Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:42, 26 July 2010

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Weather Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 2010 (archived) 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) 23 December 2009 (failed) 17 February, 2010 (failed) 17 March, 2010 (successful)

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Opinion piece by Patrick Michaels: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to this, other than pushing your own agenda? OpEds are not reliable sources, as you should know by now. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They are a reliable source for the opinion of the source, in this case the Patrick Michaels, who is notable. If this is not the case, then material sourced to Revkin, Monbiot and other commentators have to go as well. WVBluefield (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the others specifically from the Opinion section, as this one is? Revkin and Monibot's do not appear to be so, but if there are problems with using them as sources, the solutino is not to pile on worse ones. What I object to here is this sort of simplistic link-dropping, a "look at me, I found someone out there who supports my point-of-view!" thing. That's all that this is here, soapboxing, with no suggestion for how, why, or, where it would be included in the article. That is what his page here is for, discussing article inclusion, not link-bombing the OpEd du jour. That's the kind of stuff we used to have to deal with the dearly-departed Grundle2600 in the Obama-related articles. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with including a mention of this article somewhere. It seems to be a comprehensive enunciation of that point of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that as one of the few actual climate scientists with such extreme views Patrick Michaels' combination of qualifications, experience and willingness to go on the record with those views combine to make a good case for mentioning that article. --TS 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Added this in a new subsection called reception of reports mark nutley (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. I can see no reason to bother including PM's opinion. Also that piece, toegther with the Economist, gives a badly unbalanced view of the reception William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

PM's opinion is relevant because it is a notable voice in the Climategate scandal. In fact, I'm a bit shocked how little we have of him in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is i am sure easy enough to balance out the new subsection wit hequal positive reviews of the reports mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. PM's piece is buried deep in the article. OTOH, Newsweek's blog and NYT's editorial are featured prominently in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why the summary of media reactions to this was moved out of the lede - perhaps it's because some of you don't like the number of reliable sources calling it a manufactured controversy and need that buried. I would like someone to reinclude a summary of media reactions to the reports in the lede, with prominent focus given not to op-eds by partisans, but instead to editorials by major news sources. Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never been a fan of citing opinion pieces for contentious material. Especially when there are plenty of secondary reliable sources to cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, and I've rarely (if ever) seen an opinion piece used as a source. In fact, I'm convinced that it was POV pushers who have encouraged the use of op/ed's on Misplaced Pages over the years; It's rare to find a FA that even uses them. Let's put your money where your mouth is, AQFK, and agree (by consensus) to remove all opinion pieces from this article and only use reliable books and news sources written by authors in their respective fields and journalists who we can all consider neutral in their approach and presentation as well as scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. Deal? Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: I'd go a step further and rip out all the primary sources out of the article. Primary sources are a POV-warrior's wet dream because they often spin things in manner that is preferable to their particular POV. In fact, I'd like to see our sourcing rules tightened to discourage their use for contentious material or controversial articles. I don't recall if you were around in the early days of the article, but I argued that we should only be citing secondary reliable sources. Unfortunately, I lost that debate. So right now, the consensus of the editors at this article is that primary sources (including opinion pieces) are acceptable. If you can get everyone to change their minds, be my guest. But me, I've given up that argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are used often in both secondary and tertiary sources, and they have a long history of use in encyclopedias. The problem you are describing is misuse. Primary sources can be used constructively, accurately, and are of great benefit to the reader. Perhaps you could help draft an essay that helps editors use primary sources effectively? Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: Yes, I agree with your point about misuse. There's nothing wrong with citing primary sources per se. In fact, I did three times yesterday for the oh so beautiful Jennie Finch but this was for non-contentious material in a non-controversial article. Sure, I can help you write a user essay about this. Can you start it in your user space and post a link to it in my talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea. If I have time tomorrow, I'll see what I can do. Although I don't know what the status of the article is at the moment, I recall that there was a misuse of primary sources in the Terri Schiavo case article at one point, and I might have unknowingly contributed to the problem, so I may be able to draw up some examples from that topic. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the section to remove all references to any living person other than Michaels himself, who is a valid source for his own opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Michaels in the WSJ and BLP concerns.

Michaels' opinion article in the WSJ suffers from flaws in factual accuracy, and as such, cannot be used as a source for facts about living persons. He writes the following:

Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

Mr. Boulton did sign a petition. However, the petition does not say anything about the East Anglia scientists - the petition can be found at . While it discusses "many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity," it says nothing at all about the CRU.

Do not use opinion pieces by partisans to source factual information about people those partisans see benefit in making look foolish by misrepresenting their actions. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That petition was created due to climategate and for that purpose only. Your BLP claim is obviously flawed mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And you might want to remove your accusation of slander against Michael`s as it is a blp breach mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs about why a petition was created and what it says are not verifiable, and not relevent for inclusion in articlespace. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not my opinion and it is easily verified And this is something you already knew. I shall ask you again to remove your attack on an identifiable living person mark nutley (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your new link doesn't say what you say it says. Michael's says the petition was about the UEA, and you apparently agree. The petition, and the article you've now linked, say otherwise. In fact, the article you quote makes it clear that "Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach." Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions" The petition was a direct response to climategate, try again mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it being a response to "Climategate" doesn't mean that it declares that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your splitting hairs, not surprising. I shall revert your removal of well sourced content tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am not splitting hairs. Your opinion piece says something demonstrably false, and you are pledging to edit war the false statements about a living person back into the article. Are you being serious? Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, the petition is exactly what Michaels says it is. Which is what i posted above. I am not edit warring, i am intending to reinsert reliably sourced information which has been removed on spurious grounds, Thank you for removing the attack btw mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You alledge that the petition mentions the CRU or the UEA? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not alleging anything, i am using my common sense. You know that petition was created due to climategate, this has already been shown to you. I have no intention of going in circles here. The facts are the facts. mark nutley (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Commonsense is not verifiable. Reliable sources make it quite clear that the petition he signed did not state anything about the UEA scientists. That michaels makes a false statement about living persons designed to damage said persons credibility is problematic. We must not repeat his error. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you are doing here is termed "wikilawyering" we are meant to use our common sense. I`m done discussing this with you as you are obviously wrong but are unable to admit it mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually he's quite right. If a statement about living persons is indisputably false, then we have a responsibility not to repeat the falsehood. That really is BLP 101. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As has now been clearly deonstrated, it was a BLP concern and MN should not have reverted it back it with his simple assertion that it wasn't. Verbal chat 18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a blp issue, he signed the petition as shown above. There is no falsehood in the statement by Michaels is correct, what we have here is hair splitting to keep a critique out mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, he clearly signed the statement, but it says nothing about either the CRU or the UEA. The key line in it is the statement that the data "come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity." "Scientists across the world" is a loose, non-specific category that does not identify any specific institution. Michaels appears to be under the mistaken impression that the statement was specifically circulated to support the CRU. In fact, as the statement makes clear, it is about having confidence in climate science in general and specifically in the "observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the only reason that petition was started was because of climategate, it was done with the direct purpose to support cru. You guys know this, I have pointed it out above, but quite simply you do not want the criticism in mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: IIRC, that petition was a direct response to the Climategate scandal. Just because the statement itself doesn't mention the CRU specifically, doesn't negate this connection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but irrelevent. That the petition was a response to the "Climategate" scandal doesn't mean the petition says what it dosen't say. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Michaels states as a fact that the petition referred to "that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia". But a simple read of the text shows that it identifies no institutions or individuals. It's a generic vote of confidence in climate scientists as a generic group, not a statement in favour of any specific institution or individual. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• But as I understand the value of the Michaels article, it is not as a source on BLPs but solely to depict the view of a leading adherent of the skeptical POV. The inaccuracy cited strikes me as insufficient to justify exclusion of the article for that limited purpose. Obviously it can't be used as a BLP source, but that's not its purpose here. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Apologies. I made my comment before reading the latest version of the article, and seeing that Michaels is indeed used as a BLP source. I had advocated his article be used as a source for his opinion, not as a source on a BLP. I agree that he should not be used as a source on a person, and that the current usage is unacceptable. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

These are good points, while the worst of the paragraph had been removed, the remainder is little more than ill-informed grumbling from Patrick Michaels and not very notable. If the best the skeptics can manage is a claim of "bias" repeated from 12 February, it's not much to go on. On that basis I've removed the paragraph, please discuss this BLP issue before restoring it in whole or in part. The WSJ spreading skeptic misinformation is, sadly, unsurprising. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ also published a letter in response from Michael Mann. --64.244.99.100 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

P. Michaels wrt G. Boulton

@Hipocrite: Please self-revert your deletion of facts inserted by editor Meco. Your edit summary says, "This petition does not say what you say it says - as such, this source is not a valid source for information about living persons it disagrees with." Find it at the Michaels article and at Pravda. (!!) The full statement as published by the Times online is here. --Yopienso (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The information I removed was that "a December 2009 petition declar that the CRU scientists "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."" The petition said nothing about the CRU scientists - as I make clear in the section abouve. We cannot use opinion columns by people who are in strong disagreements to source facts about the people they disagree with. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be taking issue with a single word ("CRU") in Meco's edit. Instead of reverting Meco's entire edit, how about we simply remove the offending word? The sentence still works without it. Will removing "CRU" from this sentence resolve your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It would make it factually accurate, but then it would be a different argument than the false argument that Michaels made. Michaels said that he signed a statement that said "the CRU scientists are x." He actually signed a statement that said "Climate scientists, generally, are x." Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

First, I apologize for not noticing the section directly above this one in which you are grasping at straws to defend your deletion. Having now read it, I ask you to stop this wiki-lawyering that damages the integrity of our article.

Are you saying the CRU scientists did not adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity? Are you suggesting this statement applies to them?

Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach.

Let's think about mathematical elements and sets. Phil Jones is an element of the set of CRU scientists. That set is a subset of "many thousands of scientists across the world." Does the statement's broad sweep not include all subsets and elements, allowing, as Slingo took pains to point out, for exceptions? Either the statement applies to the CRU or they have not adhered to the highest levels of professional integrity.

In any case, there was no need to delete the fact of Boulton's association with the UEA. Whether or not his working there 25 years ago actually skewed his judgment is debatable and unknowable, but it's what the critics charge and we have no reason to suppress it. --Yopienso (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cease your personal attacks. This will be the last response I make to you if you continue your personal attacks. I make no comment on the CRU scientists, except to note that the petition also makes no comment on the CRU scientists. Do you have a unquestionably reliable source that states that he worked at the UEA? If so, that statement can be reincluded. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: "lectr then reader Sch of Environmental Science UEA 1968-86" http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/b/8047/Geoffrey%20Stewart+BOULTON.aspx And here's the html of a download from Channel 14.

Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, Yopienso, this material was cunningly hidden by being announced in full by Boulton at the inquiry's first press conference on 11 February, and allegations of bias raised the following day were dismissed in a statement. As the article now notes. Michaels is dragging up an old story, is this really news or does it say more about Michaels than about Boulton? . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, removed as dubious BLP material with little or no notability. We've been reminded recently not to give undue weight to isolated complaints about people. . dave souza, talk 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you all please try harder to compromise on the suggested text? In my opinion it can be shortened in length and reworded in a way that makes it sound less partisan. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Dave: It was not I who claimed ignorance of Boulton's CV; I merely supplied it. And I specifically expressed doubt that his previous association with UEA impaired his neutrality: "Whether or not his working there 25 years ago actually skewed his judgment is debatable and unknowable,..." My objection was to editing based on specious grounds.

The fact that Michaels includes "the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia" among the "many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity" does not disqualify him as a RS. The Times article on the signing of the petition defending the science of climate change states, "Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,..."

@Cla68 and all editors: As the "Media reception" section currently stands, there are brief examples from strictly RSs that run the gamut from "Yay! All cleared!" to "Cleared, but..." to "Unsatisfactorily reviewed...." All that's missing is any mention of the word "whitewash," which is the cry being taken up by some reliable conservative sources. And it may be premature to insert that now, since WP is not a newspaper. --Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Yopienso, good point about the "whitewash" responses, but of course we mustn't exaggerate their significance. What's needed is a good quality meta-analysis commenting on media coverage rather than trying to pick out primary source examples such as the article by Michaels. . . dave souza, talk 04:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reception to CRU outside exams

A proposed addition:

Harsher criticism came from senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic, who wrote that "The climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."

Source: Climategate and the Big Green Lie, The Atlantic, Jul 14 2010. Crook's CV

I think this is a noteworthy criticism, as Crook, a veteran journalist, takes pains to note that he is not a climate-change skeptic. Rather, he believes the CRU inquiries have further damaged the public confidence in climate science. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's beyond silly. What has damaged public confidence in understanding the science behind climate change (the primary issue that nobody addresses) is the fact that the media outlets, which were used to attack scientists in round one, failed to follow up on those attacks in round two. Since retractions, corrections, reports and apologies don't bleed, they just don't lead. So, the complete and abject failure of journalists and the editors who control them, to accurately report this story is the problem. Stop blaming scientists and the ignorant and gullible public. Until journalism improves across the board and begins reporting according to the most basic standards and ethics of that profession, nothing will change. Sensationalism and misinformation is not news, it's poor reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think with understanding your are really meaning belief of faith. The public rarely understands issues based on knowledge gained by personal in-depth study. The faith in the authority or projected truth of climate science has been damaged. Unfortunately this is bad for any branch of science.91.153.115.15 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Understanding means just that, and it's the responsibility of the media to promote it. They have failed to uphold this role, and instead, have promoted a campaign of personal attacks against climate scientists and the science in particular, at the behest of special interests. The public understands a great deal when they are given accurate information. Basic critical thinking skills help, but these are discouraged of course, since they totally undermine the control mechanism. When people learn to think for themselves, they no longer require others to do their thinking for them. It's therefore incredibly ironic that the very charlatans who claim to preach the gospel of libertarian values, rugged individualism, limited government, and free markets, are the exact same groups behind the manufactured "climategate" farce which seeks to manipulate the discourse, confuse the public, and limit the freedom of the press and democracy as a whole. The public can understand the issues when they are presented with correct information. The role of the media is to inform society, so that citizens have the necessary information to make good choices. It is obvious that the media has failed and journalism reform is desperately needed. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are telling a correct functioning media should promote the truth? How do the media determine the truth? By putting blind faith into authorities? I think not. That sounds disturbingly like a socialist utopia. I agree with you that the media is the problem but my conclusions differ. The problem is that looking at the climategate affair I can not draw the conclusion that everything is fine.91.153.115.15 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop distorting every word I write. I've said nothing about politics, political systems, or forms of government. And, I've said nothing about faith or beliefs, which are just more of your previous distortions. The only thing I've said, and what I'm continuing to say, is that in a democracy, the media has a specific role. Their job is to inform and educate, so that the citizen, the electorate, and society as a whole, can make good choices and decisions. In other words, the media is expected to function in the public interest, not out of loyalty to special interests. Others will go further, and say that the media should also act as a watchdog against abuses by government and business. Now, some people will twist and distort this and argue that the media is doing their job, and here, we see them protecting the public from the "lies" of the scientists and those who would claim that the Earth is warming due to human influence. But, we've already been down this road, and we know that this is another distortion. We know, that in this case, the media is representing special interests (coal, oil), and it is not a coincidence that the key people and groups involved are directly connected with these interests. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete, I'll add to that an article I read some days ago--can't remember if it was mentioned at some WP page or if I just came across it on the net--by Janet Daley in the Telegraph and quoted in the CS Monitor. Then there's the Pat Michaels opinion in the WSJ that caused such a ruckus here today.
What we want to avoid, though, is cramming a bunch of quotes into the present article. It's not an index and requires only a representative sampling, which it currently has. Perhaps later some brave soul will undertake a new article on the alleged whitewash. (Btw, what do you mean by "outside exams"?) --Yopienso (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no comment. But since we're sort-of sticking to editorials by national newspapers, we should add something from this WSJ Europe editorial -- perhaps the bit that the Muir Russell report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." But it's too late here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a copy of that article here in case anyone wants to read it without paying Murdoch and his band of science deniers any money. Clearly it's a biased opinion piece with not even a cursory nod toward science and/or reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A slightly-different version ran in the US ed. today. Here's a free copy. It is striking how much criticism the UEA reports are getting in the MSM. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As above, secondary analysis of news coverage is needed as a basis of the section rather than picking out examples that we ourselves see as significant. The NYT editorial is unusual in that it comments on press coverage rather than expressing its own views, we really need more reliable analysis rather than opinions for and against the outcome. . . dave souza, talk 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Impact of the controversy

How has 'Climategate' affected the battle against climate change? | David Adam | Environment | The Guardian presents various views on the impact. Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause | Full Comment | National Post by Jonathan Kay gives a conservative opinion on conservative perceptions, making specific reference to this controversy. . . dave souza, talk 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An editorial at New Scientist, "Without candour, we can't trust climate science " argues just that. And it's late again... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the Royal Society meant to be looking at, or re-doing, the raw data processing? Was I wrong, or did the New Scientist editorial forget to mention that? --Nigelj (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. What did they look at and what didn't they? Regardless it does not weaken what the New Scientists is actually covering in their story. P.S. Heads up while we wait for the news story on the following. The blog Bishop Hill has some new info today gained by a freedom of information request about the Oxburgh review. Apparently the 11 representative articles selected for review were both suggested by the UEA and approved by Phil Jones as being a "fair sample". Interesting basis for a non-biased and independent review.130.232.214.10 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New books

The following two books on this controversy were published in April and may be of some use. I myself would rather wait a few more months and use books which have more of the full story, including an assessment of the three investigations.

• Sussman, Brian, Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, WorldNetDaily, April 22, 2010, ISBN-10: 1935071831. This book appears to be about as partisan as it can get, but it's author is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages BLP.
• Spencer, Roy, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists, Encounter Books, April 13, 2010, ISBN-10: 1594033730. This guy has more credibility, as he is a climatologist. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an intelligent design advocate and a talk show host are obviously going to be reliable sources for climate science... And by the way, you can definitely cross Sussman off your list; anything that comes out of WorldNetDaily is automatically unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I don't think Spencer's views on ID have any relevency here. I think you may be taking this topic a little too seriously and personally. Remember, we don't care who is right or wrong, we just report what the sources are saying. I don't think these two books have the full story on this particular topic, as not all the investigations were completed when these books were published. So, while they may have some limited use, I recommend that we wait a little longer for more books to come out. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know, when you seem to be on a mission to promote the most fringe sources possible there's reason to be concerned. It doesn't say much for your judgement of sources that you think a book published by WorldNetDaily and written by a talk show host could be "of some use" as a source on a science issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that remark, ChrisO, and don't find it to be very helpful for us to collaborate and cooperate on this article. My point is, that you have to, and this goes for me too, try to leave personal feelings and biases "at the door" when editing a Misplaced Pages article. You have to examine each source by the information it brings towards improving the article. I have said that these two books probably don't bring very much, although they might provide more background on how the Hockey stick controversy is related to what is contained in the emails. This would be useful, as the mainstream press hasn't really explored this much although the Guardian article did to some extent. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that you show a little bit of common sense with bringing sources to the discussion. There's no point even mentioning Sussman's book, given its complete unusability as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that dismissing a source without even looking at it is unhelpful. I have used sources in other articles which were written by authors with which I didn't agree with everything they had to say on that or other topics. That's what I mean by leaving our personal biases at the door. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, excuse me for butting it, but as I'm viewing this dialog from the outside, it seems you are pushing. You suggested the Sussman book knowing full well it would not be considered WP:RS, as well as the other which, although from a more credible author, would not readily find acceptance at WP. This follows on the heels of your promoting the Montford book about the CRU emails. Please hold up your end of the collaboration and cooperation you want to enjoy. I suggest you step back from bringing up material that would not be found helpful by many Wikipedians. Respectfully, --Yopienso (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Cla68 on this. Good or bad, dismissing a source without looking at it and understanding why we shouldn't use it isn't helpful. Yeah, Chris0's impatience is understandable considering what gets brought up around here, but I for one appreciate Cla68's open mind on the subject. Remember, it's the smell of garbage that reminds us to throw it out. I think it's necessary to get a whiff of it every now and then to keep us on our toes. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. The more books we have on the subject, the better. It will be very helpful if, in the future, there are books written which take the CRU's side on this controversy. Hopefully, one or more will be forthcoming in a few months' time. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understood the point of Viriditas's comment. Re-read the last two sentences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, the discussion threads above have shown that there have been widely divergent opinions on the nature and significance of the email controversy in the mass media. The books that will be written on it I imagine will also contain many different opinions on the topic. One approach we could take to addressing this is to label any book written which criticizes the CRU and the hockey stick research as "trash" written by "cranks" and refuse to acknowledge it. Or, we could work together to use all the independently published sources to come up with a fair and balanced article which reflects what the sources in todo are saying. I think the latter will produce a better and more informative article. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fair and balanced"? I think I've heard that somewhere before... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the most exasperating things about you, Cla68, is the way you constantly twist and misrepresent what others have said (Tony's complaint below deals with the same issue). Nobody is "labeling any book written which criticizes the CRU and the hockey stick research as "trash" written by "cranks" and refusing to acknowledge it." That is a complete strawman. Criticising the CRU and the hockey stick research is not an indicator of cranky trash. Authorship by fringe figures with no expertise in the field and publication by junk sources like WorldNetDaily is such an indicator. When I object to Sussman, I don't do so on the basis of his views of the CRU and the hockey stick (I don't know what they are, though I can guess from the title). I do so because the book raises every red flag possible - authorship by a non-expert (a talk show host, for goodness' sake!), a fringe POV apparent in the title, and publication by a source - WorldNetDaily - that numerous RSN discussions have found to be unusable. These days anyone can publish a book, but the mere fact that something appears in print does not make it reliable or worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, just a note that you have grossly mischaracterized my proposal with respect to crank sources. You were given an example of a crank source that you yourself believe to be reliable, even though it was written by a writer who later pleaded, when a grave case of false quotation was found prominently displayed on page one of his work, that he had been "misled by the internet." He had used the false quotation because of what some guy had written on the internet, even after he (the author) had checked the alleged source and verified for himself that his own copy of the source book did not contain the attributed quotation. And even when his error was exposed he didn't accept responsibility for the error but said he had been "misled". That's appallingly bad scholarship, and in the case of that particular author it wasn't an isolated case but one of several examples where the author had proven himself to be incapable of the most basic fact-checking.

That's what worries me: that you often argue that we adopt an idiosyncratic definition of reliability that would, if we followed it, result in our citing terribly unreliable sources on factual matters where in fact we, as an encyclopedia, demand the most reliable sourcing available. --TS 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the evaluation of sources rests on what I consider the worst guideline we have, Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. IRS does nothing to help editors evaluate and identify reliable sources, and intentionally talks around the subject by introducing ambiguity. So, rather than blaming Cla68, why not help rewrite the guideline? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Easier said than done. There's a troika who make a concerted effort to control the sourcing policies. They make it so difficult to change them that it's hardly worth the bother. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have support for a major change; I've been testing the waters for some time. The major objection is any change must be compatible with WP:NPOV and WP:V, and any other relevant policy. But, I think the timing is right. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys still seem to be missing the central issue here, which is the way Misplaced Pages is structured. This is a project built by amateurs, if it wasn't, we would be required to identify ourselves and our qualifications, like Citizendium. For that reason, it is acknowledged that we are in no position to decide what can and can't be used as a source, besides the obvious ones, like self-published sources (blogs, self-published books, tracts, etc). Thus, our emphasis on verifiability, not truth. We report what the sources say and leave it up to the reader to decide on the credibility and truthfulness of it. Yes, that requires us to cooperate and compromise in contentious topic areas. I have faith that we can do so. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can evaluate a source based on criteria for reliability. You don't need to be an expert to do that. The emphasis on verifiability does not mean we can use creationist sources to write about evolutionary biology. One problem with the "questionable source" provision is that it is too weak and ambiguous. Same is true with the use of opinion and editorial pieces. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we automatically use or include it. The fact remains, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline confuses new editors, discourages the use of expert sources, and attempts to muddy the issue. It's almost as if it was created to keep people busy arguing about sources and distracted from writing and improving articles. It doesn't work, it doesn't reflect the actual problems we face on this site, and it needs to be changed. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be helpful for all to read WP:V and WP:NPOV in their entirety. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have to decide what can and can't be used as a source. That is the whole point of WP:V and WP:NPOV - to provide criteria for deciding which sources can be used. You seem to be arguing that if something appears in print then it is a viable source, no matter how extreme, inaccurate or unrepresentative it is, or how unqualified the author is in that particular field. If that is your approach then I think there is a real problem with your editing, since that approach is totally incompatible with Misplaced Pages's most basic sourcing policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue this ChrisO, but I disagree with you. In most cases, we don't have a remit to decide on our own what is and what isn't reliable. If a source is inaccurate, we have to use other sources which tell us that. For example, when I write WWII articles, I find that the massive history that Samuel Eliot Morison wrote on the naval campaign is inaccurate in some cases. I still use Morison, but where he is contradicted by more modern sources, I use those instead, and if I think someone may question it, I either explain the discrepancy in the text or in a footnote. I don't throw Morison out completely, however, because he still has some good information. That's what we do here. The Hockey Stick Illusion, for example, has an excellent chapter on how climatic research uses proxies for determining historical temperatures. Unless another source tells us that the book doesn't explain it right, we assume it is reliable because it meets our V and RS rules. This is how Misplaced Pages works and why it works well when editors work on cooperating with each other. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing apples with oranges. Samuel Eliot Morison was an expert in the field, with a lengthy publication record and widespread recognition of his expertise and scholarship. He is not remotely comparable in standing to someone like Montford or Sussman, both non-experts with no previous publication record and no recognition of any competence in the field. The correct analogy would be using some random conspiracy nut who believes FDR conspired to allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to provide "balance" to Morison's account of the Pearl Harbor attack. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have an example showing that you are incorrect in that analogy. One of the best books on the Guadalcanal Campaign is this one. The book's author was an attorney, with no experience as an historian. This was his first book. According to your criteria, we wouldn't have been able to use his book as a source in Misplaced Pages, even though it's probably the best book on the battle. That is why we can't do like you're suggesting. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a middle way where you are both right depending on the circumstances. Cla68, clearly the history book is considered authoritative by RS, and the author probably isn't making many novel observations or conclusions, but is relying on the evidence of others, historical evidence not in dispute or controversial. OTOH, Chris makes a good point that not all sources are equal, and we must carefully evaluate for criteria such as expertise and authoritativeness when it's needed. In other words, a source being used simply to cite standard dates and other facts not in dispute, isn't going to be as closely evaluated as a source making claims about living people or suggesting novel theories or conclusions. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a discussion of specific items here, but I think the problem here is largely behavioral. There's no reason why our comprehensive and well developed verifiability and neutral point of view policies should not be properly applied here. The behavioral problem, in my view, consists on trying to use a guideline that discusses how one might assess the reliability of a source, applying a very liberal interpretation of that guideline, and insisting that passing the resulting criterion is sufficient to require the inclusion of a source in the article. That's indefensible and disingenuous. Having said that I won't labor the point, as I don't intend to get involved in discussing this article's content further at this point. --TS 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The Sussman book meets V/RS on the issues of reactions to the CRU email controversy, criticisms of the socio-political aspects of the process of informing the public on global warming, policy formation, criticisms of the "consensus" process -- as well as inclusion as one of a list of growing sources calling into question the consensus view based on questionable research methods and data sets. On the issue of pure science of global warming, Sussman might merit a footnote at best and is clearly not as reliable as a peer-reviewed scholarly articles. There is no reason not to include the Sussman reference in the appropriate place for the principle: this guy wrote this book and this is what it says, these are his credentials and here is how it is treated in secondary sources. Agree that it should not be included in purely scientific articles. Minor4th 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Whether or not the Sussman book is a reliable source as to Global Warming or Climate Change is one thing, but it is clearly a reliable source as to the opinion that the Climategate scandal as to the covering up scientific data and/or skewing the data for a preferred result. WP:IRS clearly states that these sources "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution." The book, in the short time it is out, has already been discussed by Fox News, the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the Canada Free Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Coast to Coast AM (a nationally syndicated radio show), among others. Clearly appropriate for the reaction to Climategate, if appropriately annotated. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an example of the reaction to the email hack, and as such is a primary source. It's also part of the partisan campaigning without good academic credentials. On that basis it's reliable as a source of what its author says, but the significance and assessment of that needs to be established by better sources, and it's very questionable as analysis of the issues. Which is why we have to base the article on reliable third party sources independent of the "controversy". Similarly, an article by Michaels in the WSJ, both of them active skeptical propagandists with financial ties to energy industries, has to be treated with caution and not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither the WSJ nor Pat Michaels should be dismissed from WP as simple propagandists. WSJ is a major mainstream newspaper and a WP:RS, and Michaels is a climatologist. Both, it is true, publish from the denier stance, but we don't call Michael Mann or Rajendra Pachauri propagandists because they advocate the opposite views. As for the oil industry, the CRU itself has ties to it. (See my comment of 14:20, 8 July 2010 in Archive 34.) Lord Oxburgh went from being chairman of Shell in 2004 to chairman of D1 Oils, a biodiesel firm. My understanding is that the wood I burn in my barrel stove creates as much CO2 as the gasoline I burn in my car, and that burning corn products (biofuel) likewise produces CO2. Please instruct if I'm mistaken. (I'm being serious, not smart-alecky.) --Yopienso (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the Sussman book - WND is not considered a reliable source for factual information. So I'm curious as to why a book they published should be considered a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Sussman is saying things that certain editors agree with. Do keep up, Guettarda. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Been away from the pedia for a the better part of a week. Must catch up before I can keep up. :) Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The opposite can be said as well -- Sussman is a reliable source for information on the socio-political aspects of global warming and the questions raised by the email controversy and the doubts in the media and public over the trustworthiness of the peer-review process and integrity of the research. So I'm curious as to why he would be considered unreliable. Answer: Because Sussman says things that certain editors don't agree with. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Minor4th 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sussman is a reliable source for information on the socio-political aspects of global warming - You can? On what basis? Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Don't mean that as a challenge to your statement. I know nothing about Sussman beyond what's in his WP bio, and there's nothing useful there. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited in the book and his background as a meteorologist and science reporter, etc. I don't really want to get into it with y'all. Take a look at the book and the information and sources cited and see if you find it unreliable. This is why I suggested a proposal for the material that is to be included and the purpose of citing Sussman's book. Talking about it in the abstract is not very useful. Minor4th 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that we should take the book seriously because of sources in the book is circular. As for his background - as I said, all I have seen is his Misplaced Pages bio, which says nothing useful about his qualifications, training or being a "science reporter". Hence my question. What reason is there to consider Sussman a reliable source? In fact, if, as Chris mentions above, he's an ID advocate (again, I have no source for this) then he has a background in disproven pseudoscience, which automatically undercuts his credibility. Guettarda (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Roy Spencer, the author of the second book Cla68 promotes above, who's an ID supporter. Sussman is a birther - you know, one of those sad individuals who promote conspiracy theories that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and isn't eligible to be president. He's not just on the fringe, he's on the fringe of the fringe. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, rather than talking about it in the abstract why don't we have a proposal about how to use this source and what material it will be cited for. Cla68? Minor4th 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like recentism to me. The article has so far relied mainly on press reports. Now the affair is over bar the shouting, books will be published about it. The best books will be great sources for the article. The first books published aren't guaranteed to be the best, probably the other way round. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The existence of this article is recentism. While press reports suffer from a number of problems, we should only replace them with more thoughtful sources when the quality of the sources exceeds the existing ones. Not to mention that, given the lag time involved in writing, editing and publishing a book, any book on this topic is certain to be out of date. Since it has been established that the early reporting was seriously off, when it comes to facts, anything based on the early reporting is likely to suffer from the same problems. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the Muir Russell inquiry

This section is to collect links and info for a future subsection on this topic.

For openers, Steve McIntyre has posted a detailed criticsm of the conduct of this rather pathetic inquiry here. It bears out the earlier WSJ comment that the MR report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." Straight out of "Yes, Minister" ... Quite remarkable. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here seriously believe that the denialist attacks on Muir Russell are unrelated to the fact that the inquiry didn't support the denialists' allegations? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More to the point - we've got a blog post and an (apparently) unsigned opinion piece. Neither are reliable sources for facts. Why not wait for a secondary source to report on these primary-source criticisms, rather than trying to synthesise our own critique? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"an (apparently) unsigned opinion piece".... Um, G, this means this is the editorial opinion of the newspaper. Like the NYT ""manufactured controversy" bit "your" side is so fond of? Sheesh.... </snark>, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it's signed then? It's under "Review and Outlook", not "Editorial". Does the WSJ not use the term? Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Um-2, that's house style. It ran (in the paper copy) as a left-column lead editorial. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. But it's still a primary-source critique, it's still an opinion piece. We need to wait to see if anyone cares. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Wall Street Journal editorial needs to be in the article somewhere, as it is a notable expression of opinion by an influential US newspaper. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial may be noteworthy - the paper's editorial page has been a bastion of the "skeptical" viewpoint. But how do we use it? You can see that Tillman's take on it is very different from ChrisO's. We could note that the criticised the report. But why one newspaper and not another? Why McI and not another blogger? If it's notable, secondary sources are going to cover it. If they don't, it sort of begs the question of whether it is worth including. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It belongs in the media reception section. Michaels' op-ed is noted there, but I think that is the wrong place. Michaels is not a media person. Another question: I've been away for a few days. What is the point of the neutrality tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, if the WSJ editorial is just added on, w/o moving Michaels, it would be a neutrality issue in its own right, as perhaps being overweighted toward criticism. The Col. Journalism Review article belongs there too. There should be a reasonable balance in the media section. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• McIntyre continues his analysis & criticism of the Muir Russell report here, concluding that Muir Russell "blatantly misrepresented the facts surrounding Jones’ notorious request to “delete all emails”, a misrepresentation that, in my opinion, was done, at a minimum, either recklessly or out of gross negligence." This is unusually strong language from McI, and it looks like he has good cause.

I agree, it's premature to post primary, blog-based material to the article -- though McIntyre is a recognized expert on the topic. But this should be picked up by a secondary RS soon. It's really quite shocking how shoddily this "independent study" was conducted. Consider this another "heads-up." Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is an active party to the dispute, so he's certainly not a secondary source. I've seen no evidence that he's a recognised expert on inquiries or independent studies, or indeed much else outside the mining business, though he's been described as a mathematician, apparently without qualifications in the field. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you're trying it on again, having conceded already that McIntyre is a perfectly reasonable source - have you an agenda to push or something? Once more: McIntyre is an expert on Climategate because it is his allegations that are central to it. A statement about what he has said he thinks can be referenced by reference to his blog. Anything else is ludicrous. Please stop trying to be a gatekeeper here. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Dave

• Here (original German) is a secondary source for some of McIntyre's criticisms, in a recent interview by Die Weltwoche, the Swiss newsweekly. I haven't read it closely yet, but the double translation(?) makes for clumsy reading. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reception

I have boldly trimmed and rearranged this section. Rationale:

• There was redundant reference to The Economist.
• I judged the funding aspect of Michaels' report unworthy of inclusion. If others disagree, here's my suggested wording: He further suggested that since both the UEA and PSU are partially funded by the US government they would stand to lose those grants if found guilty of substantial scientific misbehavior.
• I like to present in this order:

1. a positive review, (position)

2. a negative one, (rebuttal) and

3. a "you-be-the-judge" one. (conclusion) I think the final sentence as I've left it is a good conclusion at this point.

• Recentism does seem a problem, so we should probably not rush to add developing stories. --Yopienso (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't. ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles. Can you please revert and wait until the proposed decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Where have they asked that? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Risker says: "I hope everyone who has posted on these pages in recent weeks will make use of this break to step back from this topic area for a brief period." That is not remotely equivalent to saying that "ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles." There is no editing restriction to prevent Yopienso or any other editor from continuing to work on improving this or any other article in the topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, true, but it's still a bad idea. And I wasn't asking you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page. I'm going for a lunch break, and if others agree with you and provide a link to the request I will not hesitate to self-revert. Please give me up to two hours since I'm not sure I can be right back. --Yopienso (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS--I'm out the door... PPS--Bye.......

When you get back, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why he should. He's not a party to the case - nor am I for that matter - and he's not posted on any of the arbitration pages, so he's not covered by Risker's suggestion. Risker hasn't pursued it or tried to enforce it as far as I can see and nobody seems to have taken any notice of it. I wasn't even aware of it until you pointed it out. It's not binding and it doesn't cover Yopienso anyway. If you want to follow Risker's suggestion then please go and do so, and leave the editing to others without badgering them about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Risker posted that request at 04:51, 19 July 2010, this disputed edit was made at 11:33, 19 July 2010. A Quest For Knowledge, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? dave souza, talk 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Well spotted. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice ArbCom's request until after I made that edit. Since then, I have not edited a single CC article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Yopienso hadn't noticed it. Same principle applies. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ArbCom's request." It's Risker expressing a personal "hope" (his words). If the ArbCom wants us to do something, it will tell us, but don't put words in its collective mouth. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso wrote "I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page." Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Risker's request. He wants everyone who has participated in the Arbcom to stop editing CC articles? That presupposes, if so, that everyone who participated is an active editor. I've almost exclusively participated in talk page discussions, with only rare edits in these articles. So am I covered by this request? I agree that there needs to be notice in the articles as practicable.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a request. You don't have to abide by it if you don't want, but I am asking Yopienso to self-revert in the meantime. I'm not sure how closely you are following the case, but yesterday, several editors were edit-warring over contentious meterial in a BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I'm asking you to self revert material that's, in my view, contentious. Neither you nor Yopienso has to abide by these respective requests. . . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Michaels stuff deserves a brief mention, but absolutely not in the media reaction section. He's not in the media. To call that media reaction is not accurate. Also I'd like to see a broader array of notable reaction from columnists, etc. Quest, thanks for clarifying, but I'm still not clear on whether I'm covered by the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: I think he deserves a mention, too. The location doesn't matter much to me. It was already buried at the end of the article anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is where. The Journal editorial seems to say the same thing, and is a media reaction. Would anyone object to the editorial substituting for Michaels? 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the above, I've restored the older version of the article in the spirit of the comments made by Risker at 04:51, 19 July 2010. For some reason, A Quest For Knowledge felt the need to cross this boundary, and then had the nerve to come here and insist that everyone abide by it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. First, I apologize for inadvertently failing to note either above or on the edit summary that besides trimming and rearranging I added Michaels' claim of a whitewash, which, in fact, was the main thrust of the article.

I'm not seeing a consensus or direction to self-revert so will wait a bit more on that. --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed there was again an edit conflict! I'll add that a Wall St. Journal opinion is certainly a media response! --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite secondary (or tertiary) sources describing the media response. Please do not cherry pick media responses. We have been over this several times. Find an article that talks about the media response. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely over-hasty and ill-advised, Viriditas. We were working on this. Wrt your edit summary, "Restore previous version per talk," it is neither the previous version nor "per talk." Please self-revert.

I'm taking a 24-hour break from this article. Anyone may stop by my talk page.

Oh, a new post--I am not cherry-picking: read my rationale above. We have no rule that a WSJ opinion piece cannot be used. Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird stuff

We seem to have ended up with

The Economist said the Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfill its remit," noting that the report failed to discover who "chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so."

This makes no sense. Finding out whodunnit was n't part of the Russell remit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. the word "noting" is misleading here because it assumes that the Economist got it right. The investigation would obviously not have been competent to make any such determination, which is (as far as who did it) the job of the police force, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. The why of the matter might well be a subject for endless debate, even if the culprits are eventually identified.

But if the most the Economist had to say was clearly nonsensical, it would not be worth covering--we're not a press summary website. Why not look at what else the Economist had to say and see if it made some kind of sense? We're not here to make the press look bad, either. --TS 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original which I paraphrased:

"The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored." The part I originally added noted that only a small portion of the emails (0.3%) were explored. The remit portion is in regards to why they didn't check all the emails not the hacker.91.153.115.15 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mystery at all. Any reasonable person can look at the timeline and see that the only reason the e-mails were released and the media outlets covered it in the way that they did, was to derail the climate talks at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which is what happened. If you recall, not only did the CRU allegations take away media coverage from the event, but climate scientists were attacked at the event using these allegations as ammo, and some countries began questioning the accuracy of the "evidence" for climate change at the conference using the just published e-mails as justification. There is no other logical conclusion for "why" the e-mails were strategically released at that time, and various sources have said just that. In fact, I would challenge you to find a better explanation; There isn't one. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears the most likely explanation based on the timing but others can not be ruled out. The Why can be deduced but the Who is not yet known. My comment was that the inquiry did not read all the emails.91.153.115.15 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll list the sources which state that, this can be added to the article. There have been several speculated ideas on the motiviation of the person(s) who stole the emails (even if it was an insider, "stolen" is still an accurate description because he/she almost certainly did not have authorization to take the data) and to derail Copenhagen is one of them. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the mystery is that this is just a bad paraphrase. I'll remove it, is omseone lese hasn't already William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I thought us ArbCom parties had accepted a voluntary topic ban on contentious edits until the case was decided. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What made you think that? If you believe it, I invite you to discuss with MN (no, I'm not holding my breath). Anyway, I've corrected that error, which hopefully even Cla won't think a bad think. I've also removed the bit about no science checks, which is wrong: Muir-Russell repliced the temperature curve, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if ArbCom could clarify who falls under the aegis of that request. I'd step in and edit the media reactions section myself, but I don't want to disregard the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added media reaction from Columbia Journalism Review and the Wall Street Journal, and also added a bit from the Economist, thereby fleshing out the media reaction section in a roughly balanced way. I'm not sure if this is against any arbcom request; I can't find it, there is no notice here, so I thought I'd take the plunge. I think this improves the section. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's good, imo, Scotty. I don't know what others may have thought of my 1, 2, 3 outline above. Here's a suggested rearrangement, changing nothing of text. However, I think "whitewash" should be included in the second paragraph. The word's been bandied about in the MSM, including the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the WSJ, and a NYT blog that provides a link to the Financial Times. I can provide the links or you can just google "climategate whitewash" under news, not web. I'm putting my suggested rearrangement in green so we don't go cross-eyed in keeping it straight from our comments. If anyone finds that offensive, you know how to take care of it.

A New York Times editorial, after the July 2010 reports, called Climategate a "manufactured controversy," and expressed the hope that panel reports clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies," and in June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal."

A July 2010 Boston Herald editorial said that while the scientists were "given a not-quite-full exoneration ... echoes of the uproar still prompt needed skepticism." A Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the Muir Russell study as "a 160-page evasion of the real issues." The newspaper said that "the review assumes the validity of the global warming 'consensus' while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic."

The online edition of Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever." Media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.

The Economist said the Muir Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics." The magazine said the recent inquiries "raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere." --Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. Educational, as I didn't know you could change font color. Where would "whitewash" go? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tack "Assessing reaction to the Russell report, Andrew Revkin noted "many shouts of 'whitewash' by critics of climate science." onto the second paragraph.

I had intended to include The Economist in the third paragraph, for a total of only three. --Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "whitewash": do you think the Clive Crook quote from the Atlantic fills that need? He doesn't use the word, but it's substantial, thoughtful criticism. Plus he's not a climate-change skeptic, and I don't think he's particularly partisan. Interesting piece.

Since there are concerns re this section "growing like Topsy", we could consider pruning the Boston Globe quote as superfluous. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the various news comments across the pond are of interest, the focus of this story was in the UK and a brief overview of the UK responses would help. I've not been trying to find representative editorials, and don't favour that approach. A couple of sources of some interest: UEA's delayed response to climate emails caused by shock, says professor | Environment | The Guardian is the news story on a debate on the issue, it cites "prominent climate sceptic bloggers Douglas Keenan as saying "Both the Muir Russell review and Oxburgh review are clearly whitewash", though a source saying that it's been said more generally would be better. The newsblog about the debate notes that "More than one suggested the media had hyped the "Climategate" tale beyond all reason, though none of the panel fully endorsed this view." A variety of views about the effect of media coverage are given at How has 'Climategate' affected the battle against climate change? | David Adam | Environment | The Guardian . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate image

Do we need a 'Media reception' section?

I think someone mentioned when the section was newly-formed, that it was likely to grow out of control. Watching it's early development, it reminds me of sections like 'Alternative names for masturbation' and 'Mentions of sex in popular music'. Such misconceptions are more fun for new recruits from Urban Dictionary, than help here in building a useful encyclopedia. In particular, especially if we allow op-ed pieces from obscure and local press, there is and will be no limit to the extreme opinions of every kind to include. It will, I suspect, become a game where contributors rush here to add the maddest things they just found, and every attempt to cull entries will be met with howls. In this way the section becomes larger than the rest of the article; then at least we can split it off and remove the spin-off from out watchlists, I suppose. --Nigelj (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do. We can, however, put a limit on number of lines written and/or number of publications cited. The reason we need it is because the three reviews have not entirely satisfied all of the general public, and have raised further questions, doubts, and criticisms in some quarters. (If you're old enough to remember public reaction when the Warren Report came out, it's the same feeling--a crime, an investigation, an unpersuasive report.) Maybe later we can change the heading to "Public reception." But first we'll have to hear from the constabulary. --Yopienso (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage is an intrinsic part of this subject. You might say that this was a "media circus." It may be a good idea to have a full section entitled "media coverage," broader than a media reaction subsection as we presently have. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We need sources about the media coverage; We don't need POV pushers picking and choosing opinion pieces and editorials that criticize climate science. That's a transparent attempt at evading our sourcing policies. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That would leave only the CJR article. I don't see a POV problem if there's a fair sampling of notable media reaction. It helps readers understand the issues. If there is an over-weight on one side or the other, it can be remedied. Right now there are only very large publications in that section, plus CJR. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt that CJR is the only RS to have covered the media. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

True, there was also Howard Kurtz, who is quoted now. I think that's about it. What do you think of a broader "media coverage" section? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The best way to remain neutral is to use the timeline and adhere to it, paying attention to the most notable reports referred to by other media. You really can't go wrong when you do this, but we need CJR, Kurtz, and others to do it. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if we dismantle the current section, we still have NY Times and WSJ editorials, and these are extremely influential in the USA. I can't see excluding them, whatever else may be taken out. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles don't use editorials as sources. If the editorial is notable, then secondary sources will have mentioned it, as they mentioned Dowd's when she called Obama "Spock", etc. Individual editors do not get to highlight which editorials they think are important, especially when it comes to a subject that involves significant political spin. If we are writing about the "controversy", then other sources will have covered it. Stick to those. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to add that I made my comments above before seeing the current version of the article, and the quote tacked on from some guy at the Atlantic. Your point is well taken that this section can pose dangers if it is a repository for press comments presented in an unbalanced fashion. I think the problem is inbalance and a potential POV issue. I don't see problems with editorials per se, if safeguards are taken to not weight the section one way or the other. We may just want to include the WSJ and NY editorials, and jettison the rest except for CJR, Kurtz and whomever else is writing specifically about the media coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How would we as editors judge 'balance'? The same number of quotes from 'both sides'? The same number of words per quote? What about the very serious possibility that 'both sides' are not in fact equal in any sense and that we should be reflecting, say, a 97:3 ratio, not 50:50. There are not two 'sides' anyway, there are at least half a dozen different important points of view regarding different aspects of the case and the reviews. We need to rely on secondary sources for analysis. No question. Then it won't be 'media reception', but all kinds of reception/comment/analysis. --Nigelj (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the 3-point proposal I made near the to of the "Media reception" section of this page? Position, rebuttal, you-decide. What do you think of my proposed rewrite in the "Weird stuff" section? I agree that after the police report and some more tertiary summaries, there may be need for a separate article. --Yopienso (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Position, rebuttal, you-decide": gross oversimplification. The three reviews don't represent a 'position', they praise some aspects of the work, criticise others and make important points about the science and the scientific methods. Selectively cherry-picking a sentence from an op-ed is not a 'rebuttal' of anything, much less of all the basic tenets of modern climate science. Finally, the point about climate science is not that 'you', the reader, should listen first to the findings of decades of painstaking work endorsed by the worldwide science establishment, then to quotes from a few American right-wing journalists, and then 'decide' on your own novel scientific theories. If we're going to go into the media's responses to, and effects on, this controversy, we need the guidance of scholarly secondary sources, not knock together our own synthesis. --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel, you make good points. I do think it's important that the article at this point "praise some aspects of the work, criticise others and make important points about the science and the scientific methods." That is what I'm understanding from the MSM. Andrew Revkin is not an "American right-wing journalist." Here are links to the MSM that suggest or document that others suggest a whitewash, 2 from NY and 3 from the UK:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/climate-whitewash-blackwash-and-mushroom-clouds/ (With link to the "Financial Times)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7876999/Climategate-professor-gets-his-job-back.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292703/Climategate-scientist-Phil-Jones-STILL-gets-job-back.html

We typically use reliable newspapers as sources--that's why we have a whole list of them--and to refuse to present this information would constitute NPOV. --Yopienso (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I should note at this point that three of the four sources you mention there are extremely right-wing (the Daily Mail notoriously so - it supported the fascists in the 1930s). We shouldn't give the false impression that this is anything other than a partisan controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a British, middle-market tabloid. Why is it listed here? The Michaels piece is an editorial short on facts and long on wild accusations; Not exactly material needed for an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should definitely be heading in the direction of informed discussion, which severely limits our choice of credible sources. --TS 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Demonizing the right is precisely the POV that has been repeatedly challenged here. "Right" does not equate to "fringe". Judging by recent elections, about half the voters in the US and the UK are conservative. The Wall Street Journal is, according to us, "the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation." The Daily Mail "...is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper..." It would be egregiously POV to dismiss those sources. (Of course the Mail supported Mussolini in 1933; so did Churchill and Roosevelt.)
• The Mail is listed here because it's listed here.
• I give 5 sources: I cannot provide a direct link to the Financial Times article because it requires a subscription. There's a pop-up in the dot.earth blog (Revkin). Surely my fellow editors will not exclude Revkin, a reliable source that could form the basis for the "Media reception" section. These statements are too long to quote in their entirety, but I'd like to see the notions included:

--The reactions to the Independent Climate Change Email Review are flowing around the blogosphere, including—predictably—many shouts of “whitewash” by critics of climate science and proclamations of vindication by the scientists and institution thrust into the spotlight after the unauthorized release of a batch of e-mail strings and files revealed the sometimes-unseemly back story behind climate research. (Click on "whitewash" for the Financial Times blurb.)

--No inquiry of this sort will ever clear the slate given the polarization over this issue, fueled both by divergent ideologies and very large financial stakes related to energy policy. Everyone shares some blame in how this incident played out.

--Yopienso (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

There is no discussion on the talk page. I've removed the banner William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that a number of active discussions are directly related to POV, including the one above about this image. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Give it a break already. This article needs to be gutted and the POV pushers need to find something else to do. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was curious myself about the NPOV banner and I asked about it a day or so ago. Where is the overarching NPOV issue serious enough to slap an NPOV tag on the entire article? Unless there is a specific allegation, so that it can be explained and addressed if warranted, I don't think the NPOV tag is warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was added by Hipocrite on 16 July after some changes had been made to the article by AQFK, I'm not clear exactly why. Mikenorton (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the tag is warranted, the article clearly is biased and presents the information from the CRU/CC POV. Any attempt to balance that information is resisted and delayed. The tag should stay. GregJackP Boomer! 12:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's nonsense. The CRU "POV", as you call it, is the established POV. No amount of birthers screaming "drill, baby, drill" is going to change that. Climate change is happening, and humanity is responsible. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You make my point for me, although I'm not sure why you feel the need to add an irrelevant "birther" comment, unless you are just trying to shut down conversation. That is typical of this area, and is part of the problem with the "established POV" - Misplaced Pages is supposed to be NPOV, not an established POV, and is supposed to show what is being reported, not just the spin from one side. The point that CC "is" happening is likewise not relevant to a POV discussion here. There are many reports and sources that are being dismissed solely to control the spin on Climategate. GregJackP Boomer! 13:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you or other editors feel there is an NPOV issue, you should cite passages in the article that present a problem. The point of the tag is to allow specific issues to be addressed, and there's been no attempt of which I am aware to do so. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP, it's entirely relevant that climate change is happening, and climate science isn't "spin". If you have children or plan on having them, you may want to pay closer attention to articles like ocean acidification. As for the established view, you may want to pay closer attention to WP:UNDUE. This entire article is a non-topic, and is taking time and energy away from serious articles that need work. I suspect that is the sole reason for its existence. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair comments, so I'll address your relevant points. This article is not about CC, it is about a lack of transparency, a violation of the FOIA, alleged scientific and academic misconduct and related matters that cast doubt on the veracity of CC scientists. It has been widely reported in the media, both pro and con. Actual disagreements on CC should be in that article, not this one, so WP:UNDUE as to that is not relevant here. Second, if you feel this article is a time sink and not important, go edit another article that is important. No one is forcing you to be here - so that is really your choice. Finally, of course I'm concerned about the environment for my children and grandchildren. My people have been treating the land in a sustainable manner for centuries, and have fought Anglo-Europeans (litterally at times) over the issue. As recently as my youth, these same forces disagreed with our sustainable lumber industry and attempted to terminate our people's way of life so they could clear-cut our land. I don't need a lecture from you on how to treat our planet - and you might want to consider that if you don't know anything about a person, you might want to hold off on offering advice. GregJackP Boomer! 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this comment is not helpful in identifying specific supposed problems in the article. If they're not identified, they can't be addressed. What specific parts of the article are problematic? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here are vague expressions of dissatisfaction from both sides, and no specific NPOV concerns. Unless there is a bona fide dispute that is explicitly detailed (with more than just conclusory statements), and I'm not seeing one at this point, the tag is not warranted and should go. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Was the comment I was responding to helpful? As to specific issues, the article spends most of its space saying "nothing to see here, move on" without explanation of specific allegations, nor does it have any of the published criticisms of the investigation(s) or reports. The phrasing at one point that items were taken out of context does not identify that one of the subjects of the investigation is the one that alleges the statement - and in the reference it does not specifically state that either politicians statement was out of context. I'll look at and address similar issues when I get a chance. Additionally, the source is of questionable reliability, since it is reporting the immediate comments of selected individuals to the report - close to being an op-ed piece from the CC scientists. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think you need to cite specific passages in the article, and explain why they violate WP:NPOV. It's your responsibility to make your criticisms understandable. It's not the obligation of other editors to take your vague comments and figure out which specific passages you're referring to, and then guess what your objection is. I've read through this entire article and find no conceivable POV problem. I see nothing saying or implying "nothing to see here, move on." If you just don't like an article, that's not sufficient to place an ugly and disruptive POV tag at the top of the article. See comment by SCJessy below. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It will take me some time, but I'll be happy to do so. As for putting the POV tag on the article, you would have to ask the editor who originally placed it on the article. As to the comment by SCJessy, it incorrectly identifies the issue as CC instead of the actual issue, which was the leak of the e-mail, the allegations made therein, and the various responses, including that of the media. Instead, SCJessy attempts to shift the issue to CC/denial, which is assuredly not the issue for this article. I note that you declined to make a comment about the post I was responding to also. I would ask in the future if you intend to call my responses unhelpful, that you be fair and address any comments that the response was directed towards. Otherwise it appears that you support those comments. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be greatly helpful if you or someone would specify what specific passages are problematic and why, for otherwise there's no basis and the tag should be removed. You have a point: the tag was placed there by Hipocrite and he should explain what he feel is wrong, if he hasn't done so. As for my "decling to make a comment about the post you were responding to," there have been several posts and replies, and I have no idea what you're talking about. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to move away from the NPOV "badge of shame" tactics. If certain editors find specific wording that they don't regard as neutral, the verbiage in question should be locally tagged with the most appropriate tag and then immediately brought to discussion here for timely resolution. All such tags are ugly and should be avoided at all costs. Some editors are also getting a funny idea of what they think "neutral" means. It does not mean that both "sides" are represented. It means that all sides should be represented at an appropriate weight. In practical terms, that means the tiny minority denying the indisputable fact of anthropogenic climate change should not be holding this article hostage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Who are you accusing of "holding this article hostage"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be obvious that there are a number of editors here who are actively promoting a fringe POV. Not naming names, but you know who I mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't go quite that far, but I believe that the presence of an NPOV banner is disruptive and unwarranted, and needs to go. The editor who put it there, Hipocrite, has never provided specifics and has not participated in this discussion. Other editors (from the opposing POV!) support the banner but likewise haven't provided specifics. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suspect the removal of the image might be a POV issue, but I'm not getting much help yet in finding a copy of image. Also, since ArbCom has suggested not working on these articles, so I'm focusing my attention on just one POV issue. But the entire article reads like an UAE talking points memo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I emailed you a link to it. It really has nothing to do with any POV issue. NW (Talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NW: Thanks. It does contain the word "Climagate" the use of which has been a long-standing POV problem with the article, not to mention the fact that it lists one of the main allegations against the CC scientists. Something else to consider is that this screenshot helps the reader understand the scandal better. The current image is of the CRU building and does not help the reader understand this scandal at all. On the other hand, the picture quality of the screenshot is quite poor. Perhaps another image can be found? Anyway, I'll be leaving for my father's birthday party shortly so this will have to wait until later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What does the United Arab Emirates have to do with anything? And I have to say that your whole approach to this is symptomatic of the problems with this topic area (and with your own battlefield attitude). The image was speedily deleted twice because it was a copyright violation. You've been told repeatedly why it was deleted and that it had nothing to do with POV. You've had confirmation from a completely uninvolved admin, Fut. Perf. And yet you still pursue this. All along the way, you seem to have assumed bad faith of everyone who has explained to you why it was deleted. Rather than accept explanations in good faith, you've pursued it obsessively, clogging up talk pages and wasting time all round. It's exactly this kind of unproductive behaviour that led to the current arbitration case in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Hipocrite, who placed the tag here on 7/16, to either explain the reason for the tag or remove it. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the removal of the NPOV tag by Kittybrewster. This matter is still under discussion, and at least two editors and possibly more have questions on the neutrality of the article. I am still gathering examples of specific instances, but the entire article also violates NPOV. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't count me among those questioning the article's neutrality. POV is glaringly evident on the talk page, but little or none of that is reflected in the article. Any such reflections would be errors of omission, not inclusion, and I haven't taken the time to scrutinize it to see what may be missing. Obviously, facts distasteful to both the alarmist- and denialist-leaning camps are included, an evidence of upholding neutrality against personal opinions or preferences. The lede seems to be rigorously neutral. I'm fine with removing the tag. In fact, I request it be removed and not restored without a list of specific POV statements or omissions. --Yopienso (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

PS Oh, duh--the title is certainly POV. But that's not reason to tag it, imo. --Yopienso (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm working on a list of specific items, including the page title that are POV and can retag the article when I post those. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that you're "working on a list of specific items", I've removed the tag for now. Maybe we can retag it when you (or anyone) posts them, but not before. StuartH (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the NPOV badge to be anything other than a disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT badge of shame, there needs to be a prospect that it will change the article for the better, or that the minority of editors who consider it POV will be happy with anything less than a Conservapedia mirror. I'm not remotely optimistic, but I'm prepared to be surprised. At the very least, though, articulate what the problem/s is/are. StuartH (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

People always tell us that the reasons for the POV banner were given earlier, or will be provided in the near future, but very rarely actually articulate them, with quotes and diffs, now. Until this happens, and then the discussion stalls regarding the issues brought up, the banner should not be added. --Nigelj (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Which is why I removed it. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the title POV?

I would change the word controversy to incident. Any other issues? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was "hacking incident" until a name change to reflect the focus on the content of the emails rather than the hacking incident itself. "Email incident" makes a little less sense, and "controversy" doesn't imply guilt the way other titles might. The current title to me seems to satisfy the neutrality requirements for a "descriptive title". The problem to many is that we're not using their POV term for the article (i.e. Climategate). There are claims that there are grounds for changing the title to such a non-neutral term, but that doesn't make the current title POV. StuartH (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think Climategate is hugely POV. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues; do a word search for "title" in Archive 35, especially on July 12-13, when we discussed it at length. In brief: Since critics quickly slapped "Climategate" on the incident, it was understood by supporters to be a pejorative, and almost certainly it was, and was therefore to be avoided. As time passed, however, usage widened--it is a catchy, brief term that rolls off one's tongue, unlike the present WP-invented title no one else uses. At least two of us googled for any RS that had not used "Climategate" and were unable to find one. It seems likely this incident, if it is remembered 20 years from now, will be called "Climategate." In other words, the word is losing its sting because of broader use and repetition and so is more acceptable.

Some editors are reluctant to use it because, apparently, they feel it will signal a "victory" for editors who are critical of the CRU. If this is true, if some editors want to "win" or see the incident called what they consider a justly-deserved ugly name, it's too soon to change it. I've laid out my reasons for changing it in Archive 35. It would be a pity if childish name-calling attitudes increase the length of time we must display this contrived title. --Yopienso (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather avoid having a re-run of the article title wars. Nothing useful came of it then and I doubt it will now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few useful things came of it: it was discovered and admitted that the term is more widely used than it was previously, lists of its wide usage were compiled, the background as to why some find it POV and others find it common-sense was discussed.

It would be as wrong for you, William, to refuse ever to reconsider as it would for me to start an edit war. The fact that there have been "article title wars," or at least article title discussions, shows there is not an overwhelming consensus for the present title. --Yopienso (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. But it would be entirely correct of me to say that it is very unlikely to be worth the time and effort required (which is what I actually said, making your edit comment unintentionally self-ironic), which could more usefully go into actually improving articles William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell should they do that? It's so much easier to spend month after month arguing about a POV article title pushed by none other than Faux News itself. Don't you dare claim that editors should actually be writing articles and using reliable, authoritative sources to do it. Faux News said it, that settles it! Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kittybrewster: Proper names for events which incorporate POV terms (such as Tea Pot Dome scandal, Corrupt bargain, Great Leap Forward, etc.) are legitimate article titles if these are the most common names used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not do an RFC and let the community decide mark nutley (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The community already decided, and you didn't like the decision, so you're back here asking the community to decide again until you get the decision you like. Since the article is being held hostage, I propose that we capitulate and cater to the demands of our dear captors with the one provision that every new account created since the last decision took place is automatically excluded from any new discussion, thereby preventing the usual suspects from engaging in the predicted shenanigans. Deal? Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate" redirects here. There have been umpteen battles over it, and we don't need another. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus can change". There's nothing wrong with taking a quick straw poll. If the need arises for an extended discussion on the topic, I would welcome it once again, provided any new accounts, IP's, and socks are excluded. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be against policy, you know were anyone can edit wikipedia? mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Socks excluded, to be sure, but not IPs or new accounts.--SPhilbrickT 12:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My questions are few. Is the title agreed? Yes, but it could yet change. Is Climategate a preferable name? No; already determined; but that could be changed. Is controversy POV? Would incident be preferable? I think so. Should the word email be included in the title? I simply don't have a view on that. But they are different issues. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Rename article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Maths, science, and technology Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

It is proposed that the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" be renamed "Climategate". Is this proposed rename supported or contradicted by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? What are the risks and benefits of such a rename? mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

As this is what all the sources call it In the past month Climategate has been used 566 times in the media It gets 275 hits on google scholar and there are 46 books about it

• WP:V verifiability, not truth therefore arguments saying those involved were cleared and as such the -Gate should not be used is wrong.
• WP:UCN Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. And there is the policy based reason for title change mark nutley (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Climategate" fails WP:LABEL because "-gate" suffix suggests a scandal, and no aspect of this incident is (or has been) described as a scandal. "Climategate" fails Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming because it supports a non-neutral neologism. "Climategate" already redirects here. Current title is descriptive. No need for change. Also, no need for this RfC, seeing as this has already been decided not less than eleventy-billion times in the 8 months since the hacking incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:RM (rather than WP:RfC) the correct way to get this discussed, as per the numerous previous similar discussions? is this some kind of forum shopping? --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. StuartH (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC`s are an integral part of dispute resolution, it is hardly forum shopping mark nutley (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse "dispute resolution" with "wikilawyering". This is basically vexatious litigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't confuse self-published pamphlets as "books". Google isn't very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff in this respect. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the original Watergate could be called a scandal, it doesn't immediately follow that any other -gate suffix implies scandal. Ironically, WP has an article on the term, List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, but I think that article should be revisited. A quick glance will show that not all are called scandals. A better description might be "controversy" While some rise to the level of scandal, many do not, so the inference is false.--SPhilbrickT 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:WASTEOFTIME applies. Pointless troublemaking William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Since 2009, a requested move for this article has taken place at least four times: 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (failed) 17 February, 2010 (failed) 17 March, 2010 (successful) Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Climategate is clearly the most commonly used name in English by reliable sources including BBC News, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Der Spiegel, ABC News, CBS News, New Scientist, Nature, etc. For a list of reliable sources calling this Climategate, please expand the following section:

As for arguments that you can't have an article title that expresses a POV, this is incorrect. Proper names for events which incorporate POV terms (such as Reign of Terror, Corrupt bargain, Bataan Death March, etc.) are legitimate article titles because these are the most common names used by reliable sources. For a list of article titles which express a POV, please see this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's a great argument against changing the name. All article titles are POV, but are based on the most neutral POV we can create, often times by combining multiple POV, and this involves creating article titles that are inclusive and represent the entire subject. Non-netural POV titles are often too narrow, hence one of the major problems (one of many) with a title like "Climategate". That's one reason why Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial, and why Barack Obama birthplace controversy redirects to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. There's a big picture and "Climategate" doesn't begin to even incorporate every aspect of it. Since the CRU and the email are the central aspects of the dispute, an article title using those terms meets our neutrality policy without taking the POV of a small fringe element composed of vocal climate denialists who have named the topic "Climategate" solely to push their POV that a scandal has occurred before the investigation was even begun. We know know there was no such scandal, and that some of the major claims made by this group have been retracted. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not this nonsense again? It's already been discussed to death, as Viriditas has pointed out above. The current name is a compromise. Policy on POV names has not changed ("encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality"). The "Climategate" moniker is the same as it ever was - a POV nickname meant to impute wrongdoing and scandal. Using such a POV nickname while the controversy was still ongoing would have been grossly inappropriate. Using it now that the reports are in and the principals have been cleared of wrongdoing would be insane. We are not in the business of rewriting history. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, Article Naming, which states: Misplaced Pages takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. Using the current title and looking for GNews/GScholar/GBooks hits show zero hits, while the popular name of "Climategate" showed over 4,100 GNews hits, over 200 GScholar hits, and 29 GBooks hits, clearly showing that Climategate is used by a consensus of the sources. The argument that it cannot be named Climategate is not correct - there are plenty of examples of popular scandal names being used in Misplaced Pages per the above policy. Second, the argument that the principals have been cleared of wrong-doing has nothing to do with the naming of the article, except to put a POV spin on the title. The policy is clear that the title used by a consensus of the sources, not a consensus of the editors, the commonly used phrase is used. Period. Anything else is POV. GregJackP Boomer! 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

1. "A Climate Change Corrective". The New York Times. 7-11-2010. Retrieved 11 July 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. "Newspapers retract Climategate claims but damage still done". The Gaggle. Newsweek. June 25, 2010.
3. "Climategate still echoes". The Boston Herald. 2010-07-11. Retrieved 2010-07-12.
4. "A Climate Absolution? The alarmists still won't separate science from politics". The Wall Street Journal. July 16, 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010.
5. Brainard, Curtis (July 7, 2010). "Wanted: Climate Front-Pager: Reviews vindicating scientists get strong blog coverage, but more high-profile stories are needed". Columbia Journalism Review (online). Retrieved 23 July 2010.
6. Brainard, Curtis (July 13, 2010). "I'll Have the Climate Coverage, Please: Kurtz wants some; so does the Times, though it doesn't deliver". Columbia Journalism Review (online). Retrieved 23 July 2010.
7. "Science Behind Closed Doors". The Economist. July 8, 2010. Retrieved 11 July 2010.
8. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/climate-whitewash-blackwash-and-mushroom-clouds/

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Weather articles
• Low-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• C-Class Computer Security articles
• Low-importance Computer Security articles
• C-Class Computer Security articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment