Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 6 January 2010

Template:Community article probation

Template:Shell

A news item involving Climatic Research Unit email controversy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 November 2009.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"? A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails? A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source? A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain? A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person. A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article? A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do? A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content? A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that? A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 28 November 2009 (archived) and 21 November 2009 (archived) and 31 December 2009 (archived) and 27 December 2009 (started) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) and on 23 December 2009 (active as of December 24, 2009)

A rewrite of this article is in progress, the outline is being developed at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/outline. Please discuss the rewrite at #Rewrite

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

New Title Suggestion V22.0 Alpha Release - Free discussion for ideas, not positions!

I've been trying to think of ways in which we might be able to break this frustrating deadlock over the article's title. With a piece of paper and a pencil, I did a Venn diagram to look for common elements that we could agree on for a title. Here were my two sets of data:

From these sets, possible titles can be created from common values. I have eliminated obvious problem results like "Climatic Research Unit controversy" because they lack enough specific information, and removed adjusted for singular/plural mismatches:

• Climatic Research Unit documents controversy
• Climatic Research Unit document release controversy
• Climatic Research Unit files controversy
• Climatic Research Unit file release controversy
• Climatic Research Unit data controversy
• Climatic Research Unit data release controversy

All of these would seem to have some merit, and I hope these examples can be used to generate new discussion or promote new thinking. I quite like Climatic Research Unit data release controversy because it encompasses e-mails, code and other data, keeps the manner of release ambiguous (neither "theft" nor "leak"), and acknowledges that a controversy exists; however, I would prefer to see this thread used as a means to promote discussion about common elements instead of using it to advocate a specific position. I hope this proves useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Any of these would be much better than the existing title. Unless anyone has any new points to make, I suggest that we simply declare consensus reached, let you pick one, and ask an admin to unprotect and carry out the move. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I as impressed with the ingenuity as I am tired of the topic (which is to say very). I think Scjessey's preferred title is spot-on. I also think consensus has been reached and agree with itsmejudith. jhe_iv (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I can agree that 'the more accurate the better', and Scjessey's proposed title is far better than the current, I specifically vote for Climategate, this is definitely a scandal and a coverup, even if you're too shy or afraid to read the CRU emails and munge through the data (I'm neither shy nor afraid), you can easily look at what people like IPCC scientist John Christy and people like him say:

No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

The consensus the aforementioned 'white washers' keep talking about in these talk pages is a complete fabrication on their part, there is evidence of a scandal, a cover-up, there is evidence data was manipulated to reflect fallacies. In short the scientists making the claim (CRU for example) have the burden of proof, and that proof in science comes in the form of peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results.

If the vote is down to the current title or Scjessey's proposal of Climatic Research Unit data release controversy then I definitely vote for the latter, though this is definitely '-gate'-worthy

Adam.T.Historian (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like either of your last two – the ones using the word "data", as that is less specific than "documents" or "files", since what was leaked was more than just documents. Well, now that I think about it, maybe "files" is the most broad of the three. Whatever. I vote for whichever term of those is the most broad.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I, too, like Climategate, but there are many problems with this (all previously enumerated but I'll rehighlight -gate as I think its instructive and demonstrates the power of the suffix). That being said, I am hereby begging editors who read this section to not oppose the move because you favor "climategate" but rather opine on whether the suggested titles are better than the current one. After the move, you are free to propose climategate again (I don't think climategate will be accepted for at least 6 months but who knows) but please don't derail this discussion as has been involuntarily done to previous move attempts. These titles are much better than the current one and we should take every inch improving this article that we can get. jhe_iv (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(After about 20 billion edit conflicts have triggered a rise in the sea level) ... All of these are improvements, and thanks for the diligent effort! There's a question implicit in the title, about what the focus of the article is. If it's about the "hacking incident", then we are covering the unauthorized access and disclosure of the files - who did it, how, why, etc. If it's about the emailes / files, then it is about the conduct of the climate scientists - what they were talking about, what they were doing, and how that differed from the normal actions of scientists studying a subject. If it's about the climategate controversy, it is about the people and groups who raised the alarm following release of the files and began advocating against AGW (is that the right acronym?), how that issue reached the mainstream, and what resulted. A comprehensive article that is about the entire incident would have to address all three and give due weight to each. So far this article is not comprehensive, and focuses almost entirely on the hacking of the emails, and what the emails contained. The scandal surrounding that is barely addressed at all, but depending on how it plays out is probably the main event here, unless the substance of the allegations against the scientists is born out, in which case the main focus would be on their behavior, or unless the perpetrators get caught and there is a lot of fall-out from that, in which case that would be the main event. It's all a little early. Having said all that, I prefer "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" if we're going to have one article cover both issues. First, most of what was released were documents, not data. Second, the salient thing is that they were documents, not that they happened to be in files - electronic or otherwise. Third, the word "documents" implicitly includes what happened to those documents, i.e. they were hacked and released. Adding the word "release" narrows the subject, and does not necessarily include the question of what was released. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I support all of the above proposals as an alternative to the current title, so the exact choice is not all that important. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy--SPhilbrickT 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - it's a good, lucid compromise. »S0CO 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy Troed (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (shrug) I respect the "anti-Climategate" position, but we are the only ones calling it something else. Nightmote (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but if this article is not named climategate, do you favor any or all of these over the current title, "CRU e-mail hacking incident"? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wikidemon. I believe that we are arguing over what this article is named because we cannot decide on what this article is describing (a data theft versus a question of scientific malfeasance), and until we have reached consensus on the scope of this article, the title will be under constant attack by one group or another. A fork has been proposed, and was attempted. I do not support the fork, but truly understand why it is proposed. Nightmote (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tongue firmly in cheek, I will immediately support "CRUTape Letters" if it is proposed. I read that and thought it was brilliant! Nightmote (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If truly pressed, I might go with "CRU Data Controversy". It avoids theft vs hack altogether and skips the "-gate" thing. Not going to fly, though. But if pressed, that's where I'd go. Nice and short and reasonably open-ended without being too vague. Nightmote (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed that in the UK (the locus of the incident), "Warmergate" seems to outstrip "Climategate" for popularity. I didn't have that in my Venn diagram, but it wouldn't have changed the list of common elements. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - with the intention of supporting Climategate at the next available opportunity Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It will never be called "Climategate" because Misplaced Pages does not use POV -gate names to title articles about current affairs. A -gate name is even cited in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions as a POV name disallowed by NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Never is a long time, ChrisO - I do see a Watergate article in Misplaced Pages, after all. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there's a Watergate article, but that's because the scandal was named after a place - the Watergate complex. The term "Watergate" had no inherent implication of scandal. By contrast, every other instance of -gate is derivative and POV, since the term is used to "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up", as one source puts it. That's why Misplaced Pages rejects the use of -gate in article names about current affairs, because it slants an article from the outset. Compare Killian documents controversy ("Rathergate") or Dismissal of US attorneys controversy ("Attorneygate"). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly here on these talk pages and to "insiders" it has become a "controversy". However, to the general public, like me, it is an "incident". And, as I stated in the voting section, I strongly oppose "Climategate". Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you support any of the above titles over the current one? What if they used the word "incident" instead of "controversy"? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This is referred to as a controversy at all possible levels in . I've linked to CNN and a Nobel Prize winners panel to that effect at this talk page. Troed (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose "data release". Far too vague and ambiguous. As others have pointed out, "data" has a specific meaning in this context, since it can refer to scientific data - which is of course not what was stolen from the CRU. "Release" is highly misleading, since it implies that the CRU released the stolen material, which of course it did not. I could live with "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy", however. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Have you even seen the CRU data released? There is a great deal of 'scientific data' in it, models, custom programs, etc. Also, there was no data of a personal nature, so who was it stolen from, the British people in order that the British people could access the data? It's an ongoing investigation, your strong support of CRU isn't really helping the naming conventions discussion IMHO. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The stolen material certainly included material of a personal nature, from what I've read about it - i.e. private correspondence - and it belonged to the UEA, not to the "British people". British universities are not run like American ones. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the American model of information ownership exists everywhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of reading about it, you'll go and get a copy of the CRU data, then you will see that the emails are all related specifically to the work the CRU was doing. I mean the collection is so precise as to imply the possibility that it may've even been compiled by the CRU in anticipation of a UK FOIA request, since it's an ongoing investigation we can only wonder about this point. But regardless it is obvious that there was a great effort to disallow inclusion of all e-mails of a purely personal nature. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Much as it pains me to add to the bike shed: "data": absolutely not, there has been controversy over "CRU not releasing their data" which would cause obvious confusion. "documents": no, neither emails nor code are usually referred to as "documents". Indeed, I keep my documents in a separate folder from both my emails and my code. Simonmar (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Simonmar, couldn't both of these things be contained in different sections of an article named Climatic Research Unit data release controversy? I mean they are definitely related are they not? The CRU consistently refused to release their data, then their data is released without apparent authorization, wouldn't these both be fitting topics under an article named 'data release controversy'? Seems like a natural evolution, at least in my mind, one being the result of the other? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What about "information"? Would that not cover everything we need it to?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

←Reminder: I started this thread in the hope of getting people to come up with ideas for how to find common ground. It was not intended to be yet another place for people to stake their position and vote on stuff. Please try to stick with the original plan if possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - I agree with Gandydancer that incident might be better, but I do think the proposed formulation is an improvement. --DGaw (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I prefer Climate Research Unit documents controversy but any of those are better than the current title. BTW, as a software developer, I would consider source code to be a type of document. While I don't have any experience with FORTRAN or IDL, I have worked with C, C++, C#, Visual Basic (classic and .NET), COBOL and RPG, and in every single case, the source code files have been plain old text files that can be opened in any text editor, word processor or IDE of choice. So I consider "documents" to be an inclusive term. But like I said, any of the above are better than the current title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• oppose wasting more time discussing the article title. But since I'm here, "data release" is obviously wrong - it was email hacking William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Reliable sources focus overwhelmingly on the emails, not on "data." And to call this a "release" is absurd -- there's been no serious proposal by any reliable source that the emails were "released" which implies a voluntary action. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Climatic Research Unit data release controversy has a majority consensus so far, and might I add seems to be the best proposed name yet, as the article can cover both the initial refusal of the CRU to follow the valid science rule of peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results, as well as the apparent unauthorized release of the CRU data as a result of their refusal. I don't see a better possible title, unless we're out to sweep under the rug any possible wrongdoing or bad science on the part of the CRU? I mean we are all after the facts here, aren't we? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• That is to say, both the refusal of the CRU to release their data or have peer oversight, as well as the apparent unauthorized release of the aforementioned data, are both controversies and both inseparably linked. I do believe we've struck gold with this title, it's succinct and can accurately cover the controversy from beginning to present day. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. You still don't understand. CRU haven't refused to release any of their data. Read up on the facts and come back when you've got a clue. That you find a consensus with yourself is hardly surprising William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"come back when you've got a clue." Spare us the personal attacks, Bill. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? "...I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !" - Phil Jones Email, 1109021312.txt - Gunnanmon (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The sources showing that the CRU refused to release data are too exhaustive to name here, you can feel free to google "CRU refused to release data" and cherry pick what you consider to be reliable sources, allow me to offer a few here:

Global Warming ate my data - We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

Britain's Climate Research Unit to release data in wake of Climategate - Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) announced it would make its data publically available, something which it had refused to do previously. The unit however has admitted that it did not have access to much of the raw data required to reconstruct climate records because it had been deleted.

From the examiner, no idea why it's triggered a spam filter, it's a valid news site.

I must point out this thread was initially opened to cement the naming of the article to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, for which we still have majority consensus. More sources can definitely follow, just let me know! Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I opened the thread with a fresh approach to trying to come up with a better title, and I hoped it would lead to a free debate about the words and concepts all sides agreed with. Perhaps I made a mistake in expressing a preference, but I went to great pains to insist I did not wish this thread to become something where people staked a position for advocacy. Everyone else turned it into the usual votefest, for which I am utterly dismayed. I wish I hadn't bothered, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, The Examiner is being filtered to discourage editors from linking to it due to its extreme unreliability. Blacklisting is an extreme measure but sometimes it has to be done to keep out the worst of the crap. (If you get your information from The Examiner, I'd suggest you try casting your net a bit more widely.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not a valid news source, it's a blog. Generally speaking, it is not a reliable source. It's already come up on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard several times: Examiner.com = paid blogging no editorial oversight, Request to reopen discussion on Examiner.com and Examiner.com.

In fact, I was one of the editors who led the effort to have it blacklisted, so you have me (in part) to thank/blame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (to "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy") 'data' would be incorrect, there is rather little data, lots of documents and lots of emails. As others have pointed out, the main issue (so far) have been the emails. Release indicates voluntary/legal which certainly isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we still have majority consensus for renaming the article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, and no one is talking about the naming specifically, I will indulge you, however I will have to take your word for it that the examiner is blacklisted for topics unrelated to 'Climategate', as I'm not a news hound and am not familiar with all of the news sites intimately.

While Gunnanmon's comment alone proves my original point, here's one of my favorites, Russians complaining about misuse of their data, cherry picking of data, it also mentions refusal of FOIA requests:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0

Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Da. Pravda being reliable organ of right thinking. People's newspaper resist bourgeois concepts of "factual accuracy" or "neutrality." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I personally find it hilarious that right-wing Americans are suddenly fans of Pravda - possibly the world's most infamous newspaper. What is the world coming to? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that anyone such as myself who takes a strong stand to see Misplaced Pages NPOV honored are 'right-wing'? I suspect this type of 'false-dichotomy think' is a big reason this article has disgraced WIkipedia NPOV policy for so long. There is more to the controversy of data being released from the Climatic Research Unit than the incredibly biased name Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident could ever cover in good faith. This is why a majority consensus rightly voted to change the name to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. In case you didn't know (which wouldn't surprise me at this point) misuse of Russian climate data is a valid component of this controversy. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's better than the one we've got. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support of Climatic Research Unit documents controversy --BernhardMeyer (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Kim. Not data. Oppose "release" - seems like an endorsement of the POV that "we don't know if it was released with permission or not" when no source supports that POV, only some editors here. And less than fond of "controversy". Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I have not suggested the info was released by permission. That would be speculation and almost certainly untrue. I cannot remember seeing anyone else suggest this either. That I oppose the use of the word "hack" when the means whereby the unauthorised publication took place does not mean that I think PJ himself copied it onto a USB stick and posted to Russia and Turkey! But some other dastardly person else might have, without permission, obviously. We don't know. The police do not yet know. The UEA/CRU does not yet know. When they know I bet we hear of it pretty damn quick. I am saying NO speculation should appear in the article. Certainly none of my wild speculations of this para! But "hack" is speculation too and the "theft" is, for the moment, just alleged. BTW "taking without permission" is not "theft". Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only thing wrong with the present title is that it is neutral. Every attempt to change it seems to be an attempt to emphasise POVs. --Nigelj (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, in case it wasn't clear. See my earlier comment. Simonmar (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but I think a better title is "Climate Research Unit email controversy". Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. -- Benstrider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC).
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. The current title is NOT NPOV.Jarhed (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. This is at least not POV like the current title. Nsaa (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Climate Research Unit Unauthorized Publication of Documents Controversy A bit wordy perhaps but inclusion of "Unauthorized" captures the non-voluntary nature of the process by which the documents became public and avoids the ambiguity and conclusion-jumping inherent in the term "hacking". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Title, Hopefully Neutral Enough

Pressmulti - removal of a piece with millions of readers? - Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages

Damian Thompson, Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group, states the following in Happy New Year from Telegraph Blogs… "James Delingpole (whose Climategate posts attracted millions of page views in one week alone)". One of James Delingpole's pieces has been about this article Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages. According to some of our editors this article should not be mentioned at the top of our discussion page

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) removes it by stating 1. "Like Solomon's piece on which it is based, this Delingpole opinion column presents severe BLP problems." (Revision as of 2009-12-23T21:35:25)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) 2. "Inappropriate press link (BLP issues" (Revision as of 2009-12-24T17:20:52)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "… rm iffy source per previous discussion" (Revision as of 2009-12-24T23:48:21)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Taking out the thrash. We don't spread lies per WP:BLP." (Revision as of 2009-12-26T09:20:07)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "trash removal again" (Revision as of 2009-12-26T11:39:36)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "rv per WP:BLP" (Revision as of 2009-12-28T08:46:21)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "there was no consensus to add this" (Revision as of 2009-12-29T18:31:14)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Undid revision 334813567 by Nsaa (talk) - under opinion hit piece by climate skeptic - not legitimate press coverage in any possible way" (Revision as of 2009-12-29T23:59:51)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Nsaa, please don't re-add contentious material without consensus. As you have shown yourself, there's no consensus for your addition" (Revision as of 2010-01-03T23:06:24)

It has been discussed here Archive_14#James_Delingpole:_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia and Archive_13#"Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages" and even an WP:BLPN has been raised by me at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. Still this piece is not mentioned by us. Last the claim was that under opinion hit piece by climate skeptic - not legitimate press coverage in any possible way. For how long shall this piece go unmentioned at this page under extremely dubious claims? Nsaa (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and should therefore go unmentioned unless multiple reliable sources report on it, as this would indicate sufficient notability of Delingpole's opinion. Such reports reliable sources, if they would occur, would very likely also be a basis for describing the various inaccuracies in Delingpole's text. Note that the Telegraph is an involved party here, and the complete quote is "our bloggers, who range from the mischievous and bloody-minded James Delingpole ".  Cs32en  14:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. As you have shown his has been discussed. Arguments have been made for excluding it. And it isn't like this is article space - that template is a bit less important than WikiProject tagging - it's basically a tool for boasting that we're significant, a pat on the back for editors. So why keep bringing it up? It's a smear piece. It's full of errors. And it's trivia. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognising and acknowledging criticism is a just a Good Idea. That WP is held in regrettably popular disrepute over this issue is something that we need to deal with in one way or another. I'm not sure what the best way is, but I do know that ignoring it will not serve the encyclopedia well in the end. My preference would be that we link to it, acknowledge it. Perhaps in the new suggested FAQ question which actually deals with the issue as to why we think the wordlwide, headline grabbing, TV documentary making, Nobel discussion provoking controversy is about the leak/hack, when we all know different. To the shame of WP. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Recognising and acknowledging criticism is a just a Good Idea". Perhaps. But that's not the purpose of article talk pages, and it's not the purpose of this template. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That Delingpole says things which are maybe/possibly/probably/definitely not true is not the point. Delingpole is a very widely read columnist at one of the UK most established and respectable newspapers. It is not for us to say whether what he says is untrue, but to report what is being said. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If that newspaper is going to continue to publish trash like the Delingpole piece, it isn't going to be respectable for much longer. The fact remains that there is a consensus that this opinion piece does not deserve a place at the head of this talk page because it isn't real journalism and it disparages Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians with error-laden speculation and smears. We are under no obligation to include it, and so we won't. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"It is not for us to say whether what he says is untrue" - On the contrary, it is. That's specifically our role. "Don't repeat gossip" is one of the principles of BLP. It's also our job to assess sources - pick the reliable ones. An article that gets its facts wrong isn't a reliable source. Regardless of who publishes it. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand I am told we must ignore the fact that a newspaper cannot know that the hack/theft/leak was hack and disregarding the fact we know they speak through their **** we must say there was a hack, on their authority. On the other hand we cannot repeat what is said elesewhere by the same newspaper, as per your argument, above. What is it? My solution is not to repeat what Delingpole says as fact, and not to report the hack as fact. Goose and gander. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, please refrain from going the WP:BLP way again. That's handled here WP:BLPN for this case. 1. there's not established anything that says that {{pressmulti}} should be handled otherwise than other content on talk pages. Some of the latest arguments say that we should handle it like it was in the Article mainspace ("not legitimate press coverage in any possible way" and "An article that gets its facts wrong isn't a reliable source." etc.). 2. It's claimed that James Delingpole's pieces Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages is not a WP:RS. This is not relevant for the talk page discussion, but I can answer it altogether since these outrageous claims are made. Lest's read together then "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. " and WP:V (which superseeds WP:RS) ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#cite_ref-3. I.e. Mr. Delingpole can be used as a Reliable source as long as he is attributed as the writer. So please don't remove this piece again. It's even ok to add it in the main space ... Nsaa (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked a question. I answered it. You have already established that there is no consensus for inclusion. So please don't add material for which there is no consensus, especially when it is nothing more than trivia about the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Re-adding it will be viewed as disruptive. We are under no obligation to embrace opinion pieces that denigrate our project. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"We are under no obligation to embrace opinion pieces that denigrate our project." Yeah, lets control the world of WP even more so that no criticism of WP is allowed under any circumstances. Seriously, the levels being taken to keep information out of WP is simply amazing. This material should be included, if WP is to ever be taken seriously in the future then honest inclusion of notable material should be included. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging that disparagement exists is not the same as embracing it. This being the talk page, not the article page, you ought to show consensus for disallowing stuff in routine informational templates. There may be such a consensus, there are certainly multiple editors objecting to this mention, something I think is misguided and only serves to further encourage the perception mentioned by Arzel above that this article has spun out of control and over the top in its defense of accepted science on climate change. I think we do look foolish here, even if we are doing so by advocating the right side of a ridiculous scandal. I wouldn't re add it myself, though, because edit warring is always bad. But as far as edit warring one side of an issue constitutes disruption, it takes two to tango. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the talk page to discuss things to improve the article? The criticisms made by the article is about user conduct, which I don't think should be discussed here, but on other places. Like the accusations about Connolley has been on COI board. The Delingpole article talks briefly in general about the page and than goes on to accuse Connolley. We know these accusations are wrong as he didn't remove 500 articles because he didn't like it, he removed them because of Misplaced Pages guidelines and most of them had nothing to do with CC. I don't see what this article adds to the discussion to improve the article. It is just the opinion of one person, a person specifically hired to write in a controversial manner so to get a lot of attention. Constructive criticism about this specific article could be used here on this talk page. I don't see the op ed by Delingpole as constructive nor as specific about this article, it is about the state of CC articles in WP and the criticisms about user conduct.83.86.0.82 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's part of the history of the article. When historians read texts it's not always because they agree with what the text says. The text itself is historical. Here we have, as part of the history of the article, a broadside attack on the article, Misplaced Pages, and its administrative corps, printed in one of the highest profile English language publications in the world and presumably read by tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. Likely, more people have read about this article than have read the article itself. On a prosaic level that helps explain some of the complaints and vandalism around here. At a deeper level it lets us know that calling this article "x x mucky x" instead of "climategate" sets a lot of people off and gives them cause to accuse Misplaced Pages of distorting things. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just reread the article Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages and is stunned by all the claims about how wrong this is. Can someone please give me some insight into what's wrong in this article? (Even if it's wrong it's not justifiable to remove it from the pressmulti-template - we do not do WP:OR, but it could be very interesting to note what's wrong whit the article - this start look like the unjustifiable attacks on Bjørn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist.).

As I see the Telegraph entry points to unjustified removal like this on and a lot more very disturbing actions from some of our contributors. As for the last removal of this entry {{pressmulti}} it's tragic, but I understand why. At least two of the editors removing this link has attracted attention from James Delingpole ("one of his Misplaced Pages chums – name of Stephan Schulz") and Lawrence Solomon ("fair-minded Wikipedians tried to remove the graph from the page, as can be seen here. Exactly two minutes later, one of Connelley's associates replaced the graph, restoring the page to Connelley's original version, as seen here." Lawrence Solomon: Misplaced Pages's hockey stick wars). This article has been removed under varios reasons, mainly by the WP:BLP argument. Since this is handled at WP:BLPN and no what so ever arguments for keeping it out on this ground has been given this is not a valid argument, the next argument surfacing for keeping this out is that a lot of editors thinks it's trash (oh what a argument!). The latest one is that it's no consensus for adding it. For the last comment we can see that the prior arguments for removing it is not justifiable, claiming consensus for adding a standard template used on this kind of press coverage is ridiculous and as Wikidemon point out above, it's the removal of a standard talk page template that should have consensus, or it should be handled by the wider community to add such a claim (do we need consensus for adding critic of our editors, such articles will never be mentioned at Misplaced Pages ... because people under scrutinization will never allow this in. But please try to let the wider community go for such a policy in the appropriate policy pages). It's even more ridiculus claiming that my actions here is disruptive as done by Scjessey. I will ask him to re-read that policy. I've argued for all my actions here and given very firm grounds for keeping it as for Misplaced Pages's policy. Either you give a good reason for why it should go out and reach consensus for it here at the talk page or you will stop removing this from the talk page in the pressmulti template. Adding it again. Nsaa (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As you yourself demonstrated, there's no consensus for adding this template. And since it's merely trivia, please build consensus first, before re-adding it. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your actions are disruptive. You insist on adding controversial material to the talk page without consensus. And your actions are not justifiable by policy. It's merely a trivia template. One that happens to link to an article that's basically an attack on editors here and based on an article with serious factual errors. It doesn't contribute to building an encyclopaedia - which is, of course, the only purpose of this project. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not required before adding routine information to a talk page. If two sides are edit warring over this they are both being disruptive. If you believe that a template is merely trivia you are free to nominate it for deletion, or advocate for changes in the template. In the meanwhile the template is the way we note media mentions of Misplaced Pages articles. I regularly refer to this template when I see it on articles for insight into how the world outside of Misplaced Pages is perceiving Misplaced Pages articles, something that is relevant to improving the article. If it doesn't do anything for you, you're free not to follow those links. Advocating for removing information from a talk page that others find useful because the contents of the link offend you isn't really a helpful way of building the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The template is trivia. It's trivia about articles. That doesn't mean it's useless. So please don't put words in my mouth. That specific bit of error-filled gossip isn't an appropriate link to add to this article. Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop making these accusations about this piece like "error-filled gossip". Where's the Gossip? Where's the Errors? The article doesn't get more erroneous if you just repeat it enough times. (I've asked for what's wrong with it, but a answer is not possible to get …)? Nsaa (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You also miss the point when you say that "onsensus is not required before adding routine information to a talk page". It's not routine, it's controversial. It's not routine to add links to gossipy trash. And, quite frankly, Delingpole isn't even writing about this article - he's attacking editors. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it? If you don't like this WP:RS article so please say so, but that is your (and some of the other editor here's opinion and is really irrelevant for this case). Where's the Gossip? Where's the Trash? Don't writing about the article... hmmm... let's read together again (you seems not to read the articles and policies ... ) "If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Misplaced Pages. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear."(my bolding) (You stated "Delingpole isn't even writing about this article" ... hmmm ... ) Nsaa (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear

• Almost half of Delingpole's piece is a direct quote from Solomon's error-filled column. It's includes Solomon's clearly erroneous claims. Delingpole takes Solomon at face value. Nuff said.
• Then there's a quote from another blog about WMC's de-adminning. Mind you, not a link to the Arbcomm case, but to another blog.
• Then there's a bit about Delingpole's article being removed as a source in a BLP. So we don't repeat inaccurate gossip in our articles
• Then he calls William ugly.

You seriously see value in that? Maybe as an example of the poor quality of Delingpole's work. But this isn't the place for press criticism. Guettarda (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for substantial evidence of why this article is riddled with errors. So far I've seen none. Please be specific. Either way this has nothing to do with removing the template, but can give your removal point sympathy (the last mark you did, didn't either I like, but I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not aware if this has other (deeper) meanings. As far as I see Ugly goes on the things he wrote, not the looks …). Above you also states that I'm disruptive. Please you should also re-read that policy and give me exact quotes on what ground you do this accusations. Your claim that there's a policy requiring consensus for adding the template is ridiculous. The template is added to talk pages with links to external news coverage, see and read Template:Pressmulti (and Template:Press) and make the very useful categorization Category:Misplaced Pages as a media topic. So it's ok to remove others contributions by calling it thrash? It's a very interesting piece connecting many of our editors directly to this scandal as far as I see. I now understand why so many are so eager to get it out even if it's a Reliable source that could go into the main article. Nsaa (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to read to read A 10 in the FAQs above, or to show any appreciation of the requirements of WP:BLP policy. Please do so. . . dave souza, talk 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing using it as a source for article content, so reliability is not at issue. I haven't seen any principled argument that BLP applies, just an assertion that it does. That discussion is better had at BLP/N because the proposition that poor quality or inaccurate articles should not be noted in the template due to BLP concerns has an applicability well beyond this particular encyclopedia entry. I get use out of it, for the very reason the template exists, and I have explained that in some detail. The accuracy or inaccuracy of the piece does not affect this at all. The function of the template is not to find reliable news sources on Wikiedia - you can go to the Misplaced Pages family of article for that. The function is to note what other people are saying about Misplaced Pages, and to have any integrity about it you need to acknowledge the good and the bad. If you don't get use out of it, you don't have to read it. There are obviously other editors who do. Anyway, I don't think discussing it in this manner is going to bring any resolution - there are multiple editors on each side and they aren't showing much sign of understanding each other's positions. I think we should organize this into an RfC and see just where consensus lies. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree on a WP:RFC on this. Can you make one (never done it before)? Nsaa (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) Ehhh... please make you aware of the WP:BLPN case at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (raised by me). What about the FAQ A10 (written by Tony S) that's relevant for this discussion? Please? Nsaa (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"I've asked for substantial evidence of why this article is riddled with errors. So far I've seen none." This has been discussed, several times. I don't remember where specifically. But if you haven't been keeping up with things and don't want to believe me, use the search function.

"Above you also states that I'm disruptive. Please you should also re-read that policy and give me exact quotes on what ground you do this accusations." If, as you claim on your user page, you're a bureaucrat, you know well that demanding exact quotes from policy is classic wikilawyering. Written policy follows the way we do things, not the other way round. But if you really insist on going that route, I would point you towards the first point under Signs of disruptive editing: "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." As you yourself have shown, there's wide opposition to your additions.

"Your claim that there's a policy requiring consensus for adding the template is ridiculous." Again, I hate to go the route of quoting policy, but in this case you've really strayed into the absurd. Please see Misplaced Pages:Consensus. The "page in a nutshell" says all you need to read: Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. This is policy.

"So it's ok to remove others contributions by calling it thrash?" (I take it you mean "trash"). My comments were not directed to your additions, but rather to the quality of the article to which you were linking.

"It's a very interesting piece connecting many of our editors directly to this scandal as far as I see." Well, since almost half of it is a verbatim quote of Solomon's error-filled piece, it's really only interesting from the point of view of how bad journalism can be.

"I now understand why so many are so eager to get it out even if it's a Reliable source that could go into the main article." Nope, you're mistaken. It's not a reliable source. It's already failed that assessment. Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1. You still claim that the article riddled with errors, without giving any evidence at all (I suspect that the article is not completely error free, but trash?) and you ask me to use "the search function". My point is exactly that. I've seen a lot of complaint that this is a piece of crap, trash, and so fort but no substantial analysis of the factual content. So these claims given over and over again is really on the edge on violating WP:BLP ("Talk pages are . Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted,") for the living person James Delingpole (ohh no he is a "denialist" and then all kind of very bad attacks is allowed).

