Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:29, 8 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.

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)

Full quote from email

Your original lead above was much better than the current

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."

The full quote should be restored. The intervening "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", is OR and pretends WP knows what the "trick" refers to. Let Mann speak for himself. Jpat34721 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an email by Jones, not Mann, and the quote in the article with first names omitted is an interim solution until we provide sourced statements of who "Mike" and "Keith" are, to meet BLP concerns about giving first names only of those accused of wrongdoing by critics. If you're happy with the above approach, maybe we can put some of it into the article, but I intend to modify things in line with the CSM reference as discussed below. . . dave souza, talk 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the current version of the article doesn't make (unsourced) claims about "Mike" and "Keith", would it be alright if we added the text of the e-mail? The current "summary" of the e-mail isn't in the citations given. --Heyitspeter (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how there can be any BLP issue when the the e-mail does not definitively identify the people involved (first names only). Could you clarify the concern. But in any case, RC which is associated with the people in question has identified them.

RealClimate: "The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction....Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records."

RealClimate: "As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem" - see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682)."

Would this satisfy the concerm? Jpat34721 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

<unindent> The problem of first names was discussed here, looking over my proposal above I can see it got rather mangled. My intention was something on these lines –

"Mike's Nature trick" referred to a paper published by Michael Mann in Nature in 1998, which combined various proxy records with actual temperature records. 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>

I think there's less of an issue with "Keith" and we show it was Keith Briffa's curve that had discarded post 1960 in accordance with Briffa's guidance. If we add that sentence in, then there should be no problem in giving the quote from the email rather than summarising it. Ericr's comments would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your paragraph looks great. I assume it would follow immediately after the full quote from the e-mail? Jpat34721 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my intention. I've now implemented it together with the introductory paragraph proposed above, and with the paragraph split at the Briffa section so that one paragraph deals with the "trick", and the following one deals with the tree ring "decline". . dave souza, talk 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice job. When reading through the section I get a bit lost here:

One of the reconstructions, by Keith Briffa et al., was based solely on tree ring data which was already 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. In his 2007 review ...

Starting the paragraph with "One of the reconstructions" seems to lose the context and doesn't make it clear that we've moved from talking about the trick, to talking about "hiding the decline". Perhaps something like,

"Hide the decline" refers to a reconstruction by Briffa et al which used tree ring density as a proxy for regional temperatures. For reasons unknown, the proxy data from this reconstruction loses correlation with more direct measures of temperature from the same era, showing a decline when the temperature was thought to be rising. The authors of the reconstruction had published a statement on this divergence problem in 1998, and had recommended that the post 1960 part of their reconstruction should not be used.. In his 2007 review ...

Jpat34721 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking, have checked the source which is CRU update 2, and found it makes specific reference to chapter 6 of IPCC AR4, so amended the paragraph in accordance with the sources – see what you think. The description of them using "tree ring density" doesn't appear in the CRU source, which simply calls it data as far as I've found, so I've left it at that. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My only issue is with the phase "decline in the correlation of tree ring data with temperature". While I think this is technically true, I doubt if most readers would grasp the controversy from this statement. A decline in correlation (a term many readers will be unfamiliar with) doesn't address the issue of slope, where in this case the curves are moving in opposite directions. How does: "The phrase "hide the decline" referred specifically to the so called divergence problem where temperatures derived from tree ring data appear to decrease after 1960 when actual temperatures were thought by most scientists to be rising." work for you. Jpat34721 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again an excellent point. That's me picking up technical language from the CRU update! As a quick compromise I've changed it to "The phrase "hide the decline" referred specifically to the divergence problem in which post 1960 tree ring proxy data indicate a decline while measured temperatures rise." Note that it wasn't a "thought by most scientists" situation, the measurements continue to show rising temperatures but the tree ring proxy of many (but not all) of the northern trees reacts in the way previously associated with falling measured temperatures. The possible reasons in the AR4 report as copied below are quite interesting, but there's not a consensus view on the cause. . . dave souza, talk 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job and thanks for the cooperative manner in which you've approached this! The "most scientist" thing refers to some Russian scientists (don't have the reference handy) who are disputing the Siberian temperature record, claiming the dataset used by the CRU (HadCRUT I think), had under-estimated the urban island effect by a factor of 3. We don't want to open that can o' worms, but I just wanted to convey the notion that agreement on temperature trends in the Yurals is not 100%. This is just FYI, I'm not proposing a change. Thanks again. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC - removal of redundant Mann quote in this section

To improve the choppiness of this section I would like to eliminate the Time sourced quote below and leave just the Mann quote which follows immediately.

Time quoted Michael Mann saying that the statistical "trick" referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures.

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.

The second quote includes all of the information of the first and is more explicit. Of course, if consensus is that the Time quote is better, I'd have no objection to going with that one and eliminating the second one. Jpat34721 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My proposal immediately above is to move the Mann quote up to the current second paragraph, immediately before "A press release by the University of East Anglia ...." which might be made the start of a new paragraph. Agree with discarding the Time quote which is essentially a duplication. . . dave souza, talk 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Mann quote seems fine to me. Are we also in agreement about restoring the full Jone's email quote? In the context paragraph that follows the full quote, we could either leave Briffa's last name out of it and just talk about the tree ring data or name him (my preference), using RC as the source. Jpat34721 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, I've now moved the Mann quote and removed the surplus Time quote, and have restored the larger quote from Jones's email. Note that it's not the full email, a longer quote from it is given in the CRU statement which I've cited for the new first paragraph. As stated, the Briffa tree ring reconstruction "decline" is now dealt with in a separate paragraph, naming him and using CRU update 2 as the source, so I don't think we need to cite RC for that particular statement. Will try to review the rest of the section, which is essentially unchanged, but rather busy just now. . . dave souza, talk 16:24, 8 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)

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)

There's nothing wrong with the search. Geez. The source you're using here is too old to be considered news by Google. The search shows that the usage trend is strongly towards climategate.Jpat34721 (talk) 19:40, 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)

"you had no qualms about removing the citations for the rest of the assertions in the lead" - yep, it's called following the Manual of Style. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we should mention climategate in the lead and it need not be sourced. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouthJpat34721 (talk) 19:20, 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)

There are plenty of sources, and if I find the time I'll work them into the article in incubation that's about the scandal. research. This one seems to be about the emails and the hacking incident, so the genesis and popular perception of the scandal terminology aren't terribly relevant. That would also be the place to add a sentence or two about swifthack, ideally if we get more than one source and know where it comes from and who's promoting that term. Most of sources for "climategate" aren't a whole lot better than the Time piece either, they simply say offhand that the subject is dubbed, called, has been labeled, etc., "climategate", without saying who did it, when, why - it looks like the kind of factoid a journalist would just fill in without If that other article stands, we can do with a simple link. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this yesterday and found no references which supported the claims. The statement was sitting there tagged with "not in reference". So I removed it. If you can find refs that support usage, please do add them. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We're not talking about giving things equal time - we're talking about totally scrubbing mention of one term, while putting the other at the top of the article. Despite the fact that it was not discussed in the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As of when I last checked, the obscure term got more than equal time. I'm not talking about scrubbing anything, I wouldn't add it in the first place. We might add a brief section in the article to comply with MOS, but you don't really need that to support an alternate title in the lede. You only need to source it if it's reasonably disputed, and it doesn't look terribly reasonable to dispute that "climate" is in widespread if not universal use as a name for the controversy. It's gaming to remove a citable and obvious fact for lack of citation. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add "swifthack" to the lead. Please get your facts straight. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC x 3)I am really having trouble following the thinking of the editors that wish to remove the 'also known as Climategate' from the lede. It is demonstrably true. It is the more common useage to describe the incident. What sourcing would those that want this removed, accept for inclusion? Arkon (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(a) Material in the lead needs to be in the article. (b) Material that's not supported by references, material that has been discussed and tagged, should be removed from the lead after a reasonable amount of time. Which is what I did. Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those is true as a matter of Misplaced Pages practice. See Oren0's coment below, for instance. Removing obviously true material for lack of citation is gaming. Are you actually claiming that the scandal has not been called Climategate? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obviously true material"? Are you joking? There are no sources that support the statement, and several that contradict it. Guettarda (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please scroll through the reflist. We (aka you and I) have explicitly discussed the plenitude of references to 'Climategate' in the reflist of this article before (search the text "Very true" after following this link). See the same section for your comments on a discussion of the overloading of references to the statement that "the controversy was dubbed 'Climategate'." It's extremely difficult to assume good faith under these circumstances. --Heyitspeter (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Two different issues here

Just to clarify, there are two different issues here. One is whether a statement tagged with "not in citation given", which had been discussed here, should stay in the lead. Especially given that the statement was not covered in the article (as things in the lead need to be). The other was a section on nicknames. Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC AGAIN!)For this first, the discussion that you reference is a bit different that what was added and removed today. That section references 'in the media' while the last just stated 'also known as'. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. The statement I removed did not say "also known as". Guettarda (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Also known as" has a problem, because just about every reference to the name is in quotes, or "dubbed climategate by the WSJ", or something of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That thing about the quotes seems to be a new thing invented for this page. Lots of journalists put quotes around terms that are new to the reader, in need of definition, colloquial, are a reference to someone else's usage, and so on. So, quite the opposite, the quotes often mean precisely that something is known as the term inside the quotes. I do think using that language goes too far though. If we say it is known as or called Climategate we should add a word or two to say by whom. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing the unsupported statement from the lead was a no-brainer. That's just a copy-edit. Creating a section to discuss naming is another issue. It's the first step to determine whether (and what) nicknames belong in the lead. And if we're discussing nicknames, we need to use the things we can reliably source. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Your repeated assertion that the name needs to be in the body of the article is untrue. Per WP:LEAD: "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." Climategate is a widely used name for this controversy, and therefore its inclusion in the lead is merited regardless of the body of the article. Also, the statement tagged "not in citation given" was for the "in the media" part of that sentence. The solution? Remove "in the media", not the whole sentence. Oren0 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Arkon (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sure, if this were an article names "Climategate" we'd say "also known as ClimateGate or Climate Gate". But it's not a synonym. It's used in quotes in most sources, or "dubbed climategate by the SWJ". It's used that way because everyone realises it's a slur, it's an attack, it's political spin. It's not a synonym. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal is not the party that "dubbed" it or calls it. I believe there's a reliable source that says so, but that's demonstrably wrong. It's just one instance among many. The reason why something has an alternate name is relevant to a discussion about how the naming came about, but it doesn't obviate the fact. The language, and Misplaced Pages, are full of instances where something gains a primary or variant name due to people's opinions about the subject. We can say that a Gobstopper is also known as a "jawbreaker" without worrying that the term is a POV marketing claim exaggerated to the point of silliness. That article, and Red Fox being known as Vulpes Vulpes, are very typical examples of usage of alternate titles here. Actually, nearly every article. The variations on the name are rarely cited. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. "George W. Bush, also known as Shrub," "Barak Obama, also called Barak Osama," "Bill Clinton, also known as Slick Willie." I could go on and on. Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vulpes vulpes? That doesn't have to be sourced? See that thing on the right side of the page? It's called taxobox. And it has a line called "authority". So yes, it has to be sourced. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the fox and George Bush examples aren't exactly on point, nor is gobstopper. Let's not belabor the point, you don't remove obvious stuff for lack of citation. There are plenty of citations if you really want to insist on one, but that's really not the right way to describe it anyway. The hacking incident doesn't really have an alternate name. Climategate is a term initially promoted by the skeptics to refer to their notion that the scientists had done something wrong, as revealed by the documents. I don't think there's much disagreement on that. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that everyone uses quotes around it. Or most reliable sources do. That alone should be a big flag to calling it a synonym. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wall Street Journal is not the party that "dubbed" it or calls it. I believe there's a reliable source that says so, but that's demonstrably wrong. It's just one instance among many" - we discussed this yesterday. We tried to answer the question then. It might have been helpful if you had spoken up then, rather than impute ill motive now. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear how you're reading anything about motive into the statement of mine in quotes. I'm just saying, as an aside, that it's inaccurate to state that Wall Street Journal is the party that came up with the name. At least two widely read conservative pundits seem to have used the term before WSJ and it's not clear and I haven't found sources for whether one got it from the other or they arrived at it independently. The name bounced around the conservative blogs or a short while before making the leap to mainstream sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue?

"Climategate" is a non-neutral term that seeks to give a whiff of scandal to the incident, and it describes nothing. Virtually all reputable reliable sources referring to the word use quotation marks to indicate it is not a neutral term, and those that don't are either plain lazy or biased against the CRU scientists in some way. It's popularity comes from (a) being the first such term to emerge, and (b) being extensively promoted by individuals and organizations seeking to discredit the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming. The popularity is undeniable and it must receive appropriate coverage, but it should never, under any circumstances, be promoted by Misplaced Pages as if it were a legitimate, non-neutral term. My personal preference is that it be given prominence in a section which discusses the term's use as essentially a pejorative (along with "Warmergate"), and how the "opposing" POV has attempted to counter with "Swifthack", "Hackergate" and similar constructs. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contention that "Climategate" is a non-neutral" is your POV. The term itself can not "seek" to do anything. Like it or not, it has become the near universal short-hand and as such, removing from the lead, besides being absurd, is itself not POV neutral. I would also point out that the term does not imply wrongdoing on the part of the CRU. You object because your POV is that there is no scandal. We are not here to debate that. We're here to document the controversy which is now commonly referred to as climategate.Jpat34721 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "my" POV. It's universally accepted that adding "-gate" to anything is going to draw parallels with "Watergate". And we are not "here to document the controversy". We are here to document the facts as reported by reliable sources about the entire incident, not just your favorite bit of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Which was, roughly speaking, my rationale for creating a section to discuss it. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that :FactCheck.org uses "Climategate" exclusively and in fact is the title of its analysis. This is evidence both of its general usage and its adoption by unbiased sources. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's an example of usage. See discussion just a little up the page. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you now denying that FactCheck is an unbiased source?? Jpat34721 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not what Guettarda was saying at all. And Factcheck ALSO uses quotation marks to indicate it isn't their term either. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is objecting to putting climategate in quotes. We're objecting to it being scrubbed fromn the lead altogether.Jpat34721 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be in the lede. In certainly needs to be in the article somewhere, perhaps even prominently, but I'm not aware of any reason why it needs to be in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As others have argued (and in my view convincingly), it does need to be in the lead so that readers know that this article is the right place to find the information they are seeking. The chance that they heard about this as the "Climate research Unit hacking incident" is near nil. If the term is buried down the page somewhere, how will the reader know he's in the right place? Jpat34721 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. If people are genuinely searching for "Climategate", they will find themselves redirected to this article automatically. No more needs to be done than that. I'm bored of hearing this excuse, quite honestly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Kinda tired of this quotation mark business. So... "Virtually all reputable reliable sources referring to the word use quotation marks to indicate it is not a neutral term" is OR. That is unless you have a source. Arkon (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm kinda tired of people abusing Misplaced Pages policy by claiming a statement on a talk page is "OR". It would be original research if I was putting in the article, but I am not. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A source that it's meant to put a negative spin on things? Sure. Check the article. Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, a source that states "Virtually all reputable reliable sources referring to the word use quotation marks to indicate it is not a neutral term". This statement is meant to somehow dismiss the thousands of refs that use Climategate as the name for the incident. As it stands, it's just IDONTLIKEIT. Arkon (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't thousands. There aren't even a thousand, counting us and mirrors. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha ok, hundreds. Changes nothing, but ok. Arkon (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1,000 is a huge number of sources. That said, Google News does return over 1,800 for "Climategate", the majority of which are likely reliable. Oren0 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Google itself can only find 705 pages (after promising millions), it's likely that Google News' top-line numbers are just as meaningless as standard Google. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This analysis is wrong. Per what I left on your talk page and from WP:GOOGLE, Google searches only will take the top 1000 results and then prune duplicates. It is in fact impossible for any Google search to link you to more than 1000 results (really, try it), even though millions of pages do in fact exist. Oren0 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I know this analysis isn't "Misplaced Pages approved," but I did a search of the archives of a few notable news sources for the terms "Climategate" and "Swifthack." The number of articles found that reference "Climategate" are CNN:14, MSNBC:1, FOX:32, AP:4. For "Swifthack" we have CNN:0, MSNBC:0, FOX:0, AP:0. So based on my admittedly imperfect analysis it looks like "Climategate" is used in the mainstream media, and "Swifthack" is not. SkipSmith (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) This remains an absurd argument. It's almost as if the anti-Climategate folk here are actively trying to make Misplaced Pages look ridiculous (note: not an accusation or PA). Everyone else in the world calls the thing Climategate, and most (ime) don't even put it in "scare quotes" anymore. At some point, the reality of the outside world, and how language actually works, will penetrate even here. It will be amusing to see how long that takes -- but in the meanwhile, we'll continue to be a figure of fun to the world outside. And rightly so. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See #strawman in FactCheck paragraph in email intro below for advice on sourcing for such statements. You may think you're a figure of fun to the world outside, in my opinion we're acting responsibly and carefully in accordance with sensible policies, including WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAPBOX. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat among the pigeons

Sorry about the mess. Still don't understand why a section discussing usage is such a big deal. Or, for that matter, why it's odd that slurs and spin should not be taken at face value. But seriously...

1. We can't use (or misuse) Google as a source for usage statistics. Not only is is WP:OR, it's also, quite simply, terribly prone to inaccuracy
2. When reliable news organisations, the kind that do fact checking, put quotes around a word, it's pretty safe to say that they don't mean that it should be taken at face value. So you can't say "all these people use it, so it's the name". You could more reasonably take the use it in quotes as votes against that being the name. Of course, for our purposes, we shouldn't use them one way or the other.
   1. More to the point, "Climategate" has been accepted and acknowledged as a slur, as spin by a certain group, trying to draw comparisons to Watergate. Reasonable, reliable sources do not consider it anything like Watergate. We all know it's nothing of the sort - though, of course, that's not relevant to the article. And we can't propagate slurs, we can't propagate spin as if it were factually correct verifiable information.
3. Usage is info, just like anything else. It needs to be sourced. It can't be sourced by to "I looked around and its obvious to me". That's not good enough.

Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit Pointy, but I hope it might be effective: Source the title of this article then. I guarantee you that I can source Climategate far more than "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident ". Arkon (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a descriptive term. Search the archives, your Q has been asked & answered. Guettarda (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, one that consensus was able to apply. Consensus here is also beginning to appear. Apparantly I wasn't being pointy enough :), but I will leave it at that. Arkon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of citations from lead

All of the citations from the lead were recently removed. As per WP:LEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." As this is an extremely contentious article it seems to me that these citations should be re-added.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article, with appropriate citations. If it's not covered in the body, it should not be in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its good that the citations is moved down below the lead. Maybe it is a bit early although since it's so controversial and so much is deleted all the time (Climategate had for one moment 8 references - all removed now …. Nsaa (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple references being used as data points, to argue for novel conclusions. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A good example of this would be the reference-free lede of Barack Obama, where (thanks to racists, birthers, other fringey types) virtually everything has been hotly contended at one time or another. If it can work there, an article like this should be no problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's do it! Hahah in any case the coolest articles I've come across are those with minimal-to-no citations and surprisingly accurate content. Gotta love the Anything goes mentality that crops up here and there on Misplaced Pages.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So, this is why we need citations. The "skeptics named 'Climategate'" line has been disputed and was contradicted by one of the refs we had previously added to the sentence. Permission to re-add the refs to the lead?--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've come to the view that consensus is impossible at this point in time. According to Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms the proper remedy is not use Climategate or any other neologism. The current version which reads "dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of climate change" is terrible. First "sceptics of climate change" is a loaded and derisive phrase that paints with a very broad brush. I know of very few who are skeptical of climate change. After all, one of the arguments the AWG skeptics make is "that the climate is always changing". Thus the current phrase itself is a shorthand, and so suffers from the same problems (unclear, offensive rtc.) of neologisms that have not achieved near universal acceptance. Jpat34721 (talk)

Then let's stick with "dubbed 'Climategate'" and leave out the contentious reference to skeptics. Just because consensus is impossible on a specific edit doesn't mean consensus is impossible on related material. There are compromise editions that are less inflammatory than the current version. And this goes beyond the naming controversy. We have a "who?" tag as well because the relevant citations were deleted.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I was ahem, otherwise occupied. I'd be happy with your proposal but many here who see the term as somehow pejorative would I'm sure object. I take the lack of consensus to mean that the standards for neologisms use has not been met but that's just my opinion. If you feel otherwise, I encourage you to be bold in your editing. WP is not a democracy. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to be very careful with applying WP:BOLD to this article, because of the WP:1RR probationary restriction. Removal of things recently added (and vice versa) are seen as reversions, remember. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:1RR just means you can only be bold once a day :>). I refer you to Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a process I think would work well here. So far, I have found the editors here to be pleasant and constructive, a good omen thinks I. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's rather dangerous to jump up to early threads, hours later, and suddenly recommend bold action. In later discussions, two good sources actually discussing the nicknaming (rather than just using a nickname) were found (Time and FactCheck), and the present section looks very good and balanced and it's certainly properly sourced. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether or not "Climategate" should be used in the lead. While I think the section you are talking about is unnecessarily divisive and frankly silly I have no objections to its sourcing. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarise the main points of the article, and that point now has its own small section, albeit at the end and it is summarised in the first line at present. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:BRD, but on hotbed articles like this it is an approach that can be somewhat inflammatory. As I like to say on my userpage, consensus before contentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a reputable citation

The NYT here declares 'or, as some have put it, “Climategate.”'. I propose we adopt this verbiage in the lead and cite this article if necessary. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to resit the temptation to put {{who}} after some on the talk page. I'd certainly do it on the article page. Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to read this article at all without adding {{who}} a few dozen times. I actually read the whole article through this morning. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

the 'who' for our purposes is the NYT. Your concern should be directed to them. For our purposes, the NYT says some call it climategate and that's all that's required for us to legitimately assert climategate as a legit neologism Jpat34721 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear to you, but the "Some" in the NYTimes article merits a "who." The best source we have on the name is that it was dubbed that by sceptics. Since everyone agrees it was dubbed by sceptics (The LA times states it was dubbed by the WSJ editorial pages, the blogs say is was dubbed by that british sceptic), why are we removing that from the lede? I guess we could remove climategate from the lede alltogether again, but I tried to find a compromise (you know, where you don't get everything you want, and neither does everyone else?). Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep going back to origin, which besides being irrelevant, is unknowable. The current dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of climate change is clearly OR. My solution, ("Climategate") in parenthesis with a cite to the NYT article which states "some call it climitgate" satisfies all of the objections raised thus far except of course, we just don't like it. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the NYT says "some call it Climategate." If you put that in the ledge, you'd get an immediate {{who}} - IE "WHO calls it Climategate, exactly?" I don't know why you have a problem with the dubbing language, except that it wasn't you who wrote it. Can you explain, exactly, why the dubbing language dosen't work for you, noting that other people want to include Swifthack, and you'll need to find ground that makes both you and other people willing to accept the article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to put that in the lead. It is standard practice to indicate common-usage neologisms thusly: ("Climategate"). In my view, we need not cite this near universal short-hand but if the consensus view is that a cite is required, we have a reputable source (NYT). My problem with the dubbing language is that it is incorrect (it is not only skeptics that call (dub) it climategate). And if instead you mean to imply that dubbed implies origin, it is OR and disputed factually (I found no less than 5 different claims of origin). Now, can you explain your objection to my proposal? Jpat34721 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but you've edited four total articles, none of which have alternate titles - you couldn't possibly know "standard practice." The dubbing language is not incorrect - there is not an example of a single non-sceptical source using "climategate" without "scare quotes" to designate it was quoting someone else. I object to your edit because it is factually false - "Climategate" is a phrase that is not broadly understood to be equal to the subject of this article - rather, it is the neologism used by sceptics to describe it, per the unambiguous Time article. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to standard publishing practices, not WP style. Are you now claiming that the average reader wouldn't have seen the style I propose many times and not recognize instantly what is being conveyed? The use of quotes simply means that the word was coined elsewhere. It does not have the meaning you imply. Non-skeptical use in quotes is use nonetheless and that is what we're debating. The question is, has climategate usage in the media (with ot without quotes) risen to the point where it mets the standards for ]. A number here think it has, a number think it has not. Since we are supposed to error on the side of "when in doubt don't use them", I suppose we should drop it altogether (as bizarre as that seems to many) and revisit this issue after some time has passed. Jpat34721 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It should just stay with 'also known as' to eliminate this objection. A strange objection I have to say, as your {{who}} is just begging for OR. Arkon (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Can you explain, exactly, why the dubbing language dosen't work for you, noting that other people want to include Swifthack, and you'll need to find ground that makes both you and other people willing to accept the article?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't address this for a couple reasons. 1) I honestly am not sure I understand what you mean when you say 'dubbing language' 2) I thought you were asking Jpat :). As for the inclusion of other names for the event, if they are notable (in many refs/sources), I have no objection to them. Arkon (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of climate change" is incorrect. Everyone agrees that there are climate changes--its a fact. The skepticism here is whether it is caused by man or part of a natural cycle. I think it should be reworded to something like: "dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of human-caused climate change" for example, or something similar. I find it hard to believe that this obvious omission eluded so many intelligent people here that I must conclude that this is a consciously or unconsciously placed straw man. Can anyone who disagrees please explain to me why I'm wrong? Professorteeth (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The self described "skeptics" seem to promote a range of views, from outright denial that there is any global warming to agreement that there is a human contribution to global warming with the reservation that they think it is insignificant in relation to other causes of global warming. The scientist "skeptics" seem to largely hold the latter view, and often refer to opposing AGW, anthropogenic global warming, which you very reasonably translate as "human-caused climate change". Easy to lose sight of the A in AGW, something to clarify. Thanks, dave souza, talk 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Time magazine article cited for the usage says "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud" so that's where it comes from. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To OP. That sounds like a very good idea. Thanks! --Heyitspeter (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "as some have put it" is weasely and leaves "who?" unanswered. Factcheck is clear that the phrase is being used by skeptics, see below. . dave souza, talk 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Souza, of course it is being used by skeptics. That isn't informative. Along with skeptics, the term is also being used by non-skeptics, including numerous writers for the NY times. I myself use the term to search for this article, avoiding having to type the entirety of "Climate Research Unit hacking incident."--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The FactCheck formulation

FactCheck, which seems reasonably neutral to me, uses the term in inverted commas in its title, says in its summary "Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming", and opens its Analysis with "Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate."... 'It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change'." That may give us a useful intro to the section. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Have implemented this proposal, summarising the statement as:

The analysis by FactCheck is that skeptics who allege that the documents show fabrication of evidence of man-made global warming are portraying it as a major scandal, using the term "Climategate".

Have also amended Walsh's statement to "sceptics of global warming", as discussed above. . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This section was just used to justify, yet again, the transition of the lead from "dubbed by sceptics" to "also called." Yet again, I note, as has been done over and over and over again, above, that "some have (xed) 'climategate'" leads me to ask "who are some." "Some" are "sceptics," per the scads of sources saying that. Stop reverting on the article to a version you know will make people you disagree with unhappy - I don't remove Climategate from the lead, you should not remove all the notations about who uses the phrase from it either. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Passive-voice weaselling

There are a number of places in the article, which I've marked with a <small?>, where there is some very unsatisfactory passive-voice weaselling: "Claims have been made" (by who?) and in several places, "Critics say" (which critics?). This sort of thing really isn't acceptable; we're supposed to properly attribute opinions, as WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements spells out. It needs to be fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that at least some of these are cited. Take this diff. The cited source says "Critics say: This proves that the world is not warming and leading IPCC scientists cannot explain why." Who are the critics? I have no idea. But this is a problem with the New Zealand Herald, not with Misplaced Pages. The fact that critics say it is well cited and verified. WP:AWW is meant to deal with uncited use of weasel words, not ones that can properly be cited in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In general I agree with your observation except that in the lead "Allegations were made" was marked with a who. I do not believe there is any question that allegations have been made, and not just by AWG skeptics as was explicated stated in a revision I edited. If allegations had not been made, there would by definition be no controversy and this article wouldn't exist. The allegations are spelled out in detail in the article body and well sourced, hence no need to cite in the lead. Jpat34721 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The passive voice is to be avoided. If the source uses the passive voice, the comment should be attributed to the source. It could be written "According to the New Zealand Herald, critics say..." (PS. Bonus points for spotting the irony.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is about whether citations are available or not: they were there until recent deletion. I'm going to add them back tomorrow as per WP:VERIFY/WP:LEADCITE unless I hear an outcry. As for the passive voice being inherently problematic, I don't understand how that can be right. If you're referencing a WP policy, can you link to it? --Heyitspeter (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or rather, "bonus points may be awarded for identification of the irony". Guettarda (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

POV edits in the lead (again)

Now that my good name has been restored (CrisO - rush to judgment much?), perhaps Guettarda would undo his revert as he used the false accusation against me as an excuse to reinsert his(apologies - JP) a POV into the lead. Thanks Jpat34721 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though you are not Scibaby, you must remain civil. Do not accuse others of rushing to judgement when they were misled by a checkuser. Do not state that others are using a checkusers confirmation that you were Scibaby as an "excuse to reinsert POV." Further, since Guettarda already self reverted here, you certainly owe them an apology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil in my remarks. This is not the forum to hash this out but since you brought it up, ChrisO was not mislead by checkuser. That was another admin. His "evidence" against me was laughably flimsy. False accusations against those with whom you disagree seems pretty uncivil to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And your apology to Guettarda? Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You think Guettarda is the victim here?? I made a polite request for a revision and it was honored. I thank him for that courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs)

You made your request at 16:30, 7 January 2010. Guettarda made the revert at 13:16, 7 January 2010 - before your "polite" request that Guettarda not "reinsert his POV" . Have you considered making that apology now? Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I'm glad you turned out to be legit, Jpat34721, because I hate wasting time arguing with socks. That being said, if I'd have been an administrator I'd have blocked you for repeatedly failing to sign your comments. </sarcasm -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged :>) I plead old age and throw myself on the mercy of the court. Jpat34721 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I trust all editors will remember the importance of assuming good faith, both as policy and to avoid jumping to mistaken conclusions that other editors are acting to reinsert their POV. . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My request was inartfully composed. My apologies to Guettarda. I trust we all all working toward the same goal, namely creating a page that does WP proud and provides a truly neutral view of this matter to the reader.Jpat34721 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, this is between Jpat and Guettarda. I suspect Guettarda's skin is plenty thick enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New Canadian Reliable Source

I found this article from the canadian Maclean's that seems to be very unbiased and give a chance to both sides of the controversy. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/the-truth-is-out-there-somewhere Echofloripa (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a neutral-sounding piece that's fairly lightweight with respect to detail, with little to offer in terms of sourcing for stuff. The problem is that we've reached the point where we need more facts (like the results of investigations) and less opinion. I would argue that if we had more details about specifics, there would be less controversy. It's almost as if the media is twiddling its thumbs awaiting new information, but in the meantime it must report something. So we end up with lots of opinion pieces written in sage-like commentary by people who really don't know diddly-squat about anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The author describes himself as amongst those "honestly confused, trying to puzzle out a complex scientific question they are not remotely qualified to judge". His usual columns seem to be about politics, but not sure about the notability of his political analysis. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He does make a point that I think we should take note of. Many scientists who are not AWG skeptics have expressed dismay over the contents of the e-mails, the fudge factors in the programs etc. Our liberal use of "climate skeptics alledge..." (in various forms) in the article I think ignores this and IMHO is not POV neutral. I especially object to the misnomer "climate skeptics" which itself a pejorative phrase used by AWG proponents to paint anyone with doubts as a flat-earther and thus suffers from the same objection raised about the term "Climategate". "Climate skeptics" paints with way too broad a brush and I hope we can reach consensus on a more neutral and accurate phrase. Jpat34721 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but each instance has to be dealt with on merits as in many cases the sources do highlight the "skepticism" of those making claims. Could you identify specific cases that you think need reexamined? The "fudge factors in the programs" issue also has to be carefully analysed as accusations appear to have been made without any evidence that the programs are currently in use, or were in use at a significant stage. That's an issue that may need more attention. . dave souza, talk 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur that some of the use of "climate sceptic" qualifiers is probably inappropriate. We have no need for constructs like "climate change sceptic Lord Lawson" and "climate sceptic United States Senator Jim Inhofe", for example. In instances like these, the BLPs for these individuals aready explain their positions with respect to anthropogenic global warming. I'd like to propose that these qualifiers (and any others of a similar nature) be stripped from the article, except in situations where the BLP of the individual in question does not indicate their skeptical stance. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord lawson is a good example. He is not an AWG skeptic. He is on record as accepting the the earth is warming and that human activity is responsible. He disputes the confidence bands of the GCMs (he thinks they're too low) and because of this he thinks the cost-benefit ratio of mitigation is way off. To dismiss his nuanced view as simple a "climate sceptic" is unfair and inaccurate. Jpat34721 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fudge factor. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Butter fudge (the crumbly stuff, sometimes called "butter tablet") is my favorite. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Scjessey that we keep descriptions of already-linked people to a minimum. It leads far too easily into well-poisoning or argument from authority. If they're worth mentioning here then they probably have their own article and a reader can find out with one click who they are. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you learn something new every day. I'e never heard of butter fudge before in my life, but our article appears to be describing Russian fudge Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

strawman in FactCheck paragraph in email intro

Currently we have:

Summarising its own analysis, FactCheck stated that claims by climate sceptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming were unfounded, and emails were being misrepresented to support these claims. While the emails showed a few scientist being rude or dismissive, this did not negate evidence that human activities were largely responsible for global warming, or the conclusions of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which used the CRU as just one of many sources of data. The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, described the CRU's scientists "as highly reputed professionals, whose contributions over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable" and described their datasets as "totally consistent with those from other institutions, on the basis of which far-reaching and meaningful conclusions were reached in the ."

FactCheck, which normally does a reasonable job of unbiased analysis, is in this case engaging in the pulverizing of strawmen, especially in their unsourced claim that the emails were being used to "demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming". Plenty have alleged they demonstrated scientific misconduct. Plenty have alleged that they have overstated their case. Few if any reputable critics have alleged that it amounts to a complete fabrication (as if e-mails alone could ever prove such a thing).

This brings up a larger point. We should not be using the extremes of either side in presenting the arguments. To do otherwise, gives undue weight and makes it appear that only the whackos are concerned about the contents of email and the implications they have for the scientific process. Nor it it "news" that some "experts" accept Mann's et al explanations and some do not. Where do we draw the line in presenting the back and forth "analysis" which do not (and can not) add new information. It seems to me the article could be much improved if we were to present the text of emails that have arisen as the major points of contention, find a balanced analysis that puts it in context and present the explanation by the author, if any and call it done.

Thoughts? Jpat34721 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It seems likely that the "claims by climate sceptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming" refer to comments made by people like Jim Inhofe. Plenty of well-known international figures have claimed that anthropogenic global warming is nonsense, and have used this manufactured controversy as "proof". Factcheck disputes these allegations. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday a number of editors roundly criticize the Revkin NYT piece I offered as a source for the use of ("Climategate") as a valid neologism as needing to be sprinked with dozens of tags. I would ask that you and they reread the FactCheck article with an eye toward the same critique. They nowhere say who are making the allegations, what their qualifications are for making them. Nor do they analyze any of the more nuanced criticism that have been leveled by scientists who are not AWG skeptics. The views of blowhards Crusaders like Jim Inhofe are exactly the kind of analysis that doesn't belong in the e-mail section (although they're clearly appropriate in the government response section). Jpat34721 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The analysis by FactCheck specifically cites Saudi Arabian climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban who "went so far as to tell the BBC: 'It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change.' He said that he expected news of the e-mails to disrupt the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen this month. An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a 'deliberate fraud' and 'the greatest deception in history'." Those is a couple of heavyweight strawmen, ahem. . . dave souza, talk 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points. We are not quoting the analysis but the summary, where no one is identified. As for that analysis, my criticism is that it ignores the more nuanced critiques that have been made by reputable scientists and concentrates on the extremes. I count this a form of strawmanism. Jpat34721 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you a source analysing the usage that states that the neologism is used by reputable scientists presenting more nuanced critiques? Note that I'm not asking for your original research in finding primary sources, but for a third party critique? FactCheck makes a statement about a specific kind of "skeptic" using the term, we'd need a similarly independent source to add that the term is also used by more responsible commentators. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not understand you comment in the context my comments above it. I am not trying to reraise the neologism issue. My point was that the FactCheck article suffers from the same critique that others made here about the NYT piece. (Of course, how one could ever source an obvious truism like "which some have call "Climategate") is left as an exercise for the reader :>) Jpat34721 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your critique, but that's your own personal opinion and hence is original research. If and when the neologism is accepted as standard usage rather than as a derogatory slogan, we should be able to find reliable sources making that analysis and can then add it to the article. At present, we have a clear statement from a source with a reputation for reliability that the term is being used by specific critics who cannot be reasonably described as "strawmen". . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We agree on neologism issue which is why yesterday I raised the white flag and propose we eliminate them all. The lack of consensus here is indicative to me that the standards set out in WP:Using Neologisms have not yet been met and so we should follow the policy laid out there, "when in doubt don't use them". But you're conflating two issues here. The strawman I'm after is the one erected in the FactCheck article which, in my view, inaccurately frames the debate by focusing on the extremes- a mistake I hope we can avoid here. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I must disagree. There has been clear, unambiguous statements from various commentators that this incident has somehow exposed some giant conspiracy to hoodwink the people into thinking we are responsible for the recent acceleration in global warming. Some have even stated that there is no such acceleration. It is these commentators FactCheck is addressing. The "nuanced" position is not receiving coverage because the media doesn't want to hear about such subtlety. They want a good guy and a bad guy. Right and wrong. Black and white. For us or against us. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A good point about the media. Hopefully we can do a better job. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points from both of you. I agree with Scjessey that the media all too often needs (or wants) to portray in black and white terms, rather than nuanced terms. While we are dependent on the media for RS, we don't have to fall into the bad habits, so I concur with JPat that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.--SPhilbrickT 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a criticism I've seen of McIntyre is that he makes a statement that is in itself nuanced, but makes no effort to curtail the excesses of those who pick up his statement to support their more extreme positions. That criticism is borne out by what i've seen of his recent statements on TV, but maybe they've been edited to keep the exciting bits and leave out the nuances. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said Scjessey - Anyone arguing that this e-mail shinanigans isn't being intentionally inflated by gw skeptics lacks a grasp on reality. FactCheck is NPOV here, and anyone who would nitpick its analysis to try and discredit it are as naughty as the original e-mail hackers themselves. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and not take this as a personal attack, difficult as that may be. Regardless of what you think "the real story" is here, we need to present the facts in an unvarnished way. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To Dave souza: he moderates the comment section on his blog to remove rabid meandering attacks on AGW, at least. I can't speak to his TV exposure because I've never seen any of it. Ignignot (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat - What was a personal attack? The "lacks a grasp on reality" or "naughty" part? Either way, it wasn't meant as a personal attack and I think you're being a bit thin skinned if you're upset.

Oh, it takes a lot more than this to get me upset. A fair reading of your remarks I think would show that they were directed at me (as the one who "nitpicked" the FC article) and were not WP:AGF.Jpat34721 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree we have to present facts in an unvarnished way. But I think what you're calling "varnished" is driven by your own POV. You've already admitted that FactCheck is at least "usually" unbiased. Hence we're not quoting a blatantly biased source and it's ok for thier summary to be included. We're also not giving the summary as fact in the article, but simply attributing it to FactCheck so that users may decide whether our not they like the source. I find it difficult to find sympathy with your position.

On another note, I'd like to mention that I'm well aware the people on both side of this debate are capable of exagerations and inflations to try to sway public sentiment. I think an unbiased viewing of Inconvenient Truth will prove such. I know this is a tall order on wikipedia, but can we not just call a spade a spade? NickCT (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think not. All we can do is find a reliable source that does so. Jpat34721 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FactCheck is not a primary news source. It should not be used as a reference at all. It gets its facts from other news sources, and cites them. To make this article better, we should not be using FactCheck as a crutch to do our work for us. TruthOutThere (talk) 9:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See our no original research policy on this issue. We have to find attribution for analyses, producing a synthesis from primary sources is not "our work". Thanks, dave souza, talk 11:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While I like the FactCheck article, and think it's highly relevant, I find some sympathy with TruthoutThere's sentiments. It seems to me awkward to devote such a large portion of an article to a single source's analysis. This isn't something you'd see in encyclopedia britanica. I wonder if the section can be pared down so that it maintains the content, but doesn't look like it was directly copy/pasted from FactCheck. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which large portion? Half of the paragraph cited above is a brief summary of the main points made by FactCheck, and is not a copy-paste. It's in reasonable proportion to other analyses. Britannica is unlikely to cover the issue until authoritative reports are published and the dust has settled, but then I'm not a subsriber to EB. . . dave souza, talk 13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I don't think this is necessarily wrong. It just seems a little awkward. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT fail

AnomieBOT is misbehavin', adding whitespace to closed references. I noted this on the bot's talk page and reverted, but the dumbass bot saw fit to revert me and then ask me to leave a message on its talk page if there was a problem. Duh. That's why bots will never fully replace humans! Anyway, I'll wait until the bot is fixed before reverting again. I trust nobody will complain about me breaking 1RR for bot-related fail? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Bot has assimilated the local editing rules and reports you, then you are on your own. :) Seriously, that sounds like an acceptable exception.--SPhilbrickT 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could the phrase "dumbass bot" be considered a personal attack? NickCT (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've managed to fix all the problems. It's hard to tell, because lots of editors were joyfully fucking around reverting each other while I was trying to do it, despite my plea above and in an edit summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh FFS. I've just had to revert again because Nsaa isn't paying attention. Fix only what is broken! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, your version is broken, and his is not. Look at the bottom of the page. Prodego 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. The bot broke it after Nsaa screwed up. Thankfully, it has been fixed properly, instead of the proposed half-arsed effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Total violation of WP:FORUM...

...but a little levity will do us all no harm at all. Some YouTube global warming goodness. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline v Timeline of the unauthorized publication

I prefer the former even though the latter was my edit. The reason I went with the more specific is that an open-ended Timeline section was an unending source of contention in another controversial page I worked on. All kinds of tiny details were put in (mostly to get a reference near the top for a juicy POV cite) moving the meat of the article further and further down the page. I'm not saying that would happen with this fine group of editors but down the road... Jpat34721 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in # of documents

In the Timeline section we say 3000 other documents, in Content of the Documents we say 2000 documents. Perhaps the discrepancy is because the former includes programs while the latter does not but it is unclear. Can anyone straighten this out? Jpat34721 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Flag

It seems to me that since the POV flag went up on the article and probation started, there have been vast improvements in the content of the article and the civility in this talk page. Therefore I wonder if there is still any cause to have the POV flag up. What issues, specifically, remain? Ignignot (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of adding my two cents; I don't see any reason for the flag to remain. NickCT (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The relative stability of this article is a strong indicator that the POV flag is no longer necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Great work, guys. It's looking really very good now. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the trajectory is excellent but in my view removing the tag is a bit premature. There are a couple of thorny issues yet to be tackled (the section on code is a big one). I'd hate to see the good will on exhibit here be spoiled by someone feeling the need to reinsert the tag down the road. Just my 2 centavos Jpat34721 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think it might be a little premature, but it was not immediately obvious what was drawing the POV flag. Since one of our todo list items is to find consensus on this issue, it might be useful to have the POV issues explicitly listed. If we can't find anything then I would obviously support the flag removal. Ignignot (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't really see anything of value in the code section at all. I'd just delete the section entirely. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See? :>) Actually, I view the code section as a stub. It needs a lot of work but in my view, ignoring the code controversy all together would be a mistake. Jpat34721 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What "code controversy" are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Google 'climategate code'. In a nutshell, many computer scientists who have examined the code are appalled at its quality and at the many undocumented fudge factors used to adjust the raw data. The question is, was this just throw away code or was it used to draw or influence any of the conclusions reached by CRU or the IPCC. Some say yes, some say no. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dubious of the methodology here: while Jpat34721, or anybody else worldwide, can point to something s/he "takes issue with" or is "bothered by", anywhere in the text, in the list below, we have to keep the POV tag? By that logic it should be easy enough for anybody to get every article on WP so tagged, surely? --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it is supposed to work. The tag is supposed to be used when there is an ongoing dispute about neutrality being worked out. There is no conceivable way that everyone is going to be happy with this article because of their own ideologies and biases, so it can get to the point where it is nothing more than a badge of shame. I firmly believe that we are beyond the "dispute" stage, and the tag can be removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I in no way meant to imply that my views have any more weight than any other editor here. We were asked if we would support the tag removal. I would not and gave my reasons why. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The methodology is to just see what people still think are POV issues, and if those issues are enough to keep a POV warning tag on it article. As I said, it has definitely improved, I don't know if it has improved enough, and I don't think there is any discussion on what we can do to narrow this down. So let's talk. Perhaps my comment, "if we can't find anything then I would obviously support the flag removal," taken narrowly, might imply that I would not support it unless no one has a problem with anything. What I am looking for is if "a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved," (from the NPOV dispute page) already exists, and if not, why not. Ignignot (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Remove the POV tag. Everyone who disagrees that it's biased has been chased away by multiple reverts and heaps of scorn and an aplphabet soup of accusations. Reliable Source discussions of bias in this article by the mainstream media have been successfully excluded even from the talk pages, and the chorus is finally in tune. Stick a BLP tag on the top, throw in a few quotes from Al Gore, and it's ready for prime time! /saracsm Nightmote (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you're trying to say here other than maybe, "this is still not neutral". Ignignot (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

POV issue list

Now that we're getting close, here's a section to list remaining concerns.

• I still take issue with 'dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of anthropogenic climate change' in the lead. Acoorded to Webster's dubbed = "to call by a distinctive title, epithet, or nickname". One can find many cases where the nickname is used by AWG proponents. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am still bothered that our first "meaty" reference is the AP story whose lead author is implicated in the controversy and whose main point, the views of the 3 scientists, are contradicted or at least clarified elsewhere. I'm happy that my edit to the WashTimes story was allowed to stand but surely we can find a less tainted source that makes the same point being cited. Jpat34721 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Dubbed by" is a compromise that no one will be 100% with. I would prefer Climategate not be in the lead at all, as it's inherently POV. You want the lead to say "CLIMATEGATE IS THE NAME OF THIS SCANDAL WHICH DISPROVES GLOBAL WARMING." You need to try to find middle ground. Please try to do so, as opposed to attempting to win every single disagreement. The AP author is not implicated in anything. Because some blogs misunderstand how journalists interact with sources does not mean that you should let them guide your editing. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference UEA 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference WMO 1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference PI Dec 8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference RealClimate 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. 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.
9. Cite error: The named reference UEA 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference timesonline 6948008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Transcript of "Climategate" documentary, YLE TV1 Finland, first broadcast Dec. 7th, 2009. "He objected to hiding the decline in one of his comments."
13. 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.

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists