and others may interpret or write around an ICO statement." -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
So I'll ask a second time. What specific statement(s) in this article do you think is inaccurate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a really weird headline...it contains quotation marks but the quoted text doesn't appear to be in the article text. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Rumping makes an excellent point. WMC's edit is a textbook example of cherry-picking. We're not supposed to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the UEA unaware of the meaning of "prima facie" or are they hoping their readers are uninformed? They make it sound like a mere bagatelle. While prima facie evidence is rebuttable, absent a solid, convincing rebuttal case, the claim they violated the law will stand. they have a COI in asserting that the media are misreporting, and furthermore, they offer no evidence in support of their claim. Their claim would be like a defendant asking for a case dismissal because the prosecution claim is based upon nothing more solid than peer-reviewed science.--SPhilbrickT 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently one editor thinks we are not allowed to know what the ICO and a Liberal Democrat member of the committee think about the UEA's behaviour.[27][28] What follows is the deleted paragraph. --Rumping (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The ICO's response to the UEA said "The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this."ICO response to UEA 29 January 2010 Evan Harris, a member of the Select Committee was quoted as saying "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained." University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010
I suggest you re-read what the Deputy Information Commissioner actually wrote in his letter. He refers to a potential offence under section 77 of the FOI Act and refers to prima facie evidence. He speaks of the ICO looking at "the question of whether an offence under 77 had been committed" and says that "the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit". He does not say at any point that it is proved that the UEA committed an offence. Note that he speaks only of a potential offence. He makes it clear that because of the statutory time limit, he can't investigate any further. Saying that "the claim they violated the law will stand" misrepresents the position of the ICO, which is that an offence may have occurred but that question cannot now be resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
How bizarre this hair would be split in an article that prolaims an offense that never may have been committed in its title. The notion that the Statute of Limitations may have expired does nothing to negate the fact the law may have been broken. And since in this article the precedent is to allow an accusation to have merit and stand on its own until disproven. --David Crabtree (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Read as: Guilty until proven innocent!91.153.115.15 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The full paragraph that ChrisO refers to reads as follows:
"Meanwhile, the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. Given that this was in the public domain and has been discussed in the media and on various websites over a number of weeks, the ICO's view, as I indicated when we spoke yesterday, is that the University must have understood that the question whether an offence under section 77 had been committed would be looked at. In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit."
So, ChrisO is correct that this letter only speaks of a potential offence and so we should seek to represent it as such. The letter also speaks of cogent prima facie evidence which indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information and so it seems legitimate to mention this as well, along with the fact that no prosecution on the matter can be taken forward due to the statutory time limits. Is this a fair summary of the facts related to the content and statement made in the letter, ChrisO? --GoRight (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the correct thing to do would be to exclude this stuff until we have actual results from the investigation (per WP:NOTNEWS). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
@GoRight, I agree that your reading is correct.
@Scjessey, with all due respect, I don't think it's really credible to exclude the ICO stuff given that (a) it has received extensive coverage and (b) it is not just newspaper or blog speculation - both the UEA and the ICO have issued statements on the topic. We should mention it, but not give it undue weight or misrepresent it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - If you read my comments above, you will note that my recommendation was to remove all the stuff that was the "he said/she said" crap that was misreported, and cut it back to the salient point that the ICO is conducting an investigation. I did not suggest purging the article of ICO completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Scjessey, might it be possible to apply this same reasoning to the way Wikipedia covers the climate change controversy? By this I mean, until a few years ago, the New Ice Age theory was popular, and now the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has superseded it, but Wikipedia covers AGW as an established fact. Would it be more correct to reserve judgment, since these climate theories seem to have a short shelf life? Goodranch (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this a serious question? I think you'll find that anthropogenic climate change (I hate "global warming" because it is inaccurate and misleading) is a theory that has so much supporting evidence it is functionally equivalent to established fact. And each new piece of evidence improves the science and reinforces the theory. In contrast, the little spat between the ICO and the UEA has been going on for a couple of weeks, not decades. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not going to waste my time arguing the science with someone who evidently gets facts from those who deny it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
A wise decision, as it was getting quite OT anyway :) Englishmen here know better than me what weight ICO opinion has, but bringing up one statement out of 55 submitted and an outright deletion of Nigelj's pretty good summary seems to me doubtful and destructive editing. And not everything a RS puts forward is always worth of quoting without a thought, as recently proved by some (fortunately unknown) editor in our leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on this subject (crap). (getting long, this thread...) --J. Sketter (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Scjessey: Can you please stop these repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks against your fellow editors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
Can you stop misrepresenting everything I say and describing everything as "bad faith" and "personal attacks" when that's clearly BS? You're becoming quite adept at spin. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In addition to my previous comment, can you please remove or refactor your latest personal attack against me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Another misrepresentation. RFC/U is thataway. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to be nice and give you the opportunity to remove/refactor your comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it isn't your place to do so. Involved editors who get into a mode of issuing civility warnings to each other just increases tensions all around and invariably lead to hissy fits that could have been avoided in the first place. The Wikipedia has venues for dispute resolution for a reason. Use em if you think it is justified, and stop the article-space squabbling, please. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
WP does have dispute resolution mechanisms for a reason. And that reason is to have a forum to be used when individual editors cannot reach agreement themselves. The first option should always be an attempt to resolve without the dispute mechanism. AQFK deserves kudos for attempting to resolve without going to dispute mechanisms.SPhilbrickT 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
ROFL Sphilbrick. I prostrate myself and offer a thousand thanks to AQFK for being so darned nice to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a very wise decision of scjessey's part. We will note that he does not believe there is a wisp of scandal here, and does believe that 150 years out of the last 15,000 years of global warming are attributable to our species. Perhaps, in the interest of amity, he can refrain in the future from making provocative comments about these idees fixes. Oiler99 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being friendly with agenda-driven SPAs either. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment deleted, with apology.Oiler99 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What??? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I would just ignore that Scjessey, it is a rather nasty comment mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I remain astounded that Oiler99 has not removed that comment. If it isn't removed soon, I will be seeking sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it was hasty, uncalled for and unnecessarily contentious. Oiler99 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable journalism

noteThe above title was not the one I thought appropriate, the Times has often been a good source, but its present reporting on Global Warming looks very flawed. To a significant extent this may be due to sub-editors writing inflammatory headlines and first paragraphs to otherwise straightforward stories. However, in cases such as the misrepresentation of the ICO statement to the Sunday Times journalist, this seems to be down to the journalist. . dave souza, talk 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the inflammatory heading still seems to be causing confusion, I've restored my original heading. . dave souza, talk 08:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Times is acquiring a reputation for unreliable reporting of interviews, and the first reaction of Liberal MP Dr Evan Harris was reported by the same reporters as in this account. See this for further examples. These aren't reliable sources, but as far as is possible they check out with reliable sources. Until a less questionable source is found, I've removed the alleged quotation from Harris, and given a fuller account of the detail of the exchanges based on a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 13:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia now relies upon blogs from parties who have a partisan interest in the debate to usurp The Times of London? I would disagree, but I'll guess that the widely held consensus view of the English speaking world that the legendary Times[29] is both a reputable, and reliable source isn't really relevant here. Breathtaking, absolutely breathtaking.99.141.252.167 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)That does not make The Times an unreliable source. You don't get to pick and choose when you feel a reliable source is not a reliable source. That they reported on a blog doesn't make it a non-reliable source. The EAU's own releases are also self-published, without a secondary source reporting on them, and yet it now makes up over half of that whole section. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I used to read The Times, but in the late '80s the paper started going downhill in a hurry - probably due to the increasing influence of its owner. Now I wouldn't wrap my chips in it. The same thing happened to the Wall Street Journal. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the apparent assumption here that everything the Times says is reliable, even when it has been repeatedly proved wrong, is very odd. Inevitably this is a POV thing - people are supporting the Times because it says what they want it to say. I'm opposing it as a RS both because it says things I don't like, *and* because those things have been proved wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of those are blogs and don't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. I wish to remind you that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
We can't be seriously considering removing the Times from consideration as a Wikipedia accepted reliable source. The support and discussion of such an idea alone is very nearly surreal. 99.141.252.167 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about the reliability of the Times, not the reliability of the blogs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
That the Times has been very frequently wrong is obvious - so obvious, you aren't even troubling to defend it. Simply repeating "The Times is a RS" isn't a logical argument, merely an argument from Authority, which is invalid. In all things, we need to assess the quality of sources. Thet Times has been assessed. It has failed William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please attend to WP:V - the accuracy of a reliable source is not germaine to its inclusion in the article. He's not arguing with your claim because he's avoiding your baiting and following WP:NOT#OPINION to a tee, whereas you are violating it. You were an administrator and should no better. Please stop.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Argument from Authority is a well-known logical fallacy, but only in the context of a deductive proof. While deductive proofs are nice and desirable, they are not as prevalent in the real world as some would like to think. In particular, it is not the mission of WP to produce results consistent with deductive reasoning. For better or worse, we have deliberately adopted a model that accept arguments from authority. This may not be desirable to some but it is inevitable. (We can, and do have a mechanism to deal with situations where Authorities disagree, but we do not have the ability for an expert editor to override what RS says in the absence of an alternative RS.)SPhilbrickT 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Two words to consider when thinking about using The Times as a reliable source: Hitler Diaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Not everything printed turns out to be true. Maybe AGW is crap after all? Or maybe it isn't? The analogy with the Hitler diaries is compelling. BUT! It's not our place to decide. RS is RS. The Times as well as the Guardian are RS if we like it or not.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, this line of reasoning is nonsense. I suggest that if there's any doubt, those editors who believe this should take this to the WP:RSN where this argument will be overwhelmingly rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"The Times has been assessed. It has failed." The argument presented to support that assessment by another editor relied upon first, a blog, and secondly, a partisan blog committed to a political objective on this very topic. I'll suggest here that the ball is not in my court to defend - as there is nothing to consider here. The discussion has no more basis or relevance than a flat earth debate, as it is clearly evident that the Earth is round, and the widely quoted and respected 225 year old newspaper of record Times reliable. 99.141.252.167 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're taking people up for enforcement for rudeness, you really ought to consider whether such comments are acceptable. Meanwhile, the line of reasonning is valid, which is why instead of producing reasoned argument you've descended to insults. The Times isn't an RS just in virtue of existing, or of having existed for a while. Nor, indeed, is it uniformly a RS: it isn't a RS for the details of quantum theory, nor indeed for the science of climate theory. It has convincingly proved itself not a RS for matters related to Cl Ch either William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"you've descended to insults" I don't believe that I've descended to insults, but if you can point out which specific comment you believe is in violation, I'll be happy to consider refactoring or removing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This goes against the pillars of WP. You don't get to decide when a reliable source is not a reliable source. If you have a problem with a reliable source go take it to the appropriate area, but unless you can find a better reason why this source should not be used you really have no standing. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look bright for British press, does it? Slush. (It's just a conflict of two differing views). Telegraph is already going a mile down there. What's left? But this of course doesn't mean we should overwrite The Times as a RS. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I would hope that such a pillar of English journalism as The Times, or the NYT's for that matter, would not so casually be struck from the rolls just because some guy named Bill found himself personally "convinced".99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't go against *any* of the pillars of WP. Of course the consensus of editors in a given area gets to decide what is an RS; and of course the RS notice board doesn't have some uber deus-ex-machina authority to make binding rulings. The idea that the Times is a written-in-stone RS is a fantasy you're using in place of valid argument William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't know where you get that interpretation. You cannot deem concensus for a reliable source for an article. That would result in an "old west" style of governence to an article where essentially a majority gets to decide what is a reliable source. By your logic a majority also gets to make up a reliable source outside of the RSN. If that is really the belief that you have, it goes a long way in explaining a great deal of the problems that these articles have. Arzel (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia already works that way. Whether or not a source is reliable is decided by consensus (usually at WP:RSN, but not always). And just like in any other consensus discussion, that consensus can change. If a new consensus is formed here that a previously reliable source is deemed unreliable, that's perfectly acceptable. In an ideal world, some sort of corroboration at WP:RSN would be advisable, but not necessarily required. In fact, WP:RSN is usually were to go when a consensus cannot be found on the article, not the other way around. Also, some sources can be reliable for one thing but not reliable for another. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This was on my talk page for a while so i`m just copying in over to here [30] In this section dave has decided to use two blog posts Deltoid Blog from the same blogger to decide The Times of London has a bad reputation and is unreliable, he removed a section from the article based on this. However both the deltoid blogger and Dave are wrong, if either had actually read the link to the article which the blogger had lifted his story from then they would have read the following Update (31 January 2010): Daniel Finkelstein, Executive Editor of the Times of London, informs me that the Times and the Sunday Times are completely different newspapers, with entirely separate teams of staff and editorial policies, which I had not known. It occurs to me that all of my recent personal experiences, as well as Sell’s, have been limited to the Sunday Times. The Times has not written about my work since July 2003, shortly before my arrival in the UK. I therefore do not want to malign the Times unjustifiably. I would urge dave to self revert as his reasons for removing text are based on a false premise. Hope this helps with the talk going on here mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Touché ! :-) 130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The section removed reports the first reaction of one MP to newly revealed information, possibly taken out of context and responding to questions put by reporters rather than a considered view of the information. It's hard to see that reaction as balanced and significant in the longer run – it may be one day's news excitement for The Times, but the significant reactions to the various statements will come once the Select Commmittee gets to work. We can wait until then, rather than giving undue weight to this one quotation. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, so your use of blogs to make the assertion that the times is unreliable is besides the point then? possibly taken out of context and responding to questions put by reporters rather than a considered view of the information and this is wp:or you removed text based an bad information and then follow it up with OR, perhaps you should self revert, you have clearly broken policy here. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Mark, it's been a very busy day for me today but I considered the weight being given to the particular quote as the first reaction by one MP was being given undue weight, and we can wait for more informed statements from the committee. The Sunday Times has traditionally been independent of The Times, and indeed the worst of the problems seem to come from a journalist on the Sunday paper. I've had a look at this blog and the Times story it criticised, and haven't found the statement you quote – is that from Bob Watson? It was a strange article, as it got the Netherlands story wrong, and seemed to present Watson as suggesting that all the mistakes went in the direction of overstating the impact. Since there's only one definite errror, that's understandable, and there hasn't been the same recent search for errors understating the impact. The Amazon "error" seems to have understated the impact shown in recent studies,[31] but correctly reported the expectations at the time. The University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ - Times Online article dated 27 Feb. is by the same journalist. So, it's a first reaction of dubious notability, presented by a questionable source. . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
We dont' decide when a usually reliable source is unreliable. We just report what the sources are saying, attribute them if necessary, and let the reader decide for themselves. That's the way it works. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, although I suspect this source is still reliable, we do decide when an article in a usually reliable source is, in fact, unreliable, and we may use "unreliable" sources in the decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That hasn't been my experience. In my experience if two sources disagree, we note that in the article: "The Times says.... but the RealEarth blog disputes that, saying, ..." We report both. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, otherwise we are indirectly introducing WP:OR into the article. Our personal opinions and WP:OR shouldn't affect these decisions. Better to report all of the major views found in WP:RS and allow the reader to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Good research is an essential part of NPOV. We don't have articles that present every inaccurate daily news story as "the times says x, the independent says y, the Sydney Mail says z, the daily mail says something bizarre", whe research the issue to find the best and most reliable sources and present an accurate consensus view, showing major differences where there is a significant and notable disagreement. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Taking on the Times, (NOT a WP:RS!) eh? Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great? There is precedent in the Climategate emails, though: "Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" This, despite the poor Times merely repeating what the ICO had to say to the UEA. It's so hard to know what's right. Oiler99 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Thunderer isn't a reliable source on science, a subject for which academic peer reviewed publications are preferred. Your reading of the emails and of Times story is simplistic and wrong. . . dave souza, talk 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Dave, the quote is from the article deltoid lifted his story from. You link to this blog story Leakegate: If you refuse to talk to Jonathan Leake, he'll quote you anyway however the blogger only used a part of the story as it suited his narrative, if you follow the link to the source psychology today and scroll to the end you will see the quote. mark nutley (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, got you. I didn't link directly to that story, but to the "Leakegate" series. The Psychology Today article is a better source than the blogger, as is this Center for Evolutionary Psychology letter to the Editor of the Sunday Times. So, it's becoming pretty well established that Leake of the Sunday Times is not a reliable source. As it happens, he was the journalist who got and first published the ICO "statement". Any confusion between it and The Times is understandable as they both use the same website, you've got to look at the top left corner of the story itself to see which newspaper carried the story. In this case the question is the reliability of Ben Webster, who to my disappointment seems to be a questionable source on this issue. Since Wikipedia isn't news, we can afford to wait a bit and see what emerges during the various enquiries which start today, with the select committee in progress. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
dave, I’m happy with a position that peer-reviewed sources trump newspaper when the sources disagree on a point of science. However, I fail to see why that point is being raised—this is the CRU article, which is not a science article. Global warming (arguably) is a science article. IPCC and the related assessment articles are not, not is the criticism article. Perhaps we ought to make a definitive list, but I can’t image there being any question about this article. It’s a current affairs article, not science.SPhilbrickT 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To try to clarify it for you, see WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI for starters. These apply to all articles, and wherever science is mentioned we show minority or fringe views in the context of the majority expert view on the science concerned. We don't need "current affairs" articles, we need articles about historically significant events getting as near as we can to an accurate and neutral historical presentation of the subject. For example, the IPCC has various facets. WG1 is an excellent summary of the science at the time of publication, WG2 is a more problematic attempt to estimate the impacts of the scientific projections. WG3 sets out the issues of what to do about it, summarising the political choices, and the synthesis report attempts to summarise the three reports for policymakers in a way acceptable to government representatives. There is a significant social and political movement trying to discredit the science, and their motives and techniques are coming to the fore in the examination of how the CRU emails have been exploited. There's also a significant shift in how science is to be practised where interested individuals can use FOIA legislation to demand the emails of scientists, and want interim workings as well as the data and calculation/ programing that has already been made public, with the explicit intent of attacking the science rather than trying to independently replicate it in the traditional way. Lots to examine, but because its not purely science, that doesn't mean we present a fringe agenda without the majority expert view context . . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, how do you feel about the following argument which parallels the one you made above?
"The IPCC has often been a good source, but its present reporting on Global Warming looks very flawed. To a significant extent this may be due to sub-editors writing highly exaggerated sections for otherwise straight-forward scientific topics. However, in cases such as the misrepresentation of the state of the Himalayan Glaciers, this seems to be down to the the use of non-peer reviewed science."
Would you agree that we can now judge the IPCC to be an unreliable source for climate science since it has now been shown to have a poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight? --GoRight (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No errors have been reported in the Working Group 1 report on the climate science, to that looks solid. The Working Group 2 report on impacts and outcomes has one error, a bad one, on Himalayan glaciers. Some of the citations aren't ideal, but the info is reasonable. That's fewer errors in some 3,000 pages (iirc) than in a two column article in these newspapers. Not bad, but not good enough. Also note that AR4 is an accurate statement of the 2007 understanding, things have moved on in science. You were asking? . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble gleaning the answer to my question from your response. So does this mean you now consider the IPCC to be a WP:RS for climate change information, or not, given the errors that have been identified thus far? I ask because if your logic above is sound we should be applying it to the IPCC as well, correct? --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you stopped beating your wife? We should use careful research and critically assess the reliability of all sources for the statement concerned, looking for corroboration from other reliable sources. AR4 is a reliable source for the science of 2007, hence a check could be needed for more recent science. By "American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up."[32][33] Spot the difference? . . dave souza, talk 07:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, still having trouble discerning an answer to my question from this response. Do you consider the IPCC to be a WP:RS, or not, now that it has come to light that they have a poor reputation for fact checking as evidenced by the discussion above? A simple yes or no will be sufficient. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think he's saying you're begging the question when you write "it has come to light that they have a poor reputation for fact checking." Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. OK. Well this puts a different but related spin on the question to be asked, assuming you are correct. Fair enough. This then raises the question of whether he feels that he is likewise begging the question (or point) when he states "The Times is acquiring a reputation for unreliable reporting of interviews ..." in his comment above? It would seem that this is fundamentally the same type of assertion based on similar sorts of revelations as I am making here. Do you agree or disagree, Dave? --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Transfer to WP:RSN?

This strikes me as a bad place to have this discussion. If an editor wants to pursue the attempt at "de-reliabling" the Times, there's a noticeboard for that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.
Whoever dunnit, please sign your posts here and at RSN. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who took the Times there, but I've also added the blog[34].99.141.252.167 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Who said it was a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? It raises pointers to questions for further investigation, and the issue remains that The Times is proving to be a questionable source on the subject of this article. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The subject of this article is not global warming. In the above, I can't find your criticism with respect to the Times' reporting on law and ethics.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Useful advice

Please use this page to discuss how to improve the article

The Guardian is urging a cutback in the usage of the term "denier". [35]

We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics".
The editor of our environment website explains: "The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate. On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence. Also, some are reluctant to lend the honourable tradition of scepticism to people who may not be truly 'sceptical' about the science." We might help to promote a more constructive debate, however, by being "as explicit as possible about what we are talking about when we use the term sceptic".
Most if not all of the environment team – who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end – now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces.


I'm happy to note a lack of the term in here recently, so I hope it means we are leading the curve.--SPhilbrickT 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Inhofe calling for criminal investigation

Inhofe accused of turning climate row into 'McCarthyite witch-hunt' | Environment | The Guardian provides a reliable source for mainstream views of this development. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the noteworthy item here is the "Hacked climate science emails" title the Guardian is using to describe their section on what is known as "Climategate." Gee, I wonder how that happened.... go Wikipedia! 24.11.186.64 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. The Guardian titles that entire section using that terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Science and Technology Select Committee (uncorrected transcript)

Science and Technology Select Committee (uncorrected transcript). [36]91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like interesting reading. . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncorrected Evidence from the Institute of Physics

Please keep discussion focused on how to improve the article
Yes, time to get this material in: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece You can be sure it would be up in lights if the ICO had cleared UEA. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
These links from the UEA web site are useful, too: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICO+response+to+UEA Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncorrected Evidence 39 from the Institute of Physics states –
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner.
This sounds damning. One problem – as shown above and in this article, the Information Commissioner (ICO) has issued no finding, he made an (as yet undisclosed) statement to one persistent reporter that there was strong evidence sufficient to make a case that the university had failed to respond properly to a request to release private emails, but the ICO would not pursue that case as it was time-barred. The reporter misrepresented it as "hiding data", and the IOP seems to have fallen for that misrepresentation. Any introduction of this untested statement is premature. One question it raises is whether any climatologists belong to the Institute of Physics, as they would have been unlikely to produce such an ill informed submission. . . dave souza, talk 09:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"ill informed submission" - Do you have any evidence that their submission was ill informed, besides your own WP:OR that is? While I clearly respect you as a fellow editor I think it would be prudent to rely upon what reliable third party sources are saying when making these assessments, and not our own research. Would you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Much as I hate to agree with GoRight, he's correct, this time. The Times article is not misleading, and this is not a scientific article, so your attempt to apply the proposed RS/scientific guidelines is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The majority of academic physicists in the UK will be members of the IOP: it is the body that accredits both individuals and physics degrees. Of course many climatologists are not physicists. You can look for the initials "MInstP" or "FInstP" or "CPhys" on CVs, but most academics don't bother including professional affiliations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. In any mention of this statement, we should take Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk into account. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The IOP is not bound by the statute of limitations which some are using to confuse legal liability with culpability. As such they made an assessment (unanimously approved) based on the prima facie evidence in front of them. This was not ill informed, but rather the application of common sense. I found their "clarifying" statement to clarify little. The clarification notwithstanding, the original statement certainly did cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm. To now say that they reaffirm belief in the greenhouse effect is not saying much and doesn't change their original assessment in any substantive way I can see. JPatterson (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think your reading of the statement over reaches in terms of the implications the IOP were actually expressing. "1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context." is clearly a damning statement for the state of Climate Science but I think we need to be careful with statements such as "did cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm".

The IOP statement does NOT appear to me to address anything with that level of specificity. They are not meaning to imply that these emails have reversed any raw data or facts, because they haven't. What they have done is damage the perceived credibility and reliability of those raw data, key facts, and more importantly derived conclusions, or in the words of the IOP the integrity thereof. This reading seems consistent with both the IOP's initial statement as well as their clarification. --GoRight (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that the IOP statement is damming about process should not be read as implying anything about their beliefs about outcomes. Their clarification about outcomes should not be read as implying that they resile from their comments about process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
From their own statements, the physicists Dr. Andy Russell and Dr Ian Hopkinson consider the statement damagingly inaccurate, and are reviewing their membership of the IoP. This could prove interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
While I wrote to the IOP (as a member) congratulating them on their stance. So what? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
@Dave souza - This strikes me as rather self-serving (no PA intended, just a turn of phrase). The AGW proponents have traditionally made a big deal out of the statements made by the various scientific organizations regarding their positions on AGW because they saw that as a way to raise the bar above the opinion of individual scientists. Now we should suddenly care about individual dissenters in the ranks of these organizations? Dave, this mirrors the discussion above. If you feel that a couple of statements from dissenters neutralizes the official statement of the organization in this case, and if I can dig up some dissenters from each of the various scientific societies regarding their positions on AGW in general, would you support me in getting those put into the main GW/CC articles? Scientific opinion on climate change and Climate change consensus both come to mind since they quote those very opinions. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is clear that these scientists agree with my view (that the statement "cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm"), taken issue with above. In fact, Dr. Hopkinson says so explicitly. "2. Item 4 specifically casts doubt on the historical temperature reconstructions based on proxy measures whilst not acknowledging that such reconstructions have been repeated by a range of research groups using a range of methodologies, as described in the IPCC 2007 report." JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
@GoRight: That seems like a distinction without a difference. If "worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research" then it follows that that conclusions of that research are suspect even if the raw data is not. I read the IOP statement to be an indictment of the process, not the data, but the validity of the conclusions are just as dependent on the process as they are on the data. JPatterson (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the two are obviously related as the one affects the other. The distinction is rather like the difference between saying the resulting Climate Science conclusions could be wrong vs. saying the conclusions are wrong. I think the original IOP statement justifies the "could be wrong" statement but not the "are wrong" one. I also think that the "could be wrong" one is consistent with both of the IOP's official statements whereas the "are wrong" one is not. The point of the IOP clarification, IMHO, is merely to say that the emails themselves do not directly contradict the currently stated conclusions outright, they merely suggest that those conclusions could be wrong and so unless proven to be so via some form of re-verification they are still the official word on the topic. There's a subtlety in there somewhere.  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"The distinction is rather like the difference between saying the resulting Climate Science conclusions could be wrong vs. saying the conclusions are wrong." I agree completely which is why I said "casts doubt" and not "refutes" :>). But this discussion shows we need to choose our words carefully. Obviously some take "casts doubt" to mean something stronger than I intended. I think that we are all mostly in agreement that the IOP is mainly indicting the process and the article should reflect that emphasis. JPatterson (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The story is getting a bit more interesting, with Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission | Environment | The Guardian which I'm rather amused to note is front page news in today's Grauniad. Single column width, top right, next to the main story about "Lord Ashcroft faces new claims of tax avoidance". The IoP demands complete openness, but won't say who wrote the demand which rather contradicts its subsequent clarification of agreeing wholly with the significance of AGW. The main suspect runs a company offering "consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says of AGW "for many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant." This impressed an MP on the Select Committee, who said "Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise." Since WP isn't news it's worth waiting for this to mature a bit, get some popcorn. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I'm collapsing this section as per WP:FORUM.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of FoIA material

This edit removed information about the ICO's statements on the UEA's alleged breach of the FOI act (*pauses to catch proverbial breath*). The text was re-added. I figured I'd open a dialogue to make sure that re-addition meshes with consensus. If people feel it's necessary to propose alternative versions of the given text that could be productive as well. I suppose I'll interpret silence as consent.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO's statement is still removed, while UEA's "damage control" about the statement is now present. ICO found that UEA breached the FOI, but that prosecution was time-barred. I'm not going to restore the appropriate information at this time, but it should be done soon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of hidden at the end here: Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#UK_Government. The context for the statement (added by Dave Souza here) obviously dwarfs the statement itself, which might be remedied a per WP:UNDUE. Any thoughts on another version?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hidden is being nice. The majority of the section is now the EAU's response to.....what exactly. I was temped to re-insert it pending the previous discussion now that it appears that the primary reason for removal was the belief that "The Times" is not a reliable source. Clearly I don't see how anyone can make that claim per WP:RS, so the next step is to agree on a version. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, our article has never shown the ICO's statement as given in the newspaper. We showed an extract of a private letter from the ICO to the university, selected by the newspaper out of context to give maximum shock horror newsworthiness. Wikipedia is not news. The current version shows more, not less, of that letter from the ICO dated 29 January 2010. You can download all three letters at the link used as a reference, and read them yourself. According to the newspaper article, the ICO's statement regarding the university's submission is:
"The commissioner has provided the select committee with a copy of the January 29 letter to which the university referred in a press statement. This is so that the committee can be aware of the full contents. The commissioner has not been invited to give evidence to the committee but stands ready to assist the inquiry."
The response from the university was that: “The point Professor Acton was making is that there has been no investigation so no decision, as was widely reported. The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.”
It's worth noting that the ICO letter of 29 January states near the end that "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them, particularly when the ICO has not itself referred to penalties or sanctions in its own statement..... our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry." So far that original statement does not seem to have been made public, I'd expect it to appear during the Select Committee hearing or, if need be, in response to a FOI request to the ICO. At present the paragraph follows the "he said, she said" format, we can expand it to clarify these points, or seek to agree here a brief statement summarising the present state of public knowledge. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mixed up. The quote you give is a statement from the ICO that they have handed over the letter they sent to the UEA. It's not a quote from the letter they sent, and it gives no indication of their position regarding the CRU researchers.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thought I made it clear enough. On 29 January and 1 February 2009 the university and the ICO exchanged private letters. These are not public statements, though they've just been made public by agreement. As reported in the press on 25 and 26 February, the university made a statement. The statement by the ICO above, which doesn't say very much exiting stuff, is the ICO's response to the university's statement. Now wait for the select committee findings. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Did you say not very exciting? The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to image more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offense may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of elapsed time, is a very serious matter... I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.” [[37]] There are some who get very excited indeed about this, including, apparently, those who want to conceal, camouflage, and delay the imputation of scandal. Oiler99 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
@Dave Souza. The ICO quote you give states that they made a press conferencestatement. It obviously is not simply private correspondence. Even if it were, it's being reported all over the place, which suffices to make it notable. If we could get back to formulating the revised version and abandon this diversion that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Where? The quote I give says press statement, not press conference. Please read with care. Note also "our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry" in the ICO's letter. Just because rubbish is being reported all over the place doesn't make it right. In that same letter, the ICO say "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them". Nor, it appears, can they be expected to make their "statement" public. At Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk – "Former information commissioner Richard Thomas told the committee he could not comment on whether the university had broken the rules, as a recent statement from the information office suggested. But he suggested that there was a stronger case for public disclosure when data had been used to influence public policy, such as in climate science." Not a ringing endorsement of the "statement". . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, the ICO's statement emphatically does not indicate that they have found the UEA "guilty" of anything. It is very conditional. Note that it says "the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here." It does not say that such an offence has been found, or that it is proved, and goes on to say that there is nothing further that the ICO can do about it (including proving or disproving it) because of the statutory time limit. People who claim that the ICO has found the UEA guilty of a breach are simply wrong. The ICO has not made findings of any sort, as its letter makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless "prima facie" means something different in UK law than an US law, the ICO has not made findings, but the UEA "correspondence" web page contains misstatements. "Prima facie" means "on the face", and the ICO statement could not be interpreted as other than (including):
  1. Section 77 prosecution is time-barred.
  2. If it had not been time-barred, there would have been prosecutions for violations of section 77, unless evidence to the contrary was provided.
  3. The fact that prosecution is time-barred is "extremely troubling" (to ICO).
Now, we can't actually say that, even though no other interpretation is possible, but it is certainly inappropriate for us to imply otherwise, or to allow UEA's implications otherwise to be treated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
How is that inconsistent with the university statement? Also, where is the UEA "correspondence" web page? Do you mean their submission to the select committee? IANAL, but this would presumably be presecuted under English law (though it's a UK Act) and prima facie means that on looking at the emails, ICO think they could make a strong case in court. They hadn't consulted the university, so had not considered opposing evidence, and no "finding" could be made. . . dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care what the outcome of this little tiff is. I'm not currently arguing content. I'm just saying that your original statement had no bearing on the debate at hand nor supported your conclusions in any way (though perhaps you can find such support elsewhere). Let's stick with straightforward, rational talk (something like WP:SPADE). p.s. 'conference' for 'statement' was a typo. Sorry about that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see how this comment is aimed at improving the article, or who it's addressed to. . .dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It was addressed at you, sorry if that was unclear. I was hoping for a more focused discussion as those currently active have become diffuse, to say the least. It makes consensus exceedingly difficult to sort out.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
My comments are focussed on the issues raised on this page. . dave souza, talk 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The UEA press release (correspondence web site) is not a WP:RS, as being self-published and self-serving. The correspondence, itself is allowable as a record of the correspondence, not to used except as evidence that that is the official position of UEA and ICO, not toward the truth of the accusations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
ICO's official position is relevant, and UEA's may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It most certainly is a reliable source. According to WP:PSTS, it's called a "reliable primary source". As long as it isn't used to create original research, it's all good. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously coming from an actor in these events, the UEA press release can only be taken as an RS for its own views per WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion, and not even about itself or events relating to itself, per WP:SELFPUB (see Item 1--because the material is self-serving). Moogwrench (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've taken out the material that relied on citations from the UEA website in accordance with that policy. Seems commonsensical enough, anyway.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Moogwrench and Heyitspeter, you forgot the qualification "unduly" in that policy. The statement is reasonable and attributed to the university, and in addition it's published by the House of Commons. I've reintroduced a minimal statement showing the university's response to the ICO's as yet undisclosed email statement to a reporter. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA for operating in an unduly self-serving manner w.r.t. to precisely the report in question: "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained."University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010. Reconsider? Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
MPs have explicitly censured the UEA. More than one? Also this is again getting strange.. ICO accused UEA, then the Uni defends..., one MP critizises the response.. so? Things should really be given in normal order. Hence I don't think edits of Heyitspeter are the best possible. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to rise an issue why Heyitspeter thinks the letters published by a respected university are in "reasonable doubt as to their authenticity"? To my knowledge the content has not been challenged. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Good points. I've reordered the statements to make the sequence a bit clearer, have attributed the comment on the response as being reported by The Times, and have followed the balance shown in the source by mentioning the university's response. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
...and good edit but I feel this sections is starting to look bloated? Could/should the first part be updated?130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, J. Sketter, the answer is that I don't. There are 5 conditions on which Self-published sources are unacceptable, not just one. In this case the citation is unacceptable as per WP:SELFPUB because the first condition, that "the material is not unduly self-serving," is not fulfilled. The material is trivially self-serving, and a reliable source has reported that the material is unduly self-serving. That's about where I stand, and I do not see how a legitimate counter argument can be made.
That addresses yours and (apparently, though in conflict with past statements) Dave Souza's position. As for 130.232.214.10, hey! Welcome to the article and make yourself at home :) . It seems to me that removal of the self-published source will, in addition to bringing the article in line with WP policy, address your contention that it is too bloated.
That is to say, even if we decide to throw policy out the window for the betterment of the article, the self-published sources (and of course the responses to them) should go.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
A few issues. Firstly, it's not a self published source, it's a submission published by the House of Commons. The UK parliament is not the University of East Sussex. It's a statement of the university's position, specifically referred to in three news stories, and as such is a primary source for that statement and a perfectly valid source. Your claim that it is "unduly self-serving" is tendentious and untenable. Secondly, the Times story says in its opening paragraph "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament." In the UK, the headline and opening paragraph are usually written by the sub-editor to spice up a story. No mention there of MPs making the accuation, and it's the oldest trick in the journalists' book to say "has been accused" when the newspaper makes an accusation. One MP gives his reaction to the accusation, but doesn't make an accusation other than to say that such behaviour would be unwise. Please read sources more carefully. Also, no need to repeat the same reference after consecutive sentences, one inline citation at the end will do nicely. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I owe an apology to Heyitspeter for not understanding the real issue and being hasty. Still... of course UEA own material is self-serving, but I haven't yet figured out why that fact makes the material outright unsuitable to use for what arguments and counters has been made. And this is honest wondering; I understand there's possible problems in using primary sources like this, 'freely' picking this or that out of the source, and that the university is not any impartial&objective actor here (but no-one thought so).--J. Sketter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
"Untenable"? I backed up the statement with a reliable source, so that's by definition false. The 'not self-published' contention is just semantics. We both know it fits the policy. Your second point is variously incorrect and original research. Anything else?
I didn't notice there was a citation for the Times until I'd already reflinked and such and figured I'd let someone remove them if it seemed right. Thanks for doing so.Heyitspeter (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On these issues, The Times is a lot less reliable than the very reasonable statements made in the UEA's submission. The UEA's a reliable source for many things, including particularly statements of its own position. As it happens, this is also published by the House of Commons, a more appropriate link which gets away from the dreaded .doc to the more open .pdf. As for your edit inserting a "who?" tag, it clearly wasn't MPs. My suspicion is this source, but that would be original research so I'll confine it to the talk page. Do see if you can get The Times to publish a statement saying who they mean. And not just generic "MPs", names needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing "reasonable" in the statements made by UEA, as of yet. Self-serving (especially those on the correspondence site) and self-published (including the submission to the House of Commons), but not reasonable. That being said, I don't yet see a reliable source for "UEA is accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament" or "UEA is accused of making a non-misleading statement to Parliament". Article titles and subtitles often have no relevance to the article. However, Dr. Evan Harris certainly implied that UEA made an unwise submission. A further implication would be that it was unwise in that it attempted to mislead. But being an MP, he didn't outright say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Harris certainly noticed the oddity of the ICO issuing a "finding" with only prima facie grounds, and no consultation with the accused. See Q73–Q76 where he grills the ICO's predecessor on it, but gets the "I know nothing" defence. The report should be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Strange thing is that The Times ~did put the sentence in single quotation marks. --J. Sketter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
but that would be original research so I'll confine it to the talk page Hey Dave Souza, WP:OR applies to talkpages as well: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Heyitspeter, read it. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. . . dave souza, talk 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomen Omen

Please use this page to discuss how to improve the article

Scepticism, according to Diderot, is "the first step on the road to philosophy". With due respect to the Express's scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? Or dare I use the D-word? I'm talking about D for denier, as in one who denies (to those looking for fashionable hosiery who have been directed here by typing "denier" into a search engine: you are in the wrong place).

We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics".

David Marsh Mind your language - Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.140.64 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to remove the badge of shame

Obviously not happening now. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There's been very little discussion recently, with the article (and even this talk page) enjoying an extended period of stability. I propose that we remove the {{POV-title}} tag from the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Support -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It has to refer to a current, specific and fixable POV or bias debate, not just to represent a vague or general WP:IDONTLIKEIT from one or two editors in the past. --Nigelj (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    One or Two editors? Please. The !vote for vs the !vote against were virtually equal, don't poison the well with that kind of talk. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    He's probably referring to legitimate editors of good standing, rather than the meatery bussed in from the skeptical blogs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    The !votes were for some new title, not votes about whether this one was POV or not: don't re-purpose other people's statements. Some want a shorter title, or a more descriptive one, or a more emotive one. This one is as neutral as we can get, which is why it's lasted so long. Many of the new ones that get proposed don't make consensus as they have POV problems. This tag ended up there ages ago because a few people insisted it be there, in exchange for removing the straight {{POV}} tag, after they ran out of new reasons for that to be there, if I remember correctly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Its been there too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that this may change if/when any relevant enquiry reports. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Support, due to an apparent consensus that FAQ#5 is valid, even though there is no evidence presented either of accuracy or of consensus on that issue. Consensus needs to be established about the FAQ first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because of the undue weight given to the hacking incident in the title. This article is primarily about the controversy. The hacking incident is mentioned in the lede and then in the timeline. The topic of the controversy/response regarding content of emails is found throughout the entire article. One solution would be to excise the majority of the controversy/reaction stuff and place it in a separate article with an appropriate, consensus title. If the article were actually mostly about the hacking incident, then I would change my !vote to support. Moogwrench (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    The point is, you have had your say on the matter, and it has failed to achieve any sort of consensus. POV tags are used to call attention to an issue, to discuss it, and then see where consensus lies on the matter. Articles are not meant to be tagged in perpetuity to simply signal opposition to the status quo. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - no comment on title, I've found my life is much better when I stay away from that quagmire. Ignignot (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as consensus on the matter is clear. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    Consensus on the matter of the title is hardly, as you put it, "clear". The closing admin, Ucucha, of Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#Move_request indicated that he/she was "unable to detect any consensus". He/She pointed out that that the previous RFC at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change#Available_options_according_to_community "may have been interpreted as yielding consensus in favor of a move" to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, but since the subsequent move request was equal votes for both, their verdict was "no consensus". As I said, far from "clear". Moogwrench (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    That isn't relevant. The {{POV-title}} tag labels the title as not being "neutral", and yet there is a solid majority who have stated that the existing title is indeed neutral. It is fully supported by a preponderance of reliable sources, descriptive and accurate. And no consensus to change == no change. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    You are right when you say that no consensus to change == no change. If there is no clear consensus for the removal of POV tag, it should remain until a definitive alternative consensus has been established. Moogwrench (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    How much more definitive does it get? We are currently at 11 to 3. At the time of the removal of the tag, it was 9 to 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    Well, if you must go with that argument, after 8 more hours, we are at 13 to 9. As I said, hardly clear or definitive, especially after so little time. Moogwrench (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's time to remove it. --TS 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Have any of the issues I've brought up over the past three months been resolved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Collapse commentary as per WP:DISRUPT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • See, it's this kind of edit, and it's associated revert on the article page that leads people to think you're not working towards consensus. Which issues did you bring up that have not been adressed? Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
See, it's this kind of question that makes me think no one's paying attention to what I'm saying. What was my answer the last time you asked me this question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
  • (ec) "I think that mentioning the death threats in the lede is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Sure, it's notable enough to warrant mention in the article body, but not in the lede. To be honest, it appears to be an emotional ploy to draw sympathy for the scientists." I re-read the lede again today (I looked at it after your complaint and failed to notice any mention of "death threats," back then, but since that conversation wasn't going anywhere, I decided not to call you on it.) I still don't see any mention of "death threats." In fact, I don't see any mention of death threats in the lede since Scjessy removed them - which, ironically, was before the last time you complained about (non-existant) death threats in the lede. Perhaps your problem is that you feel that mentioning the police investigation at all is a violation of a violation of WP:UNDUE, but it's certainly not whatever bad-faith accusation you made before. Is that your problem? You want the police investigation removed from the lede? That's a the POV violation? Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The death threats are still in the lede although the verbiage has changed to "personal threats". The article title hasn't changed either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, did you just accuse me of making a "bad-faith accusation"? Please tell me I misread what you said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I accused you of accusing others of operating in bad-faith - "It appears to be an emotional ploy to draw sympathy for the scientists." People, if there are any, who are editing an encyclopedia to intentionally include emotional ploys are engaging in bad faith. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, then your accusation is unfounded and a violation of this article's probation. My comment was on the edit, not the editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to report me. I don't feel that anyone is operating in violation of the probation, except perhaps the edit warriors on the article page - of which you are one. Hipocrite (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, the sanctions are a failure. I resent your accusation that I am an "edit warrior". Except for one edit a couple months ago (which I regret), I don't believe that I have ever edit-warred on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
See, it's that kind of battleground-inducing comment that makes your comment to Jimbo so ironic. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) - Obviously not to your satisfaction, but "consensus" does not mean "as long as AQFK thinks it's okay." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Please. You have both singled out an opposing editor for leaving out justification where numerous (supporting) others give far less of it. Care to remove your comments as per the policies WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF?--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You must be joking. AQFK's response was obstructionism that offered nothing useful to the discussion, other than a reminder of earlier foot stamping demands. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • support William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title, for one, is still disputed by the huge number of people who signed in favor of alternatives in the recent move request.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    As I recall, that process was shrouded in accusations of meat puppetry and canvassing. Besides, that "debate" does not relate to the obvious legitimacy of the existing title. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The accussations of canvassing were unfounded and the editor making the accusations declined to persue dispute resolution and was formally warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)As you know, the repeated accusations of meat puppetry and canvassing resulted in a request for enforcement against the accuser (here) that ended in a formal warning that he not bring the accusations forward again.
As to your last sentence, of course the "debate" relates to the legitimacy of the existing title. I would like you to stop wasting everyone's time. Please comment only where you have something constructive to say.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We had a consensus, the edit was made, and then AQFK came in with another heavy-handed reversion with the usual "it's only okay if it says what I want it to say" question. Your comment is deliberately antagonistic and dripping with misrepresentation juice. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"We had consensus"?!?! Holy cow! It is highly inappropriate to declare consensus based on a few hours of !votes/ discussion; in my opinion, it is a perversion of the process of discussion on Wikipedia. RFCs usually last up to 30 days, especially if regarding contentious material. People who contribute infrequently to this article and other Wikipedians, not just the regulars who check the article every 30 minutes, ought to have the ability to comment on something before it is either decided or archived. For this reason I was pleased that Nil Einne lengthened the time 'til achive for this page. 2 days was ridiculously short, promoting people to quickly and constantly post the same arguments rather than providing a place where thoughtful debate could occur. Moogwrench (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That's just garbage. This isn't an RfC. It was a simple discussion that quickly reached consensus by virtue of the overwhelming support for the move, so an editor did the deed. The tag is being used as a badge of shame by people who eschew Wikipedia policies and guidelines to further their agenda. This accurate, non-ambiguous title is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't call my edits garbage. Also, I used an RFC as an example--I know what one is. The point is that all discussions are meant to take time...moves and AFDs take at least 7 days, RFCs longer... the point is, we should be trying to solicit opinion, even opinion that doesn't agree with ours. To summarily declare just a few hours after starting a discussion on a contentious point that consensus had been reached is a tad quick. Moogwrench (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I realize there is some debate surrounding the title, but I don't think that alone merits the tag. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title and numerous other issues... that will be discussed in length when new info appears from the ongoing investigations shortly.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC) - 130.232.214.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strange comment Scjessey... We have a fairly similar track record (looking at the last 500 edits)?130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for change The proposal to remove the POV dispute tag was made at 07:31, March 9, 2010[38] and implemented less than 4 hours later[39]. How did that give everyone enough to time discuss the issue, let alone reach a consensus? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Strongly Express Astonishment - Man, I was going to sign in to support this as a protest because nothing could speak more eloquently to this article's shame than its attempt to pretend nothing unusual is happening. I then discovered the tag had already been removed. Awesome! This is breathtaking in its audacity. Why not really take this bad boy all the way and start lobbying the rest of the Internet and all the other language Wikipedia versions to also switch to this most excellent title? As a matter of fact, what prevents you from simply forcing this into the other WP versions as you have here? Seriously, this gives Wikipedia such a black eye. This might arguably be the most contentious POV article title of any note in all of the millions of articles here at WP. There is absolutely no meaningful consensus that this article title is anything but a grotesque distortion of the truth. To say it is merely POV is to dignify the title. WP started out very well and still has some good meat on its bones, but its takeover by the Ministry of Truth is disturbing, to say the least. Round one definitely goes to the tenacious cabal rewriting history here. I said elsewhere that it might take many months or longer for this to correct itself. I guess that might even have been optimistic. However, I am still (perhaps naively) quite certain that this will eventually correct. This article has no merit on its own. What interest it garners is only by virtue of its association to Climategate -- the thing it is improperly attempting to conceal. I expect it may remain here forever, but eventually only as an example of what *NOT* to do. The sane and sensible wanted the Climategate redirect to be replaced by an actual article whose title is its subject (Climategate). The reason things went quiet with respect to those who would oppose such a change is because they became discouraged by the relentless harassment of a clearly POV driven group of editors who simply would not allow the truth to be uttered about Climategate here at WP. Whether tagged as disputed or not, everyone here knows for certain that it is most definitely in dispute. This article is, by its very nature, a shameful stain on WP. DeepNorth (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For reasons mentioned by the various editors above. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is clearly a PoV problem with this article. If nothing else (and there is plenty) then the title itself is a significant PoV. I cannot understand why wiki would label the incident a "hacking" incident, essentially on the say so of the alleged victim. Thepm (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Just reading this section, it seems clear that there are still editors who feel there are POV issues. I would like to see more action towards identifying those and working to correct them, but I can't justify removing the tag at this time. Arkon (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The title expresses no point of view at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget the rest of the tag. It in full reads "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed." Bolded by me. Arkon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Per Arkon. Additionally, the many comments made by Scjessey are certainly not civil and they certainly do not improve the situation. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please forgive my attempt at levity, but that may be the first "Per Arkon" on Wikipedia in the 5 years I've been registered. It's like a Steam Achievement! Arkon (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Because the investigation is ongoing, many people have taken a wait and see attitude. In fact, those trying to make this change are the same ones that have insisted that we wait and see. So, as soon as the "other" editors decide to accept their suggestion, there is this bad faith attempt to make changes and to force them through before anyone can even respond. Q Science (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many things wrong with the article's title. First of all, it is unclear if it even was a hacking, which is a very real violation of WP:BLP. Second of all, the most notable thing about Climategate (which redirects to "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident") is not the fact that the emails were stolen, but what the emails say. If some of these emails did not demonstrate at least less-than-savory intentions on the part of the people writing them (mostly Phil Jones), then nobody would care. If you doubt this assessment, I propose we find an example of someone stealing viagra spam or an email conversation about a local Chinese buffet from the official email box of the FBI's director, Robert S. Mueller III. It might get some footnote in a mainstream paper, but nowhere near the attention that Climategate received. Suggesting that I'm wrong on this one is tendentious at best, and indicative that the one suggesting it is not here to write an encyclopedia, but to write a public relations piece on behalf of the CRU. Then there's the fact that people have actually managed to remove discussion of the emails themselves from the article, and forked it over to Climatic Research Unit documents. Oh, and then there's the fact that "Climatic Research Unit documents" isn't even in the "See Also" section. Jeez. Not only is the subject matter and title tendentious, one-sided, and POV, but the entire article is. No. This "badge of shame" should remain on there until such shame is no longer merited. Macai (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    Do we include in See Also links which are in the body of the article? Also, enough bad faith assumptions? Hipocrite (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. We could all do with a break from the endless bickering about the title. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The easiest way to put the title debate to rest is to choose a more neutral term, like "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". That title makes no assertions whatsoever. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That would imply that the content of these emails carries any notability in any sense whatsoever. We can't have that, can we? No, we can't. Macai (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Heyitspeter last removed 'e-mail' from the current title.[40] I don't remember any discussion on Talk that time - the only discussion I saw was when people couldn't find the Talk archives after the move.[41] I don't know how we'd get on debating putting it back in. --Nigelj (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I opened a section at the talkpage prior, there was a discussion, then I made the change. I'm not going to take the time to find it myself just because you can't, but I do assure you it's there. Also, I think the average NPOV editor will find it very obvious that Macai was being sarcastic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Hacking" is still widely considered pejorative, and there appear to be a substantial number of editors who find it POV in esse. Collect (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    Who cares? The term is supported by reliable sources, and they don't even use quotation marks. And what is this "pejorative" nonsense? "Hacking" describes illegal access of a system. "To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization" is exactly what occurred. There is no dispute about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed. The only way there wasn't 'hacking' at CRU would be if the management had asked a member of staff to publish this zip file onto the internet. There'd still be hacking involved, though, as someone tried to hack it onto the RealClimate website server later, on 17 November. There is no question that it was a hacking incident. --Nigelj (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, the first clause is nonsense, unless you want to use an unusual definition of "hacking". If it was done by an insider who had legitimate access to the material, there wasn't hacking of the CRU system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    That is incorrect. Look again at the definition above: "To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization". Any 'insider' who may have moved the file was not the legal owner of the data. The e-mail texts were probably legally the property of the employers of the scientists who wrote them (or maybe that of each of the scientists themselves, depending on their contracts with the university). So if any member of staff published them onto the internet, they did so without authorization either from their senior management, or without the permission of each and every email author if that's their legal setup for IP created at work. Either way, doing so without authorization is hacking. No question. And it's in the FAQ of the Russell enquiry website that it's hacking, and theft. --Nigelj (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    Not to split hairs too finely, but there is a difference between accessing something without authorization and publishing something without authorization. Hacking deals with initial access to the information, not its subsequent dessemination. A staffer might have had authorization to access the information, but not publish it. Usually, one refers to the unauthorized release of information from one authorized to access it as a "leak," not a "hack". I personally think that it was hacked, but what I think doesn't matter. In any case, the title is, as Jimbo pointed out, a "silly" diversion from the actual content of the article. Moogwrench (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    If it's just a "silly diversion", why did you make a big issue out of the removal of the tag? The inaccurate, non-neutral "Climategate" is handled by a redirect, so that should be an end to the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The redirect says WP thinks Climategate = "CRU hacking incident" which is neither accurate nor NPOV. JPatterson (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the text that I link to in my comments. Jimbo specifically said the following:
I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something. (emphasis mine)

Jimbo Wales

Jimbo also said:[42]
There was a case to be made at some point that Wikipedia could not and should not endorse the nickname, because it would be POV pushing to do so. However, that point has long since passed, and it is now overwhelmingly the name of the incident in all media. You can find examples of the use of the term by people in favor of the term and against the term. It is no longer POV pushing to call it that - the name was coined, and the name stuck. It is an abuse of the notion of NPOV to claim that no article can have a title that some people don't like, see for example Swiftboating for just one example of a political term that stuck.--

Jimbo Wales

130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo is saying 1) that Climategate is what the article should be called, and 2) that using instead the silly title "hacking incident" distracts from the real content of the article, and feeds into claims that Wikipedia is supressing something. The current name of the title is the "silly" diversion, not the debate. Moogwrench (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That is one very biased definition. Wikipedia provides a more correct one. To quote
    Computer programmers often use the words hacking and hacker to express admiration for the work of a skilled software developer, but may also use them in a negative sense to describe the production of inelegant kludges. Some frown upon using hacking as a synonym for security cracking -- in distinct contrast to the larger world, in which the word hacker is typically used to describe someone who "hacks into" a system by evading or disabling security measures.
    I disagree with the word "some", actually "most" computer hackers disagree with the use of the word "hacking" to include theft of data by "security cracking". And if the data was released by someone who actually had access to it, then expert computer knowledge was not necessary. I hope this helps to explain why I strongly object to using that word in the title. "Unauthorized release of documents" is descriptive, "hacking" is misleading at best and probably not true. Q Science (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    But the key point here is that not a single reliable source, none whatsoever, says that it was a "leak" or anything like that. A preponderance of reliable sources say that a hacking took place and data was stolen. Arguing over the meaning of "hacking", which is obvious to anyone with a soupçon of a vocabulary, is a waste of time. Use of the word in the title is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    It's interesting that certain parties seem to be doing their best to ignore the RealClimate hack, presumably because it doesn't fit their speculations about "leaks". Another form of denialism, I suppose. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article puts way to much emphasis on a non-notable part of the controversy. To wit:
1) The title
2) Emphasis on threats in the lead in an obvious attempt to demonize skeptics with guilt by association
3) The time line only deals with the hack
4) No mention of the the IoP evidence statement
5) Short shrift given to view of reputable scientists who see serious implications for the integrity of the science in the methods and processes revealed in the emails.

JPatterson (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep a list of the specific POV disputes with the article

Scjessey, you removed the list of specific issues editors have raised with the article.[43] Whether or not we agree with the specific items on the list, we should at least keep track of them. How else are we going to move towards removal of the POV tag? If you don't like the specific wording used in the list, I don't blame you. I didn't either. I just copied and pasted the list from HeyItsPeter's post with some slight toning down of the language. Just reword it in such a way that you feel is more neutral. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To say that addressing the POV issues w/ the title is something that we have "to do" suggests that it has to be changed (I realize that allot of editors feel this way, but I don't think it should be asserted as fact). Out of curiousity, can someone point me in the direction of the most recent poll/RfC on the title issue? NickCT (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm saying this wrong, but the to do list should include disputes that need to be resolved, not necessarily content that needs to be changed. That is to say, just because something is disputed, doesn't necessarily mean the dispute is legit. We may examine the item and reach a concensus that no action need be taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To do list

Please do not use the to do list to promote an agenda. It must use completely neutral language that is acceptable to absolutely everybody, or it will almost certainly become yet another battleground. This edit by AQFK is, of course, completely inappropriate because it listed items wholly unacceptable to many editors here. It should only list items that are universally acceptable, such as "improve references for section on _____". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it wasn't my list. If you don't like the wording, just change it. This is a collaborative effort. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not about the wording. You cannot use the list to push an agenda. To do lists are for noting ambiguous goals, housekeeping tasks, etc. Anything on the list must be universally acceptable to all editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not pushing an agenda. Hell, it wasn't even my list. I'm just trying to keep a list of POV items that we need to address to get rid of the POV tag on article. Do you want to get rid of the tag or not? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
From WP:TODO:

What a to-do list is

  • Place to help give the page clear direction
    • General goals for the page
    • New sections to be added
  • A place to note facts which need to be found or checked for the article
  • A place to note sections which need expansion or other alterations

What a to-do list is not

  • Not a place for discussion (use the talk page for that)
  • Not a place for experimental ideas (these should be discussed first to reach a consensus)
  • Not a place to express a point of view
It doesn't matter who originally wrote the list. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Can I assume that since a list doesn't violate any of the above, you now withdraw your objection? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be deliberately antagonistic. Your edit to the "to do" list clearly added a list of things desired by only one group of editors ("skeptics"), framed in a manner which ignored the concerns of the other. That's POV-pushing. So no, I won't be withdrawing my objection. The neutrality of the "to do" list will be vigorously defended. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I used HeyItsPeters JPatterson's list because he was the only editor I saw who bothered creating a list (in now collapsed discussion). I can't put any of your POV concerns in the list because you don't have any. You said the article is already NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The "to do" list should not include a list of POV concerns from anyone. Only stuff we all agree to should be in the list, as indicated by the instructions. This shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Then how do you propose to resolve the POV dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That's another matter entirely, and not related to the "to do" list (and not suitable for this thread). Besides, it's not me who is disputing anything so it's a waste of time asking me. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A todo list with POV disputes is not related to the POV dispute? Anyway, humor me. How do you propose to resolve the POV dispute? Let's hear some good ideas, not objectionist rejections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not here to humor you. I am not a clown. I am not disputing the article as it currently exists - if you dispute the current text, it is up to you to propose a solution. In the meantime, please stop trying to bait me. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I did propose a methodology for a solution which you rejected. I'm asking if you have any counter-proposals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I've gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate skeptics, but in each case I have found an unwillingness to compromise. When an inch is offered, a mile is demanded. I've lost my desire to bend over backward for intransigent editors seeking to pretend climate change isn't real. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This has seemed like madness in the past: if anybody who likes can add any unsourced demand to the conditions of having a {POV} tag, then there is no hope of ever removing it. We go through these points over and over again, listing the sources that support the current text, and asking for the RSs that support the proposals. We get blogs and opinions from the right-wing press; we say that's not good enough; and just go around again. These people won't stop until the article is called 'The death of climate science' and the text says that all scientists are proven crooks and the whole thing was a communist conspiracy. It's easier to let them have the tag, and just keep countering the arguments, which is relatively easy based on WP policies. --Nigelj (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)