2."as you claim on your user page, you're a bureaucrat, you know well that demanding exact quotes from policy is classic wikilawyering.". First of all I'm not a Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat at the English language Misplaced Pages, but on the nowiki as I state on my page: "This user is a bureaucrat on the Norwegian Misplaced Pages". I don't like wikilawyering, but under accusation like the ones I've been under here were I can't figure out that I'm on the edge on the mentioned policy it's just fair that it's given a reasonable interpretation of the rules so I now what I'm accused of. As far as I see I'm the part under groundless attack and removal of my contributions many times here (removing trash etc.. without any discussion etc. is not me but the some of the removalists comments (three as far as I've counted). The other argument given for the removal, violation of WP:BLP is again not justified, please read this cases WP:BLPN. So I'm the person arguing, with reference to our policy for inclusion of this piece.

3. The third argument about Consensus fails big time since all the prior removals is unjustified by our policy (see point 2. right above). You need to know that if people say "I don't like the piece, get rid of it", you can't use Consensus for keeping it out. I'm really looking forward to a wider community dealing with this series of argument.

4. "My comments were not directed to your additions, but rather to the quality of the article to which you were linking.". Ok, but as I point out in 1. above this comment is maybe not fit according to WP:BLP.

5. "Solomon's error-filled piece, it's really only interesting from the point of view of how bad journalism can be.". Again whats wrong with this piece (especially what Delingpole quote)? How bad journalism can be? I've just seen a lot of these accusations against these two journalist writing for big newspapers. I find it baseless without any real substantial error checking of the content. As far as I see this is only you and some other editors don't like it. So please direct my to some substantial discussion about this area (it do not matter for this case, but it could be interessting to read a real analysis of this.

6. You again states that "It's not a reliable source". Please reread my post at 2010-01-02T12:27:23 further up in this tread. It's a WP:RS piece (I quote our policy, you don't).

Nsaa (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for having this piece in an (optional) section of the talk page headers, given the number of editors who have removed it. Continuously arguing for its inclusion in the face of overwhelming opposition is tendentious - a form of disruption that might get you sanctioned under the terms of article probation if you aren't careful. You need to let this go. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, Scjessey, how exactly is the argument that you are making in any way different than Nsaa's? Continually arguing against its inclusion while providing no justification for doing so reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is no less tendentious. There have been many attempts to label the article as false/erroneous/trash, but despite Nsaa asking several times for specific corroborating examples, these claims continue to be made with no supporting evidence. Really, the claimed "consensus" at this point consists of one side out of two groups of editors who are standing and butting heads. »S0CO 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey that this manner of discussion is not going to go anywhere. There is no consensus to remove it, no consensus to include it, and disagreement on how to apply consensus here or what the issues really are. Regarding Nsaa's point, some of the specific claims made against the Misplaced Pages administrator were evaluated and rejected as a matter of Misplaced Pages behavioral policy as explained in FAQ#10 (not really the same as a BLP or RS analysis, but helpful). Doing a more thorough review of the piece for its accuracies, inaccuracies, claims, allegations, and opinions, would be an interesting exercise but I think that goes way beyond the purpose of this talk page. Maybe something better suited for a blog? In any event, there are enough wildly inaccurate claims, and the author's entire output on his column lately has been strong opinionated advocacy against the mainstream view of climate science. Under the circumstances it would be very hard to consider this a reliable source. But that's not even the question here, the question is whether it is a media mention that should be noted in a talk page template. Despite my earlier suggestion, I don't think an RfC is going to help anything, so I'll just let that be. Delingpole's attempt to portray Misplaced Pages's Climategate coverage as a scandal never gained any coverage in the reliable sources, and poking around google news I don't think he's encouraged any other high profile columnists to write anything, so this looks like a flash in the pan. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On this matter I see how a group of individuals removes a valid mention that this article has been mentioned by a Media Organisation ( a large one, where the responsible editor mentions that these articles by the removed journalist has attracted over a million reader just the last two month. There's have been claims about collusion at Misplaced Pages, and I see unfortunately tendencies of this both here and on how my (and others) insertion of Climategate as an alternative name for this controversy was removed over and over again even if it was sourced by many WP:RS sources (see one of the discussions here Archive_1#Name_of_article(archive deleted?) and my talkpage at User_talk:Nsaa#3RR_warning (my first such warning for my complete life on the wiki. Extremely bad, but I was not aware of how this page was protected to keep out some information by all wiki-means). How it is possible to assume WP:AGF under such conditions? (I will try as good as I can, and don't bother with people calling others work Trash, Waco, Fringe etc.). The removal of this piece from our talk page will make Misplaced Pages as a project bad in extremely many people eyes from the outside and it will just "prove" the hypothesis given by people like Solomon and Delingpole that AGW related articles is "under control" of closely related people with an agenda. Nsaa (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And we care what Delingpole and Solomon think why? Solomon's article is rubbish, and Delingpole quotes the rubbish as if it were true. I rather doubt that anything we do here will change their opinions. Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Though it's been discussed a variety of places on-wiki, I think this is as good a link as any, since it's easy to find. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again you call other living peoples writings rubbish. Please don't. I find the comments made by William Connolley on his blog nice work, and agree with many of his comments. As far as I see it's Solomon who is making the wrongs here, not Delingpole except for this comment "The guy who has been writing Misplaced Pages’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”)" in the parentheses (and his article that's the case for this discussion). But this kinds of misunderstandings you find in all kinds of journalism (ex. our discussion about allegedly or not). But thanks for the first reasonable comment given about what's wrong with the (underlying article). Although removals like this one "And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry" is not refuted or commented in the blog you give. Nsaa (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand - this is an argument that we should include an article on the talk page where "saving the worst till last," means including a profile shot of a living person and saying that they are "ugly?" And the people wanting to include this can sleep at night? Thanks, but no thanks. Any more on this, and I'll be asking for people to be told to take a break. Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attack other contributors on this talk page ("include this can sleep at night?" and "Any more on this, and I'll be asking for people to be told to take a break."). Nsaa (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for FAQ entry

A recurring theme at this talk page is the question of whether this is a controversy outside of "a few bloggers" or not. In several places people who seldom participate actively at this talk page vote "no" to title change suggestions with this as their seemingly sole motivation. I recently took the time to clarify this using WP:RS and came up with two that I think we can rely on enough for talk page purposes. One is to CNN coverage of "climategate", where they describe this as a controversy, and the other one is to a BBC World Nobel Prize winner panel where they spend a large amount of their total time with the subject of how this controversy affects the scientific community. When the fallout from the incident this article is about is brought up with the top scientists of the world I think we can safely say that this is beyond "a few bloggers". We should thus clarify this in the FAQ in the hope of making it easier to achieve consensus onwards. My suggested FAQ text below (adding the two sources I think are appropriate, I know other editors have more):

• Q11: Why the repeated calls for describing this incident and its subsequent fallout as a "controversy"?

• A11: While the leak of Climatic Research Unit e-mails and other documents can be described as an incident, the issue of what they mean for the scientific community is referred to as a controversy by reliable sources such as the CNN in a panel on the subject as well as the BBC World in a panel together with the Nobel Prize winners of 2009.

Comments welcome. Troed (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of these uninvolved editors, as I have never edited the artice's page itself. I therefore don't have any particular stake in one version or the other, and I am expressing my assessment of the proposal, based on my reading of existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.  Cs32en  15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that one of the sources is a YouTube ref. Some editors have a kneejerk reaction to YouTube, because many of the entries run afoul of copyright. I don't know whether that is an issue with this one, and it probably should be settled before including it. Other than that, sounds fine.--SPhilbrickT 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that, however, since it's for talk page use and not the actual article, and we're only looking for clarification as to the importance of the controversy, I'd hope for it being enough. Troed (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The programme ("Nobel Minds") is available from the Swedish state television as well (audio in English, subtitled in Swedish) until 21st of January. It also seems as if the Nobel Prize website itself will host the video later, since they've done so all the previous years. When that happens, it can likely be used as in the actual article as well. Troed (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the "question" isn't really phrased as a question, and the answer is not clear. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, the question appears to be Why have there been so many calls to describe as a "controversy"? If I've read it correctly, that's not a FAQ question at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a frequently asked question. It is central to the scope of the article, and underlies almost all discussion here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-phrasing? That the problem exists is visible by just reading through the Oppose-votes at the various sections about renaming, this there seems to be a need for this in the FAQ. Troed (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what FAQ-worthy question you're trying to get at here. "Why have there been so many calls to describe this as a 'controversy'?" isn't a valid question. That's a question about the motivation of people wanting to use that word. It's not for us to speculate. The alternative question - "Why don't we call this a controversy" isn't a FAQ-worthy question either. It's an ongoing discussion. It's possible that you mean something else all together. But if that's the case, you'll need to explain what you mean. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be frank. Either this should go into the FAQ, since it's there to help editors quickly grasp something that is important but takes a long time to get into, or the FAQ should just go away completely. We have editors voting on the name of the article who seem to believe that there's no well known controversy - that does not help us in any way trying to get this article into better shape. There are good WP:RS clearly describing this as a controversy and thus it's not about speculation on people's motivation, as you described it. I will however have a go at re-phrasing it. Troed (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Again - what is "this"? What question are you proposing we answer here? It's not clear what the question is, let alone what the answer is. Guettarda (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the first questions a new editor on this article will have is why it is not titled Climategate? That title is controversial and the FAQ should attempt to answer the question. There should not be a controversy about explaining the controversy.Jarhed (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is dealt with in Q.1 of the FAQ. We're talking about a proposed Q.11. And I'm trying to figure out what question Troed is trying to answer here. Guettarda (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please adjust for grammar/clarity and go ahead. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Jarhed (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you both understand Troed's question. Since s/he hasn't answered my question as to what the question is, would one of you be willing to explain what you understand the question to be? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and it seemed reasonable to me, and I want this editor to make the change he suggests so we can all read and comment on it. I do not need to know the specifics of it because I assume good faith.Jarhed (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> This seems to be a push for a change rather than a FAQ about how things are. A more appropriate Q and A would be:

• Q11: Why does the title refer to an incident and not as a "controversy"?
• A11: The leak of Climatic Research Unit e-mails and other documents was the incident which led to the controversy over the content of the leaked documents: this article covers both aspects, including the continuing investigations into the leak and the implications of the documents.

My tuppenceworth, dave souza, talk 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I fully agree that your suggestion is much more clear and yet conveys exactly what I was after (English is not my first language, after all). I fully support your version, with the links I found added somewhere around "controversy" for those wishing to verify why we put it into the FAQ. Troed (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer this not make the FAQ. The answer is debatable, as indicated by the fact that the two proposed formulations of A11 are in tension with one another.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jones email 19th take two

editing for clarity: apparently my sentence could be misread. this proposal is about REMOVING the current link to a blog, REPLACING it with a link to CNN. A slight rephrasing is also necessary due to the new source, but the meaning is the same as the one currently in the article and thus this should be a trivial change to enact in the spirit of making the current article better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troed (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the archives it was brought up that the current source for a statement in the article could be seen as unreliable. I believe sources have been found that we can agree on are more neutral and reliable. I'm thus proposing making a change to that effect.

The last paragraph here should be changed from it's current wording and link to McIntyre's own blog to the following:

• Stephen McIntyre claimed that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted of not showing that the tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century, and that since it's unknown whether this unreliability of the proxy compared to the temperature record also exists in earlier periods the most reasonable interpretation is that these particular records can't be used to estimate temperatures in the past.

There was a discussion as well in the archive on how to reference McIntyre here. If we feel we need to, I'd suggest using the same source and simply adding that he appeared in a panel on the subject at CNN since he's named in the emails in question. Troed (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people say lots of things. Why is this notable? Hipocrite (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's notable because this is the Climategate controversy which some here prevent being documented at WP. McIntyre has been questioning the research of the CRU and some of his criticisms are seemingly acknowledged by Phil Jones in the e-mails revealed by the "hacking incident" (unauthorised publication of the CRU e-mails). Phil Jones admits in e-mail to the "trick" of "hiding the decline". The trick is this: The tree ring data is used as a key plank in the argument supporting conclusions re ancient temperatures, yet when recent tree ring data is shown to be a most unreliable proxy of recent known temperatures that part of the tree ring data is ignored, instead of questioning whether tree ring data can be used as reliable proxy for ancient temperatures. More honest, says McIntyre (and so says the scientific method) would be to discard the tree ring data completely. But that would remove a pillar of the climate change argument. Phil Jones elected not to do that. Why? asks McIntyre. That is why this is notable. McIntyre essentially says Jones is not acting scientifically. The best response Jones has is that McIntyre is an idiot. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of the trick is noted, but conflicts with reliable sources. In one figure for a report, a graph showed the climate changes found by three different studies: one, which relied only on tree rings and temperature readings unlike the other two which also used other proxies, was according to its authors to be disregarded post 1960, and the post 1960 part of it was not shown in the graph. The scientists concerned were already openly questioning the cause and implications of the divergence problem causing the problem, and had published on the unreliability of the tree ring proxy . That's a paraphrase of Phil Jones's response, which includes the statement that "As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report." As for discarding the tree ring data completely, that is indeed shown in this study published at the start of 2008. Whether that makes McIntyre look an idiot is a matter of opinion, but it does clearly suggest that gullible people have been misled by McIntyre disregarding other proxies and published scientfic studies. Maybe that's an aspect of the "controversy" that we should make explicit. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of that aspect and all aspects of the controversy being made explicit. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, McIntyre is being asked to reflect upon this by the media in relation to this event, and is an involved party since he's named in the emails. Looking at the article, McIntyre is thus more notable than the Real Climate blog entry we're currently reporting from. Troed (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. What are we using the blog to say? Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest another section if you want to go into notability of Real Climate, which was not my intention. I answered your question about McIntyre's notability above. I'd also like to clarify that I'm simply trying to correct a source that was contested by someone else, in the spirit of making the article better. Troed (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> There's the question of the self published source of McIntyre's blog being used without any other source that his minority, and in scientific terms fringe view, is notable as an opinion on this specific issue. That he's notable in other areas of this controversy doesn't mean that we should cite his blog opinion on every email. There's also the question of giving undue weight to his minority view by presenting it as the last word on the topic: McIntyre should know that the unreliability of that specific proxy was already known at the time of the email, which was discussing how to avoid presentations being skewed by that unreliability, and that there has been subsequent research comparing its outcome with alternative proxies. However, as a published expert on fringe science notes, a common theme is the "zombie argument" which ignores further research. The research in question is referred to in the Real Climate quotation in the article on the "divergence problem" — "see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper" which refers to this 1997 paper on Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia which concludes that "Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats." Regardless of whether or not we quote McIntyre's opinion, we should either quote or summarise that 1997 research. Must pause now, will aim to produce suggestion for a suitable summary. . . dave souza, talk 13:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that my suggestion above solves the problem that we're currently linking to McIntyre's blog without creating other changes to the article as it stands? You were the one to originally bring it up after all, I just went looking for WP:RS to that effect. Troed (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't very clear from the above, but now looking at the link I see you're citing the CNN transcript of a broadcast from December 7, 2009, to cite McIntyre as one of those selected for the program. If we accept that appearance on a CNN "special investigation" as the story was developing has sufficient significance to appear in the brief summary in the article, then the timing and content of McIntyre's views would fit best as an expansion of the sentence that "Some critics cite this sentence as evidence that temperature statistics are being manipulated." The program also includes releveant points from Mann, the "fact that these data shouldn't be used after 1960 because of this divergence", and from Michael Oppenheimer that other research data and analyses showed the same conclusion. That's a fairer representation of that particular source, but it's not an ideal source for a scientific issue. So, simply changing the paragraph to your draft doesn't solve the problems. . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your points, but I must stress that I'm only trying to fix the sourcing issue here - not to make any larger changes to the article as it stands. Reading the archived discussion, and the fact that no other replies were made, had me believe there was indeed consensus as to both notability and the quality of the CNN panel source. When the article is un-protected I suggest we bring the section up for discussion again, with your points above in mind. Troed (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri>The problem wasn't with the source, but rather that we can't use a blogger to analyse science. We use scientists to analyse science. We use climate scientists to analyse climate science. Guettarda (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I read the archive. McIntyre is a published scientist in the area, is being asked for his opinion by reliable media and is also a named party in the emails in question. The paragraph thus has three valid reasons for being included, and all three of them together is a very strong argument. It would not be prudent of us to start validating scientists, it would border on being WP:OR when we have WP:RS arguments for inclusion. Troed (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is a very respected scientist, guettarda. RealClimate, on the other hand, has showed to be a tool to push the AGW through. The emails show time after time the involved scientists always offering to use the realclimate to attack the skeptics. Either way, realclimate is referred on this article, and been McIntyre involved, I think we should point to his explanation on this issueEchofloripa (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your skepticism is showing, but respect in science relates to published work in the field. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntrye has been published in the field. He is a reliable source, and he has been contacted multiple times for his perspective. CNN and FNC have both talked about this. Just last night FNC ran a report on Climategate and had McIntrye on. Mann would not respond to calls to appear. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific papers, not TV appearances. --Nigelj (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> From what I've seen, he's published on statistical analysis and his expertise relates to that specific aspect of the studies rather than the field as a whole. His remarks in the CNN source fail to acknowledge that the 2001 study was based on more proxies than the tree rings, and his views seem very much to be a minority view among experts in the field. While we can describe such opinions as minority views, we must also show the context of majority scientific views and show them as such. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop us discussing proposals and hopefully reaching agreement as to what's to be implemented. The sourcing does show how the controversy was presented in the news as it developed, and as such may be useful for describing the controversy rather than the science. Note that McIntyre is introduced as "one of the skeptics who was named in one of those e-mails" and, after the break, as "slammed in a number of those e-mails for questioning global warming". The discrepancy is prsumably due to the first intro using the singular by mistake, but the point that he's a skeptic questioning global warming is essential context for his remarks. The paraphrase of his claims looks a bit incorrect to me, will think more about that. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The paraphrase comes from two quotes, and I feel I'm accurately representing them: "The tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century. they didn't show the decline." and "No one knows why it became unreliable or whether the unreliability existed in earlier periods. The most reasonable interpretation of it is that you can't use these particular records to estimate temperatures in the past." Troed (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to use McI? The meaning of the phrase is clear - the person who used it has explained it. Second-hand commentary from McI adds nothing useful. Moreover, the second sentence (No one knows why...) is straying off into another issue, which is the divergence problem, which we already mention. The existing text from McI is also irrelevant, and straying off - McI's opinion that all the tree-rings are useless doesn't have a place in this article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the tree rings aren't reliable since 1960 why should they be reliable for any period? The CRU is using the proxy when it suits them and not when it's not. That seems unscientific to me, and you don't have to be an expert in climate to know so, that's just basic scientific method. The unreliability of the tree ring data makes relying on it non-sensical, it's circular, fallacious. McI points this out: "Hiding the decline" (a phrase from Jones' e-mail released in the docs) is dishonest, and would remain dishonest no matter what language Jones used. It, and McI's opinion about it, deserves a place in the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that I remain unconvinced that that appearance on a CNN "special investigation" as the story was developing has sufficient significance to appear in the brief summary in the article, McIntyre does seems to be a published critic but that doesn't mean we have to give his views a prominent place on every issue. If we do find that his views on an issue have been published in suitable reliable sources to the extent that they're notable as an aspect of the "controversy" rather than the science, they remain minority scientific views and have to be described as such, as my comments below. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the leak of emails from CRU. Mainstream media is reporting on the controversy, and when doing so they consider the views of McIntyre to be important to report due to his status as a published scientist who's involved in the controversy. It's not up to us to judge whether they are correct or not in doing so. WP:NPOV. Your comment would be more correct if this article was about the divergence problem. Troed (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a point that's coming up in my examining the proposal. Per WP:WEIGHT, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> Troed, comments on your proposal. As you say, you've sourced it from two well separated statements. The first, in the context of being asked if he thinks it's an attempt to shut down criticism, is to agree, and state that the trick was not disclosing in 2001 IPCC report that the "tree ring records" went down then immediately somewhat contradicting that by stating that the email was about the 1999 World Meteorological Report and that "they simply substituted temperature information for the tree ring information to show the record going up when it went down." While the above proposal is undoubtedly a good faith paraphrase of these points, I think it misses the important context that it's about two specific reports. The second part responds to a question as to whether he agrees with Mann's reported statement that the data became unreliable in the 1960s for reasons other than that a temperature decline, and I think your summary there is reasonable but it's a separate issue and should not run on from the previous question. So, accepting that a modified version can accurately reflect McIntyre's claims, that minority view has to be shown in the context of the mainstream view and must not obscure the mainstream view. The logical way to do that is to show the "trick" aspect in the context of the mainstream statement about it, with clarification of what is meant by "decline" as that's a bit unclear. Contrary to the impression he gives that the "divergence" was not disclosed, the issue was discussed in a previously published papers cited on the 1991 diagram. As to his latter statement, the mainstream view is that the divergence should be investigated, the tree ring record compared with other proxies, and evaluation done with the tree ring record omitted. See the paper I've referenced above. Given that McIntyre seems to still be producing information in more reliable sources than a few words on a TV show it would be helpful to find a better source of his views to avoid any misinterpretation. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"The article is about the leak of emails from CRU" - we aren't using McIntyre as a source on the theft, we're using his opinion on the science. We're using a blog post of his as a source on the science. A blog post. He's not enough of an expert on the science that a blog post of his counts as a reliable source. Ask yourself this - would you use a blog post from Stoat as a reliable source for this article? After all, William has a PhD in the field, and he has several papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Stoat is a far better source on the science than is Climate Audit, per our policy on self-published sources. If you aren't comfortable with using Stoat, you can't seriously be suggesting that Climate Audit is a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This story is controversial enough without arguing over sources. Let's stick to reliable ones--no blogs.Jarhed (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. This whole section, my proposal, is about CHANGING the current sourcing in the article from a blog, ClimateAudit, to a reference on CNN instead. In my mind it's a trivial and obvious correction to make that only makes the article better without any other changes and I don't really understand why it got to be such a huge discussion. Troed (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The rewrite so far is an improvement on the current situation, but continues to give undue weight to the fringe view of one of those interviewed in the TV program, and should it also show the mainstream response. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't change my main point. McIntyre is not an expert on the science, so regardless of who a CNN producer decided to interview for that segment, we aren't interested in his analysis of the science any more than we're interested in any other well-known non-scientist. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is a published scientist. He has a maths degree, and has been a postgraduate student. He has caused/forced the global warming stats for N.America to be revised downwards significantly. This work here is universally accepted, not disputed: He was instrumental in causing a highly respected climate research body to revise its model, and he was thanked for it. If you do not know this, fair enough. But it is very widely known. McIntyre is an expert in the statistics and modelling of climate science. Several mainstream climate scientists have said that McIntyre has interesting things to say, that his criticisms deserve to be addressed. To say otherwise simply betrays your POV. Paul Beardsell (talk)

Who can speak for who?

1. The CRU can speak for itself.
2. Imagine if the CRU were a person and shouted on the sidewalk "Help! I've been robbed!". That makes it a report of robbery, right?
3. The CRU is free to say "hack" or "theft" if they so choose - but if we quote them, we need to source them to news pieces which actually quote them.
4. If we source any quotes to the CRU press-releases hosted on their website, are those valid sources? Are they primary sources or secondary?
5. Those associated with or work for the CRU, can offer personal opinions, but unless those statements are definitely being made on behalf of the CRU in a spokesperson role, then they do not speak for the CRU and are therefore not an authoritative source for the CRU's positions.
6. The police can speak for themselves
7. The police can assert they are investigating.
8. Direct quotes from the police, reported via valid news sources, are the best source for what the police are actually saying and have said.
9. The police can say if they feel/suspect/think a crime may have been committed.
10. In absence of a criminal conviction, only a reasonably comprehensive post-investigation report is a valid source for the conclusion that a crime has been committed.
11. Until such time that authoritative formal conclusions that crime has occurred are released, an unqualified use of "theft" and "stolen" - from an official standpoint, would be presumptive.

It's not for us to say it's "true" that a crime has been committed. Rather, it's up to us to report what those in authority say about this - and the authorities have not released any conclusions yet. This means that until then, any source which makes a conclusion by using an unqualified "theft" or "stolen" is definitely a POV source and makes the article POV. We can avoid this by saying what I suggested - that this episode has variously been reported as a "leak" and a "theft". By this means we acknowledge both sides, without taking sides.

When you add all these up, I think this issue is best resolved by the suggested edit I offered here Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Fully_sourced_suggested_change_to_article_introduction, with the exception that "reportedly" be used instead of my suggested "possibly". 7390r0g (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually a determination that a crime has been committed is made before the investigation, but individuals are presumed innocent until proved guilty. If someone breaks into your house, your local newspaper does not call it an "alleged burglary" and opine that you may not be telling the truth. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a "determination" (ref dictionary), you mean "assumption". Yes, maybe, but: (1) WP does not make these assumptions or report them as if they were fact. (2) In this case this was not a "burglary" (ref dictionary) but the unauthorised publication of information, and that may or may not be theft. It could have been released by mistake. If released deliberately this could be a breach of the civil law, not the criminal law (and theft is a criminal offence, not a civil one). Taking without permission is not necessarily theft, neither is old fashioned copyright violation. Unauthorised release of info has a public interest defence, potentially. There are many reasons not yet to conclude theft. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "for whom"? Guettarda (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again - the press releases are issued by the University of East Anglia, not the CRU; they are posted in the Marketing and Communications section of the UEA's official website at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements . They are corporate press releases of the university, listed on its press releases page at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press . The branch of the UEA issuing them is the Marketing and Communications division of the UEA, not the CRU. The CRU has a separate website at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ . Let's please try to get this right. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A careful newspaper would use a qualifier like "reported", "alleged", or the like, to cover most any police investigation or crime report. Quite a few of them turn out to be mistaken, false, or even fraudulent. We aren't the police so we're the last people who should be deciding on the accuracy of an apparent victim's account of a purported crime. If the weight of the high quality third party neutral sources are reporting the incident as a crime, hack, or the like, then I think it's fair that we should drop the qualifiers and attributions and simply report what they say. Without that certainty we should qualify it in a neutral way, respecting WP:WTA, with an attribution like "X said that Y". We shouldn't base that distinction solely on a logical analysis made here among Misplaced Pages editors. We can look to the sources for guidance here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Turning to my copy of the Associated Press Stylebook, it says: "The word must be used with great care ... Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it. Do not say: He attended the alleged meeting when what you mean is: He allegedly attended the meeting." In this case, there is no dispute among reliable sources that the reported event occurred. The unknown factor is who did it, not whether it happened. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO. Your line of thinking is sound, but I am unsure if I agree with your point. It's undisputed that the email/documents have been disseminated. It's undisputed that the CRU, as the keeper of the records, is in a position to say that they were released on an unauthorized basis. But it's not unanimous in the media that this is a "theft". There are a number of reliable sources using the word "leak". What's in contention is not that something happened. Rather, what's in contention is how to most neutrally refer to what happened. If some reliable sources say "leak" and there's no conclusion from the authorities that it was "theft", then as per my suggestion, we should say This episode has variously been described in the media as a "leak" and as a "theft". This is the most neutral way to describe it. As I see it, for us to say "theft" is like Morty Seinfeld saying "My wallet's gone! My wallet's gone!", when he's missing his wallet at the doctor's office. Later, the facts come out - he had actually misplaced it. Similarly, it may very well be that legal officials will eventually determine that this was a "theft", but they haven't done so yet and until then, current sources support both "leak" and "theft". And please take note that my suggestion completely avoids using the problem word "alleged".7390r0g (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it." So who was the hacker? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know, obviously. But the fact of the hack is not in dispute in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then what was the point of citing the Associated Press Stylebook? This particular argument seems invalid given the fact that the dispute over who participated in it is not over. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Our guidelines take a similar approach. It also says: "Alleged (along with allegedly) can also be misused to cast doubt on a statement, and should not be used as a routine qualifier". If we have reliable sources that question the "fact" of the hack, the way to deal with it is to say "but xx questions whether it was a hack". Simple enough. But make sure that the dissenting view is notable enough that we aren't creating problems by putting undue weight on minority opinions. Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. The WP page you point has notation on it as an example of "Acceptable use" of the word "alleged": O.J. Simpson was charged with murder by the State of California after he was alleged to have murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994." This clearly supports the use of the word "allege" but I recommend against it - we can edit around that word by using my suggestion (see above). In that manner, we remove an impediment to consensus. 7390r0g (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it says that the state alleged that he committed murder. It does not say that the state charged him with an alleged murder. Despite the fact that Simpson was acquitted of the crime, it's still correct to speak of the murder (not "alleged murder"). Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. Bearing in mind that I feel we can still be effectively NPOV even without the word "alleged", I think you are misunderstanding the word usage. However, since I am not a linquist, I have not much to offer other than a few examples. If this helps, good. If not, please feel free to offer other examples. Any of thse would be fine examples of criminal allegation related edits:

1 Joe Blow has been charged with murder. It is alleged that he shot Tommy Tudly."

2 Police are investigating an alleged robbery of Al's pawn shop. Al called the police last week and reported he was robbed.

3 This controversy arose in Nov, 2009, after reports that the CRU email system was "hacked" . According to , information was "taken without authority" and released on the Internet. According to the CRU, the electronic records in question "appear to have been illegally taken" . One source close the the CRU, Professor Trevor Davies, characterizes the materials as having been "stolen", though some sources in the media report that the emails and documents were "leaked" . Police are investigating this as a possible crime .

My point is, instead of fistfighting over one or two words, let's see if we can craft sentences that helps get both supported views into things. Of my three examples, #1 and #2 both show correct usage of "alleged". But #3 is better because both views of "leaked" and "hacked/stolen" are represented and the bugbear word of "alleged" is avoided. I hopt this helps. 7390r0g (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarity: 73's example (3) above would satisfy me completely. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO and Guettarda, I think there's a misunderstanding here. You're correct in that Misplaced Pages should not add qualifiers as "alleged" since that would correctly be weasel wording, possibly changing the effect of statements etc. However, this does obviously not apply when quoting them from reliable sources. Then they're there for a reason, and us dropping the qualifiers would - just as if we added them - change the contents of the statements. That we must never do. Troed (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Words to Avoid has a special qualifier for "alleged": "...the use of 'alleged' as a verb may be appropriate in a legal context..."--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. So which sources use "alleged" to imply that there is doubt? After all, we don't copy formatting for formatting's sake. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And if some sources are using "alleged" to imply doubt, then we document the differences of opinion. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. We've moved past the problems with the word "alleged". The best solution seems to be to craft the words in such a way as to make both views clear and not side with either view, while at the same time citing everything back as close to it's original source as possible. This avoids trouble and yields a good result. What do you think about my #3 in this section? Would you support that? 7390r0g (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need the verbal gymnastics in 3, because 2 is already wrong by the WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS. Where are the main sources saying 'alleged theft'? Where are the sources actually saying that the owners of these emails and docs (i.e. the management of UEA or of the CRU) knowingly and intentionally published these emails onto the internet, and that only roguish sources within the UEA are pretending this was a theft? I have not come across such a theory in print yet. The fact of the theft is in no doubt. Even if some politically motivated member of UEA staff copied the data onto an internet server and told his Russian friends the URL, that was still a theft unless he was instructed to do so by his employers, the rightful owners of the files. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

see this and this for such examples of "alleged" from WP:RS Troed (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, you need to correct CRU to UEA in #s 1-5. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP banner on this talk page

Editors here are concerned that no slanderous or libelous information should be introduced into this article. I think we can all agree that this should be the case. That said, I want the BLP banner taken off of this article. This is not a bio and should not be treated as one (except for no slanderous or libelous information, of course). This article is about an ongoing controversy, and it is impossible and idiotic to write intelligibly on this subject without referring to aspects of the controversy that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. I say for the third time, no slanderous or libelous information of course, so please do not use that as an excuse for keeping the banner on this page.

I would like for us to discuss this and if no adequate justification can be given in the next 24 hours (except for no slanderous or libelous information), then I intend to take the banner off. Its presence on this article is absurd and it can be perceived as POV pushing, not (4th mention) protecting the article from slanderous or libelous information.Jarhed (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the BLP tag relates to the fact that stating there was a theft is making accusations against persons unknown who are presumably living persons. That does not really make sense to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, so the banner doesn't matter. Prodego 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does not matter and should come off.Jarhed (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the emails suggest criminal behavior on the part of the individuals named in the emails. The point of the banner is that the people in the emails are innocent until proven guilty, and acusations can harm them.Jarhed (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP banner is there supposedly to stop us documenting the conduct revealed in the content of the unauthorised publication. I.e. to prevent WP documenting Climategate. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the same feeling and I would like for it to stop. I am not yet convinced that it is impossible for us to come to agreements on this article.Jarhed (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all biographical information regardless of the topic. In this particular case, we have 3 or 4 scientists who might have broken the law or engaged in unethical behavior. The WP:BLP need to be there as a reminder that we have to follow this policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that the banner is there to remind people of WP guidelines. Instead, BLP policy is being used to prevent the inclusion in this article of data about the controversy that is being reported by reliable sources. I note that virtually every controversial article in the article space has this banner on it. In other words, it is used by some editors to push POV. I think it should come off.Jarhed (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, the banner could be perceived as some kind of threat, kind of like posting the city noise regulations outside a nightclub. But I think there are worse things to worry about around here than a proliferation of talk page header banners. We may disagree on specific applications of BLP but for the most part we all believe in the policy and want to follow it, right? I think it cuts both ways - there are lots of people of different political stripes mentioned and they all need to be treated with the respect accorded them by BLP. In fact, I think it is the researchers themselves who we need to be the most careful about because their reputations and life work are under assault. Unnamed lawbreakers really don't have BLP protections, not if their identities are unstated. The banner itself is neutral, so any implication that the banner itself is being used abusively is a bit of speculative reasoning and perhaps an expectation of bad faith. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then why is the banner there if everyone is supposed to be assuming good faith?Jarhed (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The banner isn't the problem. It's the invalid use of WP:BLP that's the problem. In most situations, as long as we follow WP:RS, it's not a WP:BLP violation. The few exceptions that WP:BLP adds (such as sexual orientation) currently don't apply to this article. This is the only article that I edit in this topic space, so I can't speak definitively about the others, but if WP:BLP is being misapplied, I suggest that you point this out. We also have a WP:BLPN where (hopefully) uninvolved editors can offer their opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the invalid use of BLP is the problem. I have been involved in disputes on BLPs over this very issue. It can be argued that unproven allegations should not be put in a BLP, even if properly documented. However, I will say this for about the 18th time, this article is not a BLP, and there is no justification for trying to keep out reliably sourced investigations and allegations using BLP policy.Jarhed (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"In most situations, as long as we follow WP:RS, it's not a WP:BLP violation" - if that were the case, then we wouldn't need a separate BLP policy, we wouldn't have a Foundation declaration on the topic. Our policy on biographies of living people holds us to a far higher standard than our guideline on reliable sources. (Please note that WP:BLP is policy, while WP:RS is only a guideline.) Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what I was trying to say. I agree that we should not put libelous information in this article. However, if an investigation or allegation has been reported in a reliable source, it can be used for this article, even if such inclusion is not necessarily appropriate for a BLP. I would like to know if anyone disagrees with this, because it seems as if I am merely restating WP policy.Jarhed (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP is about much more than just reliable sourcing. An article may be completely compliant with WP:RS but still be unacceptable from a BLP perspective. Please see WP:BLP#Criticism and praise for a key set of criteria that apply to this article in particular. WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy is another important criterion, especially: "Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization ". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying and I agree with it in principle. However, I know from experience that what you are saying is in no way some settled fact that everybody agrees with. I have had the exact opposite argument with people on other BLPs and they are just as adamant as you are about putting in reliably sourced data. As long as you understand that what you are saying is your opinion only and is open to interpretation, then we agree. If we must go for arbitration to get a source in, we must. However, generally speaking, editors should be able to include data in this article from any reliable source. The repeated notion that BLP somehow applies to this article is flat wrong, except (for the 20th time) no slander. Finally, I feel that your lecturing tone is condescending to me, and I will thank you in advance for civility toward me going forward.Jarhed (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No condescension was intended and I apologise if my comments came over that way. The scope of BLP is defined by the very first sentence of WP:BLP, which defines it as "information about living persons any Misplaced Pages page." In other words, not just biographies. Material that violates the BLP policy does not somehow become excluded from BLP by virtue of being posted on a non-biographical article. Please note also that the presence of the template has nothing to do with whether BLP applies. The policy automatically applies to any Misplaced Pages page that contains information about living persons, whether or not it has been templated. The template is just a courtesy to editors to make them aware that they need to follow BLP in editing that article. This expectation exists by default; the template is merely a reminder. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that clarification, that certainly explains some things for me. However, you should know that some editors on this article, including myself, feel as if other editors are attempting to misapply BLP to this article in an attempt to push POV. I agree with you that the presence of the template has nothing to do with whether BLP applies. So do you agree with me then that the banner should come off?Jarhed (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It serves a useful purpose by informing editors who are not aware of BLP of the requirements. What purpose would be served by removing it? Surely more guidance is better than less? If you feel that editors are "attempting to misapply BLP to this article", how would removing the template help, considering that BLP is applicable by default whether or not the template is present? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is so ignorant that he thinks he can put slander in a WP article, I doubt such an editor would be bothered to read the banners at the top of the talk pages. On the other hand, over the last few days I have been told repeatedly that properly sourced mentions of the investigations and allegations surrounding climategate are prohibited in this article by BLP, which is false and nothing but POV. Removing the template would be a good start in ensuring that everyone understands that its presence on this article is controversial, because it is being used by some editors to push POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarhed (talk • contribs)

The problem you allege is not with the template; if BLP is cited to reject a particular piece of content, it can be cited whether or not the template is present, as BLP applies to every article whether or not it's been templated. It seems to me that there are two issues here. First, you appear to believe that BLP shouldn't apply to this article. You are welcome to query this at the BLP noticeboard, although I should add that the editors there will tell you what I've said here - that BLP applies to any article where information about living persons is included. Second, you object to BLP being used to exclude particular items of content. Again, I suggest you should seek advice from uninvolved editors at the BLP noticeboard, where they will be able to advise on whether a particular item of content meets the requirements of BLP. Don't forget that the onus is on you to prove that it meets BLP requirements, not on others to prove that it does not. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I allege is with certain editors who want to exclude properly sourced negative information about individuals, despite the fact that such rejection is against BLP policy. The only interpretation I can find of your statement is that you refuse to discuss any compromise position, and if I don't like it I can seek arbitration with a bunch of other editors just like us. If that is what you mean to convey then that is how it will have to be. I just expect a little bit more cooperation among good faith editors.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole discussion but as the editor who originally (I think) put the BLP template wanted to say a few things. The template should definitely not come off. BLP issues have to be considered in all articles. However it's of particular relevance here since there are several controversial claims about the people involved, particularly the reseachers so it serves as an important reminder. The fact so many people seem to think BLP doesn't matter here further proves the point. (It also categorises this page so it can be more easily monitored.) Yes the BLP template when appearing in non biographies likely shows up most commonly in controversial articles (or articles concerning controversial subjects). This isn't surprising or indicate of nefarious purposes. It happens because controversial articles are those where there's most likely to be contentious details of living people added. There's not that likely to be contentious details of living people added to Devil facial tumour disease but 2009 Richmond High School gang rape is quite a different matter. This isn't to say it's going to happen in all such articles. For example Global warming obviously a controversial article but doesn't have a BLP tag and is unlikely to need one since mentioning individuals should be rare and hopefully always in a clearly non controversial fashion (and if it is controversial it's probably more likely to be about whether they should be mentioned at all because it gives undue weight to their views which may raise some BLP issues in the talk pages but not much in the article). P.S. I should add that IMHO this discussion is a pointless waste of time. The BLP template is not going to be coming off so don't spend your time arguing over it coming off. If you believe that BLP is being misapplied then you should discuss that. Trying to remove the BLP template is just going to make people ignore you because they think you either don't understand BLP or don't care about it or perhaps even questions your motives. I should also add that I'm a fairly regular at WP:BLP/N so IMHO the inclusion of the template is completely uncontroversial (in fact, it rarely is, the issue that does arise is whether BLP applies to a certain case). Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said that BLP doesn't matter here?Jarhed (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many, but e.g. "The repeated notion that BLP somehow applies to this article is flat wrong, except (for the 20th time) no slander." (from this very discussion) & However, (please forgive me if I don't say this right) BLP stands for **BIOGRAPHY** of a living person. Inclusion of the BLP warning on this article seems absurd to me, it not being a BIOGRAPHY. (from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 15#Biography of a living person) et al. I would note that recently you've been primarily the one who's been arguing that BLP doesn't matter here or only matters for slander or some odd notion like that but I WP:AGF you've realised you were wrong and have simply forgotten that you were doing that a couple or more days ago. I appreciate that the notion BLP only applies to slander or biographies is unfortunately a fairly common one so I'm not blaming you for being under that impression for a time, but I do think it is unfortunate it took you so long to realise these notions weren't correct despite repeatedly being informed by other editors and think your example amply demonstrates why the BLP tag is quite important here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Section: Reboot - Part 2

Reboot: I want to make three points.

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

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

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

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

Example

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

Example

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

The Criticism and praise section says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: FactCheck.org

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

Source: FactCheck.org

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

Source: FactCheck.org

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

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

Source: Associated Press

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

Source: Associated Press

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

Source: Associated Press

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

Source: Associated Press

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

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

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

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

My personal opinion is that both FOI requests are intrusive and unreasonable. ...We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, then what is this about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOI requests (deleted 26 November 2009)

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

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

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

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

1. ^ ""Climategate"". FactCheck.org. 2009-12-10. Retrieved 2009-12-29

   . {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); line feed character in |accessdate= at position 11 (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

2. ^ "Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty". Associated Press. 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-12-29

   . {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); line feed character in |accessdate= at position 11 (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

3. In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime? by Antoniao Regalado, Science Insider, November 23, 2009
4. Climate Hack Scandal Update by Antoniao Regalado, Science Insider, 11/26/09

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

Public or private

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

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

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

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

Draft tweaked, with comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climategate

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

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

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

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

2 is much better than 1 and I would rather go to 2 than stay with 1. However, 2 is problematic in that perhaps what the controversy is about would not be stated. I think that 2 is not stable, and would inevitably become 3. I think that is why some here fight so hard to keep the article at 1. ] Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we already do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documentation of e-mails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is a well sourced paragraph like this

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

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference fc_2009-12-10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference ap_2009-12-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Rose, David (2009-12-13). "SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2009-12-20. Retrieved 2009-12-20. However, the full context of that 'trick' email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling. All he had to do was cut off Briffa's inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase. On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines. 'Any scientist ought to know that you just can't mix and match proxy and actual data,' said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London's School of Oriental and African Studies. 'They're apples and oranges. Yet that's exactly what he did.' McIntyre by now was an IPCC 'reviewer' and he urged the IPCC not to delete the post-1961 data in its 2007 graph. 'They refused,' he said, 'stating this would be "inappropriate".'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems to be wrong

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

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

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

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

To this?:

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

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

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

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

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

Blog-sourced material removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial editors on this article

Swifthack?

I see that this term has been added to the lead. Is this really appropriate? Obviously WP:GOOGLE applies, but I don't see a single reliable source using this term on Google News. Does a single reference in one article justify double the lead coverage of the term "Climategate", which is used in hundreds of sources? Oren0 (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Swifthack" seems sourced to Time Magazine. Time Magazine is unquestionably reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What about WP:UNDUE ? Swifthack seems to exist in one WP:RS only (and we include the citation of the term at length) while Climategate is to be found in numerous other WP:RS. My google-skills might've failed me though, but I searched over several pages of results. Troed (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of pro moting neologisms but reflecting terms in use. When a number of significant sources start using this new term, when people aware of the Climategate controversy don't say "huh? what?" to this neologism, then we'll reflect its usage here. Not before. I suggest. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We are supposed to represent both sides of a dispute. Since "Climategate" was coined to convey a specific meaning (-gate#Etymology, usage and history of -gate gives useful background info on the general subject of -gate names), we should note what that meaning is, and we should note that other parties disagree with that view of the issue and have presented an opposing perspective (i.e. that it is an artificial "scandal"). This sort of balancing of perspectives is simply what NPOV requires. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but we're not currently following WP:UNDUE, as we should. Swifthack, from what I can see in WP:RS is a minority phrase which we do not reflect at all. Troed (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Swifthack" is reliably-sourced (Google News), although less popular. In this instance it would not be unreasonable to say that we should either have both neologisms or neither. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I could only find blogs and opinion pieces when going through the results from your link though? I still believe, after having gone through WP:RS, that it's a minority term compared to Climategate which is on the contrary well sourced and in active use. While I cannot ask Google Trends to only use what we would consider reliable media, this comparison pretty much says everything. "Swifthack" is used by a small small minority, not even registering on the map. WP:UNDUE clearly applies. Troed (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be unreasonable to argue that we should include both or neither. That argument implies they are of roughly equal footing. The neologism Climatequiddick is probably more accurate than either ClimateGate or SwiftHack, but it didn’t catch on, so it isn’t included. We don’t include terms because they accurately capture the event, we don’t include a rare term for political balance, we include terms that have wide acceptance in RS.SPhilbrickT 15:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue certainly applies. Climategate is widely used and has over 3.7M google hits. Swifthack I have never heard of and has only 57k hits. Swifthack should be deleted from the page. Poujeaux (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Warmergate" has also attracted lots of attention. So has "AnythingEndingInGATEIsRetardedGate". I think the lesson being learned here is that stupid, POV terms like "Climategate" have no business in a serious article, except in passing. For example: "The incident and resulting controversy has been also been referred as "Climategate", "Warmergate" and "Swifthack" by various commentators." Anything more than that would be embarrassing to Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your suggestion, but WP:UNDUE clearly requires us to say that "Climategate" is the descriptional name used by the majority. The current wording which tries to separate the names into two camps is actually completely false, relies on a single source and is trivial to disprove. Whether the extreme minority names "Warmergate" and "Swifthack" even belong here I'm inclined to say no - based on their (lack of) prevalence in WP:RS. As far as POV, reliable sources claim this to be a controversy, which would seem to justify "-gate", even though that's not up to us to decide upon. Troed (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Swifthack? Something that no one in the MSM is using to describe this incident is being used in the lead? Furthermore the lead is now wording that Climategate is being used by only skeptics. This is both highly undue weight and presentation of orignal reasearch. If the same effort to keep out reliable information that is actually notable was applied to this there is no way it would be in here. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support removal of Swifthack - I kinda like “Swifthack”, but articles should include material based upon reliable sourcing, not on my personal likes. I’ll also echo Arzel’s comment, I don’t believe it is true that “ClimateGate is used only by skeptics, so it should be removed unless someone can cite some pretty solid evidence. (And not just some pundits assertion, some actual survey data.)SPhilbrickT 18:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a voting matter. The google-news query link at the start of this thread throws up a growing usage of this interesting new term, including Discover Magazine, Examiner.com and alternet.org as well as some notable blogs including The Nation, Science and the Huffington Post to name but a few. there is even a http://www.swifthack.com/ website. I think this neologism has taken hold and should be covered if others are here. --Nigelj (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as far as I can see none of the sources you mention (I verified that the Discover Magazine mention is a blog entry) would be considered reliable. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do not think usage of the word "growing" would be correct, but I'm basing that on a few Google timeline and trends searches I did earlier. Troed (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources quoted by Nigelj are reliable enough to verify that "Swifthack" is receiving some attention. Bear in mind that the "Climategate" neologism was invented in much the same manner as "Swifthack". Either way, it is clear that if one is going to use silly neologisms like "Climategate", we may as well note all the others too. My preference would be to exclude them all, since they are all non-neutral terms that advocate a position. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support removal of Swifthack - WP:UNDUE states that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Google reveals clearly that there are few if any prominent adherents to this awkward neologism and those blogging sites that do use it clearly are not POV neutral. Climategate on the other hand has clearly caught on and is in general use by neutral observers (e.g. NYT).Jpat34721 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate is widely used and has over 3.7M google hits". No, it doesn't actually. See WP:GOOGLE. If you work through, "Climategate" gets 680 hits, while "Swifthack" gets 513. Not that Google hits is the way to go. Until we have a reliable source that looks at the usage of the two names, I think we should be very hesitant to use either. In terms of page counts though, they seem to be running about equal (except, of course, that the top hit for "Climategate" is this article. So if you remove this site and mirrors, you're probably looking at similar numbers for both names. Not that there's any reliable way to find out. I think that as sources become available, we may want to add a section of "naming". Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE isn't the issue here. This is not about two separate sources, one representing a majority opinion and the other a minority one. It's a single source that represents both opinions in the space of a single paragraph and explains the diverging viewpoints - one that it's a major scandal, the other that it's a big fuss about nothing. Those two viewpoints are certainly very prominently represented among reliable sources (basically the anti-science activists taking the first view, and the scientists taking the second). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only a single source because you deleted another, separate source upon adding the Time reference. I've readded that source along with further citations that discusses "Climategate" (none of which, incidentally, even mention the word "Swifthack"). Your argument here feels unfair/dishonest to me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a useful source on usage. To begin with, it's a Nov. 21 article. Ancient history as far as this article goes. It's not an in-depth (or even superficial) analysis of what names are being used, or even what names were being used back then. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There are more recent articles cited in the lead now along with that one, and the Time analysis has been kept, not eliminated. Sorry if I wasn't clear. (p.s., your definition of what constitutes "ancient history" with respect to articles on current events strikes me as arbitrary. I'm not sure how that distinction can be made in a legitimate manner...) --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's an important point. Guettarda (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If we include mention of "Swifthack" let's do it in an aside, e.g., in a separate sentence from that detailing the nickname "Climategate." It would be giving undue weight to the "Swifthack" name to pretend that it is "just another term" people use to talk about the controversy, on par with the much more used "Climategate."--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We have no sources on usage beyond the Time article, so saying that we should give more weight to one than to the other fails as WP:OR. Google, for what little its worth, gives pretty much an equal number of hits to each name, especially if you factor out Misplaced Pages and mirrors. So, unless there's a source saying one is much more widespread than the other, we need to treat them equally. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment 'three comments up', along with the recently (re)added references in the lead of the article proper.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean the one I replied to three minutes before you posted this reply? ;) Get with it - three minutes is more than enough time to edit conflict four times! Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey I know we're more or less arguing here or whatever, but can I take a moment of vulnerability and ask what you mean? I've never really been sure what edit conflicts are all about...--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When two people are editing a page at the same time, particularly if it's the same section the software will sometimes throw up an WP:edit conflict and won't save your changes. Nowadays the software is fairly good at resolving them itself but if it doesn't you will have to manually integrate your changes to the new version. In talk pages, this would usually simply be copying and pasting your comment. In such cases people may choose to add an (EC) or edit conflict at the beginning of the article. This let's people know that there was an edit conflict so their comment may be somewhat out of place and/or didn't consider some of the more recent replies which were saved before their comment which may for example already address what they were talking about. Alternatively, some may choose to reword their reply based on new comments. Of course, the longer you take to resolve an edit conflict, the more likely it is you'll get another one when you next try to save. This probably happens a lot when you have people like me who edit their comment many times after saving :-P Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thanks for the response. :) I'm assuming the best way to avoid them is to draft comments first and reopen an edit window when you want to post? --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That will avoid getting an edit conflict from the server and perhaps more importantly it should avoid the situation where you don't get an edit conflict (because the software automatically resolves it) but finding out after you post that there have been other replies. But of course you may still come across new replies when you do come to the page to post your draft which make your response redundant/repetious, clarify issues you were raised in your response or introduce things you didn't consider in formulating you reply and so you may still end up leaving an (EC) if you don't feel like reformulating your reply (I know I have). BTW, I should clarify that when you get an edit conflict the software does show you your reply (and the new version) so there's limited risk of you losing your reply if you have a browser which loses your reply when you hit the back button (of course you may automatically assume once you hit save and it finishes loading that you've saved your reply and not realise it didn't because of an edit conflict). So in some ways the software automatically resolving edit conflicts can cause more confusion on talk pages (although it avoids annoyance and can be a godsend on highly edited articles) Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Swifthack reference

"advocates of action on climate change dubbed it Swifthack in reference to the 2004 "Swiftboating" campaign against US Presidential candidate John Kerry, characterising it as "an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change."

This is misleading as it inaccurately attributes the characterization to "advocates on action on climate change" when in fact it came from the author of the Times article that is referenced:

Advocates of action on warming call it "Swifthack," a reference to the 2004 character attacks on presidential candidate Senator John Kerry by the group then known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — in other words, an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change.

Note the "in other words", clearly indicates that this is the author's invention.

This whole section should be removed or demoted to a lower section as it gives undue weight to a the view of a single individual. If the author of the Times article had posted this comment here originally, it would surely be removed. The fact that it appeared first in Time does not make it any more authoritative. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the fact that it appeared in Time does, in fact, make it more authoritative, per WP:V and WP:RS. I don't see how the author misrepresents the views of "advocates of action on climate change," as they believe, according to him, that the incident is "an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change." Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No one can authoritatively speak for an entire group unless authorized by that group. Perhaps you can provide a reference which shows how Mr. Walsh is qualified to speak to the beliefs of all "advocates of action on climate change,". This is as ridiculous as the unsourced-yet- quoted claim that Climategate has "obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up" or that it is only used by skeptics. This section, besides being poorly written, is clearly not POV neutral. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The suffix -gate has a standard meaning of "candal and cover-up". See -gate#Etymology, usage and history of -gate. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure but it applies whether one believes the scandal is in the hacking or in the contents of the hacking. In any case, the unreferenced quote, with "obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up" is a bush league weasel. Who is being quoted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs)

Jpat34721, can I ask why this is your first edit of Misplaced Pages in nearly 3 years? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As the old joke goes, up until now, every things been ok.Jpat34721 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO stop attacking the person here. Lets keep it to the argument about the case. If you think it's a socketpup, please take it to the appropriate place. Nsaa (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you intentionally said "socketpup", but I have to say that is an awesome alternative word for sock puppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha as we say in Norway. Then I got another good laughter. Thanks :-) Nsaa (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes not discussed here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tree ring data is rubbish but so what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Realclimate as a RS

On this section: "Before the incident, continuing research had already presented reconstructions based on more proxies, and found similar results with or without the tree ring records."

Realclimate is been used as a reliable source. Being it a blog and now knowing that realclimate has been used as a tool to push the AGW, how can we still have it been used as a RS, especially to try to prove that other reconstructions based of proxies found similar results?Echofloripa (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. It is very difficult to understand what your concern is. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My concern is in using Realclimate as a reliable source as to prove anything. Scientists involved in the scandal are also editors of the blog and in several of the emails RealClimate is offered to attack skeptics or to disprove any mainstream that would deny the AGW. A few examples (full list here):

"In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at: http://www.realclimate.org"

Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here? Echofloripa (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Realclimate indicates relevance of this work to the current incident. Please also note that Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia — PNAS covers the point you raise, and fully meets the standards for references on science. . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to find the original sources instead of always trusting the Real Climate blog to properly summarize them. While I might not know the names of everyone who posts at RC, at least Gavin Schmidt is referenced to simply as a "blogger" by some WP:RS. That said, I do agree that RC strives to uphold high standards for a blog. Troed (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that included in their small group of writers is one "Michael Mann," who you can read more about here, seems to me to invalidate them as NPOV commentators on this article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_50#RealClimate Simonmar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Depends on the context in which it is used, but mostly depends on what you feel should be the standards for Misplaced Pages content. In my opinion, no way is it a "reliable source" (as described in WP:RS), but considering the way the article is written and its overall quality...better than the rest.

Take a look at the text in this section:

RealClimate said that the paper in question...They said that the "trick" was...They said that scientists often use...According to them, the divergence...They said that those authors...

who or what is RealClimate? Why is its opinion important? There is a wiki link earlier in the article—but i am too lazy to click on it. As a reader i expect that if an article presents an opinion it should tell me how that opinion is relevant and give some indication of how much faith i can put in the statement. Looking at a footnote it seems that the text is a summary of this post on RealClimate (turns out it's a blog). Since the article has failed to tell me how this post is relevant i'll investigate for myself:

The CRU hack Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 20 November 2009

not very informative. I wonder who the author is? "group" does not tell me much, maybe it's one of these guys? Hmm, Michael E. Mann, that name looks familiar. So is this Mike explaining "Mike's Nature trick", some other contributor, or all of them together? Nowhere can i find who exactly wrote this post, and as a reader i think that is a pretty critical piece of information to have.

You can't just say something is or is not a "reliable source", you have to make an evaluation based on the article content and most importantly consider thing from the reader's perspective—at least give them the means to evaluate the reliability themselves. WP:RS does not contain some kind of recipe or formula that can be applied in all cases to decide on content. Maybe some critical thinking by editors is also required?

I'm not arguing that this particular paragraph should be cut. I think you should cut out the whole section—along with about ninety percent of the article. This talk page would probably be quieter, and the article would probably be more informative to the reader.—eric 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delete that section, and i hate to say it but per BLP. You can't quote from a private email and imply that "Mike" and "Keith" did something wrong without clearly identifying Mike and Keith. You can't summarize a blog posting in the same section that may or may not have been written by one of the persons mentioned in the email. Most of all, if you are going to state that these people may have done something untoward, you can't do so with such sloppily written and confusing text.—eric 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue discussed and pretty much resolved at #BLP concerns? below. On the question of a science blog as a reliable source compared with mass media newspapers, the case of Darwinius#Publicity and media coverage is instructive. . . dave souza, talk 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) p.s. note the connection with climate change mentioned here . . . . dave souza, talk 06:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agenda Driven Editors

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

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

(Massive quote snipped by Hipocrite (talk))

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

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

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

Title change replacing "e-mail" with ""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1RR

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

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

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

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

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

If you click edit now on the article, there should be an edit notice to alert editors. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Rewrite of opening section

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

Proposed Title: Climate Research Unit Unauthorized Publication of Documents incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Descriptive titles for emails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on all counts.

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

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

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

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

Remove "Swifthack" from the lead

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

Keep it

• Hipocrite
• ChrisO
• Nigelj

Remove both

• Guettarda
• Scjessey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of euphemisms on the title of the emails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real problems with an edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of tangential interest

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

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

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

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

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

Wacko alert?

Recently posted off in Wottsup :

I would invite all readers to help improving the climategate article on wikipedia, which has been hijacked by alarmists that have a troop of sleepless zealots that work in conjunction with the aim to keep the page as useless as possible. Please bear in mind the use of reliable sources and read and add your views in the discussion page before changing the main article. We need more people to counter W. Connolley and his troop of alarmists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth mention at the Climate change probation page. Semi-protection is always an option. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, SPAs don't seem to be a huge problem. If it becomes one, I'm considering some sort of enhanced semi-protection (e.g. 100 edits, registered 3 months ago) I have no idea what the numbers would be at the moment. But right now there doesn't seem to be a huge problem. Prodego 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who posted that comment to Wottsup is obviously a regular contributor to this Misplaced Pages topic, so it might not be a good idea to refer to them as a "wacko". This is a clear case of meat puppetry though, and that should probably be addressed in some manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh goody, I've always wanted to add User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel to an article... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd never seen that template before. Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this matter at WP:ANI, in case anyone is interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to AGF and made a comment on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) talk page, but what happens? I get attacked, ridiculed, and minimalized. My point was don't use such words describing other people contributing to other web pages like wacko, Wottsup etc. Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you're offended by a little levity about potential meatpuppets. As for Watts Up With That? (or wottsup? in common English as spoke in the sarf) this post from the Big Yin may inform you a bit more about the issue that was so sneakily hidden away here. Please accept that going on about it is not a way of improving this particular article, and hence is inappropriate for this talk page which is governed by talk page guidelines. Hope that sets things to rest, do feel free to discuss it further on my talk page rather than cluttering up this article talk page. Thanks, dave souza, talk 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns?

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

Without commenting on the correctness: . Prodego 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment moved from above as chat has moved on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no point pussy-footing our way around this. We have reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for Inquiry Section -NPOV

Currently this section reads:

In the United Kingdom and United States, there were calls for official inquiries into issues raised by the documents, and calls for Jones' firing or resignation. Climate change sceptic Lord Lawson said "The integrity of the scientific evidence... has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay", and the climate sceptic Senator Jim Inhofe also planned to demand an inquiry. Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said: "There needs to be an assurance that these email messages have not revealed inappropriate conduct in the preparation of journal articles and in dealing with requests from other researchers for access to data. This will probably require investigations both by the host institutions and by the relevant journals." A government scientific agency could also conduct an inquiry, he said.

Issues:

...there were calls for official inquiries... - unsourced weasel. Who made the call? Where?

...Climate change sceptic Lord Lawson... In general we should eliminate labels of this sort unless they can be attributed to the person being labeled. In this case it is inaccurate to call Lawson an AWG skeptic as he is on record as accepting the mainstream view on AWG although he opposes on economic grounds the proposed mitigations.

...climate sceptic Senator Jim Inhofe also planned to demand an inquiry. Inhofe is skeptical of the climate??

...Bob Ward, ... No reference provided.

This section needs a complete rewrite.Jpat34721 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Inhofe is skeptical of the climate?" Wouldn't surprise me. I'm soooo thrilled he's my Senator! Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference overload in the intro is back

I thought we had reached consensus against the reference overload for Climategate in the into. I also note that the dubber of "Climategate" was removed - is there a source that says it was not a skeptic dubbing? Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with removing some or most of them, but not all, especially given how contentious this heading has been in the past. EDIT: If I missed discussion of the reference over-load I'm sorry. Please link to it here. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it. If you doubt Hip, try searching the archives. It's sort of the polite thing to try first. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ideally there should be no need for refs in the lead, since all its supposed to do is summarise the text. More to the point, adding a pile of refs like that smells like OR. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the refs were third-party RS' citing the sentence explicitly, so I don't see how OR applies. As for "not sourcing at all," note that the sentence previous to "over-loading" was unsourced and the brunt of it was not corroborated by any of the 5-sourced version I added (and contradicted by one). We require citations for a reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't make head of tail of what you just said there. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha sorry. Try this version?:

All of the refs were third-party RS' citing the sentence explicitly, so I don't see how OR applies. --Heyitspeter (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further more, I thought we had reached agreement that the dubbing was by skeptical sources, per the Time article, which reads "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate,"". If there's a source that says it's called Climategate "in the media," please present it. I'm loathe to revert, but it appears that everyone else is, so I might as well, right? Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradicted by the LA times article in one of the five sources, which stated the WSJ made up the nickname.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to OR, the sentence says: "The controversy is often referred to as Climategate in the media". Only one source is needed - one that says "the controversy is often referred to as Climategate in the media". Instead, you have added a series of links which show it being referred to as Climategate, in the media. And that appears to be OR.

• The first ref, to Reuters, said "Already dubbed "Climategate,..." It documents the usage (but not the frequency of usage, nor usage in the media), and then goes on to not call it "climategate".
• The second ref, the Time article, says "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate,"" Again, it doesn't say that the media use it, it certainly doesn't' say that they use it "often". It's is, once again, just an example of usage.
• The third ref, from the LA Times, says parenthetically "(a flap the WSJ dubbed "Climategate")" This could weakly be taken to support the assertion that it is "referred to as Climategate in the media", although that would be a stretch. Certainly doesn't support the assertion that it is "often referred to" as that, by the media.
• The fourth ref, from the Guardian, actually uses "Climategate", albeit in quotes. But it says nothing about the frequency with which that name is used in the media.
• The fifth ref, also from the Guardian, says "that the claims, dubbed Climategate" It documents that they have been dubbed that, but says nothing of usage. It certainly doesn't support the assertion made in the sentence.

Quite simply, none of the references support the assertion made in the sentence. They are examples of usage, which could be held up to support the statement that "the term is often used in the media". But that would be classic OR: you would be using the reports as raw data, and drawing new conclusions based on this raw data. Which violates Misplaced Pages policy. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't change the sentence to "referred to as 'Climategate' in the media" and it's definitely OR in that state. I'm up for Bold changes or whatever.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You went with the passive voice "was dubbed." No better. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, the passive voice was already in place. Second, is the passive construction really no better than blatant OR and SYNTH? Hip, let's cool off. I'm not trying to sabotage any articles, we can just talk about this. Three of the five refs say "dubbed" in the passive voice. Given the conflict between the LA times and TIME on the rightful subject of the active construction it seems appropriate to go with the passive.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no conflict. One says the WSJ did the dubbing. The other says skeptics use the phrase. Use and initiation of the phrase are seperate events - more than just the dubber can use the phrase. Given that the LA Times is the entertainment section, I suggest we use the Time article, which is a reliable source for the use of "Climategate." Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the mere fact that someone 'dubbed' something by a certain name is not evidence that the person used the name. Information on usage needs to be sourced to articles which address usage. Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only sourced dubber is "The Wall Street Journal's ardently right-wing editorial pages," per the LA Times Entertainment section or we can use "Skeptics of global warming refer to the incident as "Climategate," per Time. I'll accept either. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wary of using the LA Times Entertainment section. Because, you know, it's an entertainment section, not news analysis. I'd go with Time, but others are claiming it's an unreliable source. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(as a paranthetical, the LA times doesn't say right-wing editorialists dubbed the controversy "Climategate," though mention of right-wing editorialists does occur in the same sentence).--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has explained to my satisfaction why it is necessary to talk about the origin of the term, which I doubt could be ever known with certainty. Further, the origin is irrelevant. What matters is that a reader understand that this article is about Climategate, which like it or not, has become the most widely used moniker. At first I objected to "dubbed" because I mistakenly thought it meant roughly the same thing as "coined", i.e. implied origination. Websters however disabused me of that notion. I think the the current "The controversy was referred to as Climategate in the media." is also fine. In my opinion, it doesn't need a cite as it is in the introductory paragraph and there is little or no controversy about the veracity of that statement. As others have pointed out, the cites do not directly address the issue of media usage. If you object to multiple cites as OR (a point well taken I think), the only option (short of the peculiar notion that we shouldn't mention the term at all) is to leave it uncited. As an aside, I think the intro is greatly improved from yesterday and is approaching NPOV.Jpat34721 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea. I guess I'm worried the lack of citation will make the sentence hard to justify if someone wants to be stubborn about it, but maybe that's overly cynical.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, none of this should be in the lead if it isn't already in the body of the article... Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true. And it's definitely not mentioned in the body. However it's all over the reflist, so the alternate name should be mentioned somewhere, eh?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue of naming (Climategate, Swifthack, etc.) could be discussed in its own section on nomenclature, as we can find reliable sources. That avoids having to come up with a one-sentence summary sans context, which is really the thing that leads to the OR problems. Guettarda (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the archives gone?

Where's the archives gone? (see the box to the Right and at the top)

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Here all the archives should be listed default (see {{archives}}) Now I cant find the archives at all at this pages subpages. Looking back at the deletion log a couple of days, I can't find that anything has been deleted either. Where is the Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 1 ... Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 11 etc.? Nsaa (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Page was moved, page mover didn't move the archives. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

18 archives? FFS. Thanks for the help Prodego. Guettarda (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to move the talk page myself (and move the subpages automatically) but someone beat me to it after I unprotected the talk page. Prodego 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the clumsy move. Thanks to you three (i.e., Hipocrite too) for helping me here. I've never moved a page with archives before.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, you need the move-subpages right, which is tied in to the administrator group to move subpages automatically. So you really couldn't have done it better. Prodego 21:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? That doesn't make a lot of sense... Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know admins had that. Should be seperated out and sent to trusted users (attach to rollback), at the very least. I'll review and propose. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Probably would have made more sense to move it back & use that to capture the subpages - should have thought of that before I started moving subpages manually. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the replies! If this page should be moved again it should be done by an administrator then. Nsaa (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorized Publication section - death threats

I've tweaked this section slightly to (IMHO) improve the consistency and flow. The intent was no loss of information from the previous edit.

It seems to me the last paragraph on death threats should be moved as it doesn't have anything to do with the section title. Perhaps a subsection under reactions?Jpat34721 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. The new text implied that what was "copied" was an already existing archive, we have no evidence of this, and while this is a common theory in the blogosphere it is not supported by sources. The second thing was the "there is no evidence that data theft occurred" which is wrong. Data theft did occur, even in the event that this is a "whistleblower" it is still data-theft (which may get lenience in court). This has been discussed to its death before. Change is certainly not in line with consensus, nor is it uncontroversial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You misread my edit. I didn't write that "there is no evidence that data theft occurred" but rather "It is not known when the data theft occurred." To your first point, neither is it known that the perpetrator compiled the archive from individual emails as the article implies. Given the title of the file, the alternate scenario is more likely. What is not in question is that a single file was uploaded (not "files" as the article states). I'm going to revert as I think the new text is unquestionably better, less redundant and more consistent. We should be able to easily resolve the archive versus file here.Jpat34721 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Kim misread it, then so can others. That's reason enough to take a second look at it. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Given the title of the file, the alternate scenario is more likely" - that is your personal POV. (there are several arguments against this - one of which is that the zip archive has no metadata). And strangely enough that data-theft occurred is one of the few things that we do know (CRU certainly didn't release the data willingly => data-theft), what we do not know is: the circumstances, the perpetrators or the timing of the incident. You are speculating quite alot here, which is not NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm agreeing with you on the data theft issue. The revised text makes (made) clear that data theft occurred! It correctly states that we do not know precisely when the theft occurred. As for the other issue you raised, again I'm not wedded to my language and am not trying to push a POV (I don't see even how a POV exists wrt the files vs single archive issue but if you do, fine). I was only trying to achieve consistency with our usage (file vs. files etc.) Jpat34721 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As Guettarda assumed, i misread the data-theft part - i'm sorry for that :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To address Kim's concern, I've replaced "archive" with "data". This seems to me to solve the problem nicely as data is generic and applies whether it was a single archive or compilation of emails that was stolen. Any comments on my concerns with the placement of the paragraph on death threats?Jpat34721 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar dispute - Guettarda thinks "stated that the server from which the data were taken" and later "a copy of the stolen data were uploaded" is correct. Seems to me that since copy is singular, was is correct in both instances. Am I missing something?Jpat34721 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Data were taken. Copy was uploaded or data were uploaded. Datum singular, data plural. Nightmote (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm still unclear on the second usage - "a copy of the stolen data were uploaded". Here it seems a singular copy was uploaded. Isn't "of the data" just a descriptive clause that doesn't change the singularity of copy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs)

OK, my mistake on the second one. Guettarda (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Draft proposal for Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999

This draft responds to eric's comments and aims to clarify the section, omitting duplicated assertions and adding more from the Philadelphia Enquirer source. I've kept in one reference from RealClimate, noting explicitly that Mann is connected with them:

An excerpt from one November 1999 e-mail authored by Phil Jones refers to a graph he was preparing as a diagram for the cover of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of global climate in 1999:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The graph shows three curves, each showing a reconstruction of past climate from a scientific paper named in the key to the diagram. The reconstructions were based on actual temperature records from the mid 19th century onwards, and proxy records from tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, and other records to give approximate past temperatures. "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a paper published in Nature in 1998, which combined various proxy records with actual temperature records. Michael Mann's Mann described the "trick" as simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together while still clearly indicating which was which. He said that there was nothing "hidden or inappropriate" about it, and that his method of combining proxy data had been corroborated by numerous statistical tests and matched thermometer readings taken over the past 150 years. Jones stated that "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward. RealClimate, which is associated with Mann, say that the "trick" was to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming was clear. They said that scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something secret. Andrew Solow of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said he "would use a word like that to describe some methodological step, but it wouldn't mean it was meant to trick anyone."

The proxy records only went up to 1981, and one of the reconstructions, by Keith Briffa et al, was based solely on tree ring data which was known to have the divergence problem of a decline in correlation with measured temperatures after 1960. The authors of that reconstruction had published a statement on the divergence problem in 1998, and had recommended that the post 1960 part of their reconstruction should not be used. To meet a requirement that the graph should show temperatures to the present, Jones used instrumental data to extend the graph. Thus the curve representing Keith Briffa's reconstruction included proxy data up to 1960, but actual temperatures alone from 1961 to 1999. Jones has stated that the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste, and that, far from hiding the problem, CRU has published articles discussing this divergence or decline in tree rings. In his 2007 review comments on the IPCC 4AR, Stephen McIntyre objected to a graph of a Briffa et al tree ring based reconstruction being truncated at 1960, and said that the whole reconstruction should be shown with comments to deal with the ‘divergence problem’. The IPCC responded that this would be inappropriate.

It has been claimed by critics that the email sentence is evidence that temperature statistics have being manipulated. Richard Lindzen talked in terms of "falsification and rigging of data", but other climatolagists dispute these accusations, including Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center who saw nothing in the emails calling into question the fundamental science or undermining the scientific consensus, built on many independent lines of evidence, that the Earth was warming from human activities. McIntyre said that since the cause of the divergence problem is unknown, and it may have existed in earlier periods, tree ring records cannot be used to estimate temperatures in the past.

Before the incident, continuing research had already presented reconstructions based on more proxies, and found similar results with or without the tree ring records.

Comments welcome, dave souza, talk 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add a reflist for ease of viewing but most of the refs were ref-name attached to the main article. Are you rewriting sentences or just taking out material that might contradict BLP? I'm just trying to figure out if I can verify sources by looking at the main article or if you've altered sentences too. --Heyitspeter (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As you say, I was using refs from the article, adding in ref. 1 – CRU update 23 November. The aim was to see if the text was a clearer explanation of the issues, here's a quick and dirty way of showing what references were used:

An excerpt from one November 1999 e-mail authored by Phil Jones refers to a graph he was preparing as a diagram for the cover of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of global climate in 1999:<CRU update 23 November>

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."<refs as before>

The graph shows three curves, each showing a reconstruction of past climate from a scientific paper named in the key to the diagram. The reconstructions were based on actual temperature records from the mid 19th century onwards, and proxy records from tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, and other records to give approximate past temperatures.<"WMO statement on the status of global climate in 1999><"Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 2> "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a paper published in Nature in 1998, which combined various proxy records with actual temperature records. Michael Mann's Mann described the "trick" as simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together while still clearly indicating which was which. He said that there was nothing "hidden or inappropriate" about it, and that his method of combining proxy data had been corroborated by numerous statistical tests and matched thermometer readings taken over the past 150 years.<Philadelphia Inquirer Dec 8> Jones stated that "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.<CRU update 23 November> RealClimate, which is associated with Mann, say that the "trick" was to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming was clear. They said that scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something secret.<The CRU hack". RealClimate.> Andrew Solow of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said he "would use a word like that to describe some methodological step, but it wouldn't mean it was meant to trick anyone."<Philadelphia Inquirer Dec 8>

The proxy records only went up to 1981, and one of the reconstructions, by Keith Briffa et al., was based solely on tree ring data which was known to have the divergence problem of a decline in correlation with measured temperatures after 1960. The authors of that reconstruction had published a statement on the divergence problem in 1998, and had recommended that the post 1960 part of their reconstruction should not be used.<Briffa 1998 paper><The CRU hack". RealClimate.> To meet a requirement that the graph should show temperatures to the present, Jones used instrumental data to extend the graph. Thus the curve representing Keith Briffa's reconstruction included proxy data up to 1960, but actual temperatures alone from 1961 to 1999. Jones has stated that the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste, and that, far from hiding the problem, CRU has published articles discussing this divergence or decline in tree rings.<CRU update 23 November><CRU update 24 November><"Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context". The Times> In his 2007 review comments on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Stephen McIntyre objected to a graph of a Briffa et al. tree ring based reconstruction being truncated at 1960, and said that the whole reconstruction should be shown with comments to deal with the ‘divergence problem’. The IPCC responded that this would be inappropriate.<Finnish TV Transcript>

It has been claimed by critics that the email sentence is evidence that temperature statistics have being manipulated.<Guardian 20 Nov, Telegraph 23 Nov, Telegraph> Richard Lindzen talked in terms of "falsification and rigging of data", but other climatologists dispute these accusations, including Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center who saw nothing in the emails calling into question the fundamental science or undermining the scientific consensus, built on many independent lines of evidence, that the Earth was warming from human activities. <Philadelphia Inquirer Dec 8> McIntyre said that since the cause of the divergence problem is unknown, and it may have existed in earlier periods, tree ring records cannot be used to estimate temperatures in the past.<CNN McIntyre Transcript>

Before the incident, continuing research had already presented reconstructions based on more proxies, and found similar results with or without the tree ring records.<The CRU hack". RealClimate.><Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1073/pnas.0805721105 instead.>

Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 05:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CSM article and IPCC AR4

Thanks Dave. Fixed a couple typos. Still has one major problem - using McI to comment on the appropriateness of the science. "McIntyre said that since the cause of the divergence problem is unknown" - surely there's a real expert who could be quoted to talk about the issue (maybe something from the CSM article we discussed here a little while ago?) Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Couple other minor fixes; IPCC is a dab page, and AR4 is an abbreviation that most readers wouldn't know. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda, excellent source which I'd not read previously. I've downloaded chapter 6 of IPCC AR4, pp. 472–473, from here:

All of the large-scale temperature reconstructions discussed in this section, with the exception of the borehole and glacier interpretations, include tree ring data among their predictors so it is pertinent to note several issues associated with them. .... Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.

That also impinges on McIntyre's claim that the graph in IPCC AR4 was wrongly truncated: what he didn't say is that the text explicitly states that the graph is truncated and why, and the text spells out the lack of consensus amongst experts about the implications of this divergence for accuracy of the proxy in earlier periods. Thus he presents an impression of conspiratorial secrecy about something that was actually spelt out in the published report in 2007. For the science the Christian Monitor articles and IPCC report are better, McIntyre's misleading statements can be presented along with what the Christian Monitor calls "purported revelations" that "skeptics of human-induced climate change say shows that climate scientists are manipulating data". . . dave souza, talk 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to be a better article, this still needs a rename

The current name of this article is still not honoring Misplaced Pages NPOV, the article named Climatic Research Unit Leaked Documents Controversy would've been far better for NPOV, the vote did have a majority, and nearly passed. I believe this article to be compromising Misplaced Pages credibility in favor of its own one-sided view. The present article name still smooths over the fact that the controversy began long before the documents were leaked, and implies the entire story is solely about a singular criminal act - as far as I know, the police have still not finished their investigation, and have still not confirmed that an outsider hacked a server, or that hacking was actually involved? The police will investigate any claims within reason, they must arrive at a result before there's any credible reason to call those claims by the name of the alleged crime, correct? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would object to "leaked documents", of course. The chances of this being the result of leak are vanishingly small. We are essentially waiting for confirmation of what everyone already knows - that the UEA server was hacked, data was stolen (copied without permission) and then disseminated without permission. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You spoil your argument with hyperbole. I note that the server has been described as difficult to access from outside. How much money have you got? Bet you it was a leak. I'm quoting great odds. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What, precisely, is "a leak"? I'm getting pissed off with that term ;) . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to a more NPOV name. Also, does 'copied without permission' include whistle blowers? Whistleblowers actually have laws protecting them in some states/parts of the world. A more NPOV name does not of course, hinge on the word 'leaked'. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A whistleblower copies without permission. If he gets away without being charged with breaking the law he still did not have permission. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not whistleblowers are included, because there is no evidence whatsoever that a whistleblower is involved in this incident. I am now thinking the most accurate title would probably be Climatic Research Unit data theft, but that would only be a viable title in the event that the Norfolk police confirm a theft took place. I am one of those people who uses "data" as a word to describe all computer files/documents/code/emails/whatever, but some people object to the word because it may be confused with collected scientific data (which is where the idea of using "documents" came from). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm still confident the best most neutral name proposed thus far was Climatic Research Unit documents release controversy, that's the title that had a majority of votes, but looking at my link bar up top, apparently not a 'super majority', or perhaps the neutral name took back burner for some other issue? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I too am one of those people that believe data can be a very general term, applying to emails as well as documents, but especially more so to source code which was also included in the leaked data, the only reason I used the word leaked is because the documents were definitely leaked, whether by a whistleblower or a hacker remains to be determined by the police, but like the word data, I'm not tied to the word leaked, so long as a more neutral article name ultimately wins out. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Data is a general term. In old computerspeak you processed data to get information. Hence the term "data processing". Also the term "raw data". Data is any collection of information, it can be random nonsense, it is still data. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the current article title is that in my opinion the title doesn't fit the article. This article is minorly about the hacking incident and mostly about the resulting controversy (the term "controversy" is used loosely here, as people arguing whether the mails are controversial is still controversy). To me, therefore, either this article should be retitled in a way that indicates it's about the controversy or the controversy and the hack should be two different articles (as done with the analogousWatergate burglaries and Watergate scandal). Oren0 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason those articles are separate is because there is too much information to fit into one article (over 100Kb). That is not remotely the situation here - the info about the hack takes up only about 3Kb, last time I checked, while the info about the controversy is only about 30Kb. That is unlikely to change in the near future. I very much doubt that this article is going to get substantially longer than it is now, given the lack of new information. Regarding a rename, "leaked documents" is unsatisfactory for all the reasons given above. It is a POV name, since it rejects the university's own description of the files as stolen documents and sides with the anti-science activists who speculate that a whistleblower was responsible. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The documents were definitely leaked, one of the few facts we know for certain right now, whether they were released by a hacker or not the police will provide consensus on. 2. There are many skilled and respected scientists who do not buy into anthropogenic global warming as it is being sold by Al Gore, so your comment about anti-science activists is not very accurate from where I'm standing. All due respect, the people most heated about this debacle from what I've seen, are scientists who have been snubbed by certain peers because their dedication to the scientific process trumped some bureaucratic need for artificial consensus. 3. I thought this article was now protected from certain types of negative comments, seeing that it is on probation. 4. As I've already said I'd happily do without the word leaked so long as a more neutral name saves the day, like Climatic Research Unit documents release controversy. 5. Again, the viewpoint that only anti-scientists are against Gore Warming is fallacious, there are many renowned and skilled scientists who oppose AGW as it is being sold. Hope this helps bring balance to the force.. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam, as others have indicated, "leaked" is problematic – it's vague slang. 2. Many pundits and bloggers involved in the "controversy" appear to reject global warming of any sort, the respected climate scientists I've read have a range of views but all accept that there is some contribution from anthropogenic warming, while a minority seem to dispute whether it is statistically significant. If the people "snubbed by certain peers" are who I think you mean, they seem to forget about scientific integrity when portaying a partial and inaccurate picture to the media. 4. As said before, "documents release" is misleading. 5. Your statement looks propagandistic rather than helpful. I want to see the science, and shades of view within science, properly represented. Unfortunately we also have to find a way of covering misrepresentation and inflated "controversy" from scientific minorities or fringe activists. . . dave souza, talk 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate/CRU Email Hack Controversy

I recommend Climategate/CRU Email Hack Controversy owing to these reasons:

1. "Climategate" is gaining currency
2. CRU = Climate Research Unit
3. "Email" because much of the controversy stems from the perceived "caught in the act" allegations made against numbers of emails - in fact we list many emails with details
4. "Hack" is sufficiently explained in the intro so as not to be POV in the title, but a lot of people of certain political stripes are convinced of "hack" so we need to make this easily google-able for them
5. "Controversy" because in aggregate, these things have stirred up controversy

We can go into detail about the documents in the article, but most news sources so far have emphasized "email" so that's enough for our title as it's what people will google for.

If we include "climategate", "email" and "hack", we will put just about equal amounts of "controversy" against both ends of the POV spectrum, thereby keeping this in the middle. 7390r0g (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hack" is not known, so can't be used yet. "E-mail" is but a small part of the leaked information and so is misleading. The only word for this controversy is the remaining word. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, "climategate" may be a popular nickname, but it's unsuitable as an article name and clearly pushes a pov in the issue. The controversy isn't confined to emails, it includes the the stealing and distribution of the data which is currently under investigation, and includes the widely misrepresented computer code that was also distributed for analysis. . dave souza, talk 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy also prohibits split names of this kind; see WP:NPOV#Article naming. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Chris, as I've already pointed out to you. You're straining WP:AGF, here & elsewhere.. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arghhh. I give up. There is a dearth of consensus-reaching desire here. 7390r0g (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that policy and common sense are sacrificed along the way for the sake of allowing a narrow POV usage of a pejorative nickname for the article. The "-gate" discussion has been done to death now, and it simply isn't going to happen. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Somerville

Implies that the CRU/IPCC people are the only prominent scientists

Could someone explain this edit? I do not understand it nor its edit summary. We group related content together; we do not split it up into standalone sentences. I intend to group the material back in. If Heyitspeter was concerned about the wording, why didn't he just remove the word "prominent"? I'm at a loss to explain his edit as it does not serve any purpose that I can see other than to bait me into trying to edit war, as this was material that Oren0 recently removed and I restored. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC) ‎

The summary doesn't mean much to me either, and the edit clearly moved a statement out of context. Having looked at the source which referred to three leading scientists, Mann, Somerville and Eric Steig, I've rephrased it accordingly and placed it to follow on directly from Mann's statement. There doesn't seem to be an article about Steig yet, so I've given his UW affiliation. Heyitspeter also tagged the Jones email quote of 16 Nov 1999 with an edit summary that The "summarization" given for the quote isn't included in any form in any of the citations. As I made clear when adding that version with names of the innocent redacted, that's an interim version until issues are fully resolved and it would be more helpful if editors could make constructive proposals at #Draft proposal for Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999. . . dave souza, talk 10:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On nicknames

Since the material in the lead isn't supported by the ref (see #Reference overload in the intro is back, above), and since we shouldn't have material in the Lead that's not present in the article, I have removed the statement about "climategate" from the lead. I moved the nickname in its own section, and in the interest of NPOV I have restored full discussion of both nicknames. After all, we can't privilege one POV over the other. Guettarda (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For the underlying structural logic, I've based it on what I did here. Guettarda (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the most widely used short-hand from the lead is silly as is your contention that its use somehow imparts a POV. There are tons of examples where the term is used by proponents of AWG. Your justification about citation is spurious, especially since in the same edit you removed all the other citations but left the text in tact! I repeat my contention that the most commonly used moniker by external sources needs to be in the lead to provide context for the reader and that it need not be cited. Further, as we were discussing this yesterday in an attempt to reach consensus, your unilateral action is premature, contentious and unwarranted.Jpat34721 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, it looks fairly obvious that Swifthack has almost no usage and Climategate has a whole lot. In fact that is 35 times as much. Based on that, it looks pretty non-negotiable (per WP:NCCN, WP:UNDUE) that we include Climategate, and do not include Swifthack. Unless someone has a better argument. Prodego 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think (as TIME magazine apparently does) that the use of these names to promote a point of view is quite interesting. None of these terms are neutral, so they cannot be used as a title for the article; however, it is worth having a section in the article that mentions them in the same way the TIME article did. The new "Naming the issue" section seems to be on the right track, but I'd consider expanding it to cover public perception and the staking of positions in general. The popularity of "Climategate" is undeniable, but Misplaced Pages should not be used to promote its usage (or the POV it seeks to represent). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article titles don't actually need to be NPOV - sometimes that isn't possible. They should be what the subject of the article is commonly referred to. I'm not sure what that is in the case of this article. Prodego 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Descriptive names is an excellent summation of what should be expected from an article like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to have an title that describes the subject in such a way that the readers can immediately tell what you are talking about. What we want is a title that will be universally identified. A 'nickname' isn't going to be that. But I'm not sure that the current title does justice to the article either, since half the time the article is talking about the controversy of hacking the emails, and the other half it is talking about the controversy of the content of the emails. Its hard to describe an article on two subjects in one title. Prodego 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But the content is only in the news because of the hacking. Don't forget the third issue - the way the content was spun. Which derives from the first two. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Never trust the estimates - vs . Without opinion on using either or both. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I currently get 457 Google hits for "Swifthack" and 702705 for "Climategate". So as far as usage goes, the difference is small. More to the point, we haven't got reliable sources for usage. We do have a reliable source which discusses usage - and it mentions both names. So that seemsed to be the way to go. Guettarda (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you are doing something wrong. Prodego 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In what way? Have you read WP:GOOGLE? Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I get far far more hits for both terms: about 2.1 million for climategate and about 60k for swifthack. Obviously google isn't the end all of common usage, but such a large disparity is noteworthy. Prodego 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)And you read the article that's linked to a in footnote? Google's top line numbers are meaningless. Try this. Google each term. Now go to one of the other pages. I like to pick the . Now look at the URL - it will say "&start=90" (or whatever, depending on which results page you clicked). Now change that number to something big. 900 is a good starting place. Now look at the number of results that Google actually found. That's the number that matters. Not the top-line number. Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting 1,701 to 3 for current google news, with no reliable sources among the 3, so WP:GOOGLE does not even apply. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And that's called WP:OR. Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Google states that GoogleNews can be used to judge the news worthiness of a subject. "Swifthack" yields 4 results (all blogs). "Climategate" yields 1814. 'nuff said.Jpat34721 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It all refers to the same thing. I don't think anyone suggests that this article fails WP:N. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The point of my googlenews comment is not about the noteworthiness of the article, it's to prove that the media has overwhelmingly adopted climategate as a short-hand. Jpat34721 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, only one's a blog. But more importantly, it doesn't turn up the source we're using here. Which means that there's obviously something wrong with that search. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This has gone beyond the silly to the outright absurd. As I write this (it may very well be edit warred by the time I save) the article does not even mention the common name in the lede, and gives a parallel treatment more weight to the word "swifthack", which is a different sort of thing entirely and has not achieved any kind of status as a common name. I had thought that calling it "swifthack" was a rhetorical argument, not a real proposal. I see some good arguments on both sides for using the common name "climategate" as the title and primary identification in the article, versus a made-up descriptive title, but to downplay it entirely does not pass the smell test here. Any uninvolved reader who doesn't know the subject is not going to get a neutral picture from that about what's going on, and a reader who does is likely to be perplexed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We have only one reliable source on usage. So why should we replace sourced content with WP:OR? Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to take that comment seriously - are you really suggesting that Climategate and Swiftboatgate are comparable terms? First of all, usage is for the most part not a sourcing issue, nor is it OR to apply common sense and reason to how an article is named. But if we are talking sources, if there is only one supporting the self-consciously alternative name then the overwhelming weight is against it. The Time source passes the WP:RS threshold but it is not very convincing. It's a breezy attention-grabber intro to a lightweight analysis piece, and it just doesn't ring true. There are dozens, probably hundreds of sources that explicitly say "climategate" has been applied to the issue, and an order of magnitude more that simply use the term. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, we're talking about nicknames for the story. If you cover one, you cover all that we can provide reliable sources for. We don't pick one and say "sources be damned, we're only going with this one". That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV, especially when we're talking about names that themselves betray the user's POV. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume the source you refer is the Time article which isn't on usage, it's on origin. Secondly, you had no qualms about removing the citations for the rest of the assertions in the lead so your argument about OR looks disingenuous. Jpat34721 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT to give everything equal time. It's hard to believe that argument is on the level. Who the heck calls it swifthack? If we wanted to be neutral we would not mention swifthack at all because it's an obscure POV coined term. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have more sources discussing the name "Climategate?" Why not add that content into the part about naming the controversy? Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WMO 1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference RealClimate 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105 Cite error: The named reference "Proxy based 2008" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
4. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=446&filename=1102687002.txt
5. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference UEA 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. ^ Cite error: The named reference PI Dec 8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/35596, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/35596 instead.
12. Cite error: The named reference UEA 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. Cite error: The named reference timesonline 6948008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. Transcript of "Climategate" documentary, YLE TV1 Finland, first broadcast Dec. 7th, 2009. "He objected to hiding the decline in one of his comments."

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists