Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 4 March 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: 2 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: 2 days

Template:Shell

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

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

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

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

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

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 2009 (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 (Talk:Climatic_Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 14#Proposed page move

Problematic edit

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

After reading the above, I still don't understand the grounds on which you removed references to these important statements. It looks to me as if you're reading some policy or other as saying we cannot report one of the principal party's statements about itself or its interactions with a key deliberative body. Perhaps you could try explaining in English why we shouldn't include such material. As for your objection to putting this in the lede, obviously the gravity of the alleged offence alone merits putting it in the lede. We don't need multiple sources to establish that. --TS 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the section above. The same reason no additions should be made. Let's wait to get the whole story.130.232.214.10 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More on the whole story: CRU correspondence with ICO. Article in the Times. Trying to refrain from comment but unable... This University is complete s**t at damage control.91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've read through the article and the correspondence, and several points have been made clear:

1. The ICO has essentially admitted that (as the UEA alluded to) media coverage has been inaccurate, misrepresenting ICO statements.
2. That despite (1), the ICO cannot be bothered to clarify their statements because they don't feel responsible.
3. Absolutely nothing has been asserted, and the investigation has months to run.
4. Statements made by the ICO to this point have only been preliminary findings, and these may differ significantly from those found at the conclusion of the investigation.

Clearly, WMC's comment about the FOI stuff being "broken" is absolutely correct, although I disagree with the rest of his comment because we don't actually know anything yet. I submit that the most appropriate action would be to remove the ICO-related stuff from the article until the conclusion of the investigation, beyond a simple acknowledgment that the ICO are investigating. Claims of "breaches" or "no breaches" are premature at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the pointer to the Times article. This is yet another so-called "RS" which isn't; the headline is a fantasy invention whicb is not supported by the rather boring article text. The Times has a problem: it bought all this fluff, and now looks silly, so it won't back down gracefully. But that doesn't mean we should be using it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about why you are puzzled. The Times is clearly a WP:RS. We, as editors, don't have the privilege of being able to personally select when we want to accept a given source as WP:RS on a case by case basis. WP:V is controlling, not our individual assessments of the truth. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Times has made numerous errors in this, as has the Torygraph. We are not obliged to repeat the errors of "RS"'s, and should not do so, when other sources have made those errors clear. There are countless examples of errors by newspapers; wiki, correctly, does not insert them all William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you personally judge that they have made errors is irrelevant, actually. That's why WP:V sets the standard where it does. Your claims of errors are WP:OR and have no place in determining the content of the article. Policy controls, and WP:WEIGHT suggests that, in fact, we are obligated to include the views presented by the Times and the Telegraph because they are WP:RS. Presenting all of the views found in WP:RS and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions is precisely how things are supposed to be working based on existing policies, as written. --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, other more reliable sources than the Times and the Telegraph have documented the errors that WMC refers to in the coverage of these incidents. We are charged with considering the sum total of sources not just the reports by newspapers. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are somehow under the impression that my stance is that we should ignore certain sources. This is not the case. The main views expressed in WP:RS should be covered in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. So, if you have sources that contradict the Times and the Telegraph they should be covered in the article along with the Times and the Telegraph accounts.

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

We discuss the unreliability of the Times below, but more importantly, if one source is found to be less reliable than another, we use the more reliable source. WP:NPOV#Balance only applies when the two sides are equal. In the global warming politics, the science is fairly strongly in favor of what the IPCC has summarized and so sources that are honest about this fact tend to be more reliable in the same way that sources that don't deny the reality of evolution are more reliable when sourcing the Creation-evolution controversy. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: You states "I'm puzzled by the pointer to the Times article. This is yet another so-called "RS" which isn't; the headline is a fantasy invention whicb" referinmg to this article University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ (archived 2010-02-27) in The Times published 7 February 2010. Your judgment that the article title is fantasy speaks for itself. Even if we should not analyze and judge a secondary source we can just take a quote from the text that fully support the title you are so categorical about (its 'fantasy'): "The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.". Nsaa (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I have indeed addressed your concerns. You appear to have bought into the Times headline, which is fantasy. Read what the article actually quotes and a rather different picture emerges. It is now plain that there has been no finding of law-breaking by the FOI people, despite what this wiki article has been incorrectly saying for rather a long time. That is embarassing to wiki in general, and to the people here who have fought to include the bad text. A clear demonstration of why NOTNEWs would be a good policy to follow William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only did you fail to address my concerns, you didn't even bother to try. I asked for corroborating third-party sources to establish WP:WEIGHT and you've done no such thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems like something of a red herring. If you consider the facts in my previous comment, you should draw the conclusion that the media has made a mistake and have misrepresented the truth; however, the chances of the media actually admitting to their fail are essentially nil. There aren't going to be any sources in the MSM that say the MSM has screwed up. That being said, removing all the ICO-related stuff is the only surefire way of making sure the article is accurate per WP:NOTNEWS. We can revisit the matter when the investigation is over and we have real facts to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you feel that your stated position about the truth here is anything other than synthesis and WP:OR? This is precisely why WP:V is written the way that it is, namely to avoid the introduction of personal points of view based on WP:OR using exactly the type of argument you are attempting here. The solution is to present all sides from the media and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. --GoRight (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't care. The standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Even if you were right (you're not), you should already know that Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Go start a blog if you want to complain about how unfair reliable sources are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should care if you want to help rather than hinder. There's more to writing an encyclopedia article than concatenating the newspaper headlines you prefer and saying "verifiability not truth"! If something has clearly been shown to be imprecise or misguided, then it becomes questionable, and fringe. WP:PSCI tells us what to do about sources that "are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked." --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why you believe WP:PSCI has any bearing on the present discussion of whether UEA breached FOI laws as reported in a WP:RS? I don't see the connection since this isn't even a discussion related to a scientific topic. --GoRight (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The link WP:PSCI is a convenient shortcut to a section in the WP:NPOV policy. The section is called 'Pseudoscience and related fringe theories' (my emph). A newspaper reporting the results of an ICO prosecution that has not taken place is certainly "considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence". Read more carefully: There is nothing 'scientific' about some of the examples given in that section, and quoted above, either. --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize but this hasn't really cleared the matter up for me. You've highlighted "related fringe theories" which seems, by context, to be referring to fringe scientific theories. I don't believe that the discussion at hand can be construed to be related to a fringe scientific theory and hence my continued confusion on this point. --GoRight (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Read more carefully: There is nothing 'scientific' about some of the examples given in that section, and quoted above, either." - Having done as you suggested it appears that every bit of that section is talking about science and/or pseudoscience neither of which accurately describes the topic being discussed here which is legal. --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the mainstream view. The claim that the OCA is wrong is the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. In this case, the misinterpreted statements have not been verified by additional reliable sources. In fact, they have been questioned (and some might say discredited) by the other sources available to us. So your WP:V claim is false, and your argument is wrong. Maybe you should "go start a blog if you want to complain about how unfair" reality is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect on these points. The fact that something has been questioned or discredited by other WP:RS (I assume you have other WP:RS for your claims) only implies that those assertions should be added to the article, NOT that the current assertions should be removed. Removal based on your own analysis would constitute WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The fact that ICO said that the UEA has been verified by numerous reliable sources. In any case, let's get back on topic. Can you please address the WP:WEIGHT issue I described in my original post? The silence has been quite deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a source that reports on the MSM's misinterpretation of the ICO's statement, and we even have the ICO's letter that confirms that they aren't responsible for the misrepresentations made by the media. That's verifiable proof that the reporting that has taken place is wrong, and so WMC's suggestion that WP:NOTNEWS should've applied has proven accurate. All the ICO stuff, beyond a simple statement that they are investigating, should be removed from the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But you're completely ignoring the fact that the ICO is sticking by its statement. If you have a specific concern about something in this article that might be inaccurate, you should state it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And you are completely ignoring the fact that the ICO is sticking by its statement because they don't feel obliged to make the effort to clarify themselves when their statements are misconstrued. "The ICO is not responsible for the way in which media and others may interpret or write around an ICO statement." -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So I'll ask a second time. What specific statement(s) in this article do you think is inaccurate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a really weird headline...it contains quotation marks but the quoted text doesn't appear to be in the article text. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Rumping makes an excellent point. WMC's edit is a textbook example of cherry-picking. We're not supposed to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the UEA unaware of the meaning of "prima facie" or are they hoping their readers are uninformed? They make it sound like a mere bagatelle. While prima facie evidence is rebuttable, absent a solid, convincing rebuttal case, the claim they violated the law will stand. they have a COI in asserting that the media are misreporting, and furthermore, they offer no evidence in support of their claim. Their claim would be like a defendant asking for a case dismissal because the prosecution claim is based upon nothing more solid than peer-reviewed science.--SPhilbrickT 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently one editor thinks we are not allowed to know what the ICO and a Liberal Democrat member of the committee think about the UEA's behaviour. What follows is the deleted paragraph. --Rumping (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The ICO's response to the UEA said "The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this."ICO response to UEA 29 January 2010 Evan Harris, a member of the Select Committee was quoted as saying "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained." University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010

I suggest you re-read what the Deputy Information Commissioner actually wrote in his letter. He refers to a potential offence under section 77 of the FOI Act and refers to prima facie evidence. He speaks of the ICO looking at "the question of whether an offence under 77 had been committed" and says that "the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit". He does not say at any point that it is proved that the UEA committed an offence. Note that he speaks only of a potential offence. He makes it clear that because of the statutory time limit, he can't investigate any further. Saying that "the claim they violated the law will stand" misrepresents the position of the ICO, which is that an offence may have occurred but that question cannot now be resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How bizarre this hair would be split in an article that prolaims an offense that never may have been committed in its title. The notion that the Statute of Limitations may have expired does nothing to negate the fact the law may have been broken. And since in this article the precedent is to allow an accusation to have merit and stand on its own until disproven. --David Crabtree (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Read as: Guilty until proven innocent!91.153.115.15 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The full paragraph that ChrisO refers to reads as follows:

"Meanwhile, the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. Given that this was in the public domain and has been discussed in the media and on various websites over a number of weeks, the ICO's view, as I indicated when we spoke yesterday, is that the University must have understood that the question whether an offence under section 77 had been committed would be looked at. In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit."

So, ChrisO is correct that this letter only speaks of a potential offence and so we should seek to represent it as such. The letter also speaks of cogent prima facie evidence which indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information and so it seems legitimate to mention this as well, along with the fact that no prosecution on the matter can be taken forward due to the statutory time limits. Is this a fair summary of the facts related to the content and statement made in the letter, ChrisO? --GoRight (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the correct thing to do would be to exclude this stuff until we have actual results from the investigation (per WP:NOTNEWS). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@GoRight, I agree that your reading is correct.

@Scjessey, with all due respect, I don't think it's really credible to exclude the ICO stuff given that (a) it has received extensive coverage and (b) it is not just newspaper or blog speculation - both the UEA and the ICO have issued statements on the topic. We should mention it, but not give it undue weight or misrepresent it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - If you read my comments above, you will note that my recommendation was to remove all the stuff that was the "he said/she said" crap that was misreported, and cut it back to the salient point that the ICO is conducting an investigation. I did not suggest purging the article of ICO completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, might it be possible to apply this same reasoning to the way Misplaced Pages covers the climate change controversy? By this I mean, until a few years ago, the New Ice Age theory was popular, and now the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has superseded it, but Misplaced Pages covers AGW as an established fact. Would it be more correct to reserve judgment, since these climate theories seem to have a short shelf life? Goodranch (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? I think you'll find that anthropogenic climate change (I hate "global warming" because it is inaccurate and misleading) is a theory that has so much supporting evidence it is functionally equivalent to established fact. And each new piece of evidence improves the science and reinforces the theory. In contrast, the little spat between the ICO and the UEA has been going on for a couple of weeks, not decades. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not going to waste my time arguing the science with someone who evidently gets facts from those who deny it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A wise decision, as it was getting quite OT anyway :) Englishmen here know better than me what weight ICO opinion has, but bringing up one statement out of 55 submitted and an outright deletion of Nigelj's pretty good summary seems to me doubtful and destructive editing. And not everything a RS puts forward is always worth of quoting without a thought, as recently proved by some (fortunately unknown) editor in our leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on this subject (crap). (getting long, this thread...) --J. Sketter (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Scjessey: Can you please stop these repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks against your fellow editors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Can you stop misrepresenting everything I say and describing everything as "bad faith" and "personal attacks" when that's clearly BS? You're becoming quite adept at spin. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comment, can you please remove or refactor your latest personal attack against me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation. RFC/U is thataway. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to be nice and give you the opportunity to remove/refactor your comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it isn't your place to do so. Involved editors who get into a mode of issuing civility warnings to each other just increases tensions all around and invariably lead to hissy fits that could have been avoided in the first place. The Misplaced Pages has venues for dispute resolution for a reason. Use em if you think it is justified, and stop the article-space squabbling, please. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP does have dispute resolution mechanisms for a reason. And that reason is to have a forum to be used when individual editors cannot reach agreement themselves. The first option should always be an attempt to resolve without the dispute mechanism. AQFK deserves kudos for attempting to resolve without going to dispute mechanisms.SPhilbrickT 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ROFL Sphilbrick. I prostrate myself and offer a thousand thanks to AQFK for being so darned nice to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

What??? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just ignore that Scjessey, it is a rather nasty comment mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I remain astounded that Oiler99 has not removed that comment. If it isn't removed soon, I will be seeking sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Unreliable journalism

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

Since the inflammatory heading still seems to be causing confusion, I've restored my original heading. . dave souza, talk 08:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages now relies upon blogs from parties who have a partisan interest in the debate to usurp The Times of London? I would disagree, but I'll guess that the widely held consensus view of the English speaking world that the legendary Times is both a reputable, and reliable source isn't really relevant here. Breathtaking, absolutely breathtaking.99.141.252.167 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That does not make The Times an unreliable source. You don't get to pick and choose when you feel a reliable source is not a reliable source. That they reported on a blog doesn't make it a non-reliable source. The EAU's own releases are also self-published, without a secondary source reporting on them, and yet it now makes up over half of that whole section. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to read The Times, but in the late '80s the paper started going downhill in a hurry - probably due to the increasing influence of its owner. Now I wouldn't wrap my chips in it. The same thing happened to the Wall Street Journal. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the apparent assumption here that everything the Times says is reliable, even when it has been repeatedly proved wrong, is very odd. Inevitably this is a POV thing - people are supporting the Times because it says what they want it to say. I'm opposing it as a RS both because it says things I don't like, *and* because those things have been proved wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of those are blogs and don't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for reliability. I wish to remind you that Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We can't be seriously considering removing the Times from consideration as a Misplaced Pages accepted reliable source. The support and discussion of such an idea alone is very nearly surreal. 99.141.252.167 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the reliability of the Times, not the reliability of the blogs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That the Times has been very frequently wrong is obvious - so obvious, you aren't even troubling to defend it. Simply repeating "The Times is a RS" isn't a logical argument, merely an argument from Authority, which is invalid. In all things, we need to assess the quality of sources. Thet Times has been assessed. It has failed William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please attend to WP:V - the accuracy of a reliable source is not germaine to its inclusion in the article. He's not arguing with your claim because he's avoiding your baiting and following WP:NOT#OPINION to a tee, whereas you are violating it. You were an administrator and should no better. Please stop.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Authority is a well-known logical fallacy, but only in the context of a deductive proof. While deductive proofs are nice and desirable, they are not as prevalent in the real world as some would like to think. In particular, it is not the mission of WP to produce results consistent with deductive reasoning. For better or worse, we have deliberately adopted a model that accept arguments from authority. This may not be desirable to some but it is inevitable. (We can, and do have a mechanism to deal with situations where Authorities disagree, but we do not have the ability for an expert editor to override what RS says in the absence of an alternative RS.)SPhilbrickT 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Two words to consider when thinking about using The Times as a reliable source: Hitler Diaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Not everything printed turns out to be true. Maybe AGW is crap after all? Or maybe it isn't? The analogy with the Hitler diaries is compelling. BUT! It's not our place to decide. RS is RS. The Times as well as the Guardian are RS if we like it or not.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this line of reasoning is nonsense. I suggest that if there's any doubt, those editors who believe this should take this to the WP:RSN where this argument will be overwhelmingly rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Times has been assessed. It has failed." The argument presented to support that assessment by another editor relied upon first, a blog, and secondly, a partisan blog committed to a political objective on this very topic. I'll suggest here that the ball is not in my court to defend - as there is nothing to consider here. The discussion has no more basis or relevance than a flat earth debate, as it is clearly evident that the Earth is round, and the widely quoted and respected 225 year old newspaper of record Times reliable. 99.141.252.167 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're taking people up for enforcement for rudeness, you really ought to consider whether such comments are acceptable. Meanwhile, the line of reasonning is valid, which is why instead of producing reasoned argument you've descended to insults. The Times isn't an RS just in virtue of existing, or of having existed for a while. Nor, indeed, is it uniformly a RS: it isn't a RS for the details of quantum theory, nor indeed for the science of climate theory. It has convincingly proved itself not a RS for matters related to Cl Ch either William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"you've descended to insults" I don't believe that I've descended to insults, but if you can point out which specific comment you believe is in violation, I'll be happy to consider refactoring or removing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't look bright for British press, does it? Slush. (It's just a conflict of two differing views). Telegraph is already going a mile down there. What's left? But this of course doesn't mean we should overwrite The Times as a RS. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that such a pillar of English journalism as The Times, or the NYT's for that matter, would not so casually be struck from the rolls just because some guy named Bill found himself personally "convinced".99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't go against *any* of the pillars of WP. Of course the consensus of editors in a given area gets to decide what is an RS; and of course the RS notice board doesn't have some uber deus-ex-machina authority to make binding rulings. The idea that the Times is a written-in-stone RS is a fantasy you're using in place of valid argument William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know where you get that interpretation. You cannot deem concensus for a reliable source for an article. That would result in an "old west" style of governence to an article where essentially a majority gets to decide what is a reliable source. By your logic a majority also gets to make up a reliable source outside of the RSN. If that is really the belief that you have, it goes a long way in explaining a great deal of the problems that these articles have. Arzel (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages already works that way. Whether or not a source is reliable is decided by consensus (usually at WP:RSN, but not always). And just like in any other consensus discussion, that consensus can change. If a new consensus is formed here that a previously reliable source is deemed unreliable, that's perfectly acceptable. In an ideal world, some sort of corroboration at WP:RSN would be advisable, but not necessarily required. In fact, WP:RSN is usually were to go when a consensus cannot be found on the article, not the other way around. Also, some sources can be reliable for one thing but not reliable for another. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This was on my talk page for a while so i`m just copying in over to here In this section dave has decided to use two blog posts Deltoid Blog from the same blogger to decide The Times of London has a bad reputation and is unreliable, he removed a section from the article based on this. However both the deltoid blogger and Dave are wrong, if either had actually read the link to the article which the blogger had lifted his story from then they would have read the following Update (31 January 2010): Daniel Finkelstein, Executive Editor of the Times of London, informs me that the Times and the Sunday Times are completely different newspapers, with entirely separate teams of staff and editorial policies, which I had not known. It occurs to me that all of my recent personal experiences, as well as Sell’s, have been limited to the Sunday Times. The Times has not written about my work since July 2003, shortly before my arrival in the UK. I therefore do not want to malign the Times unjustifiably. I would urge dave to self revert as his reasons for removing text are based on a false premise. Hope this helps with the talk going on here mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Touché ! :-) 130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I see, so your use of blogs to make the assertion that the times is unreliable is besides the point then? possibly taken out of context and responding to questions put by reporters rather than a considered view of the information and this is wp:or you removed text based an bad information and then follow it up with OR, perhaps you should self revert, you have clearly broken policy here. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mark, it's been a very busy day for me today but I considered the weight being given to the particular quote as the first reaction by one MP was being given undue weight, and we can wait for more informed statements from the committee. The Sunday Times has traditionally been independent of The Times, and indeed the worst of the problems seem to come from a journalist on the Sunday paper. I've had a look at this blog and the Times story it criticised, and haven't found the statement you quote – is that from Bob Watson? It was a strange article, as it got the Netherlands story wrong, and seemed to present Watson as suggesting that all the mistakes went in the direction of overstating the impact. Since there's only one definite errror, that's understandable, and there hasn't been the same recent search for errors understating the impact. The Amazon "error" seems to have understated the impact shown in recent studies, but correctly reported the expectations at the time. The University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ - Times Online article dated 27 Feb. is by the same journalist. So, it's a first reaction of dubious notability, presented by a questionable source. . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We dont' decide when a usually reliable source is unreliable. We just report what the sources are saying, attribute them if necessary, and let the reader decide for themselves. That's the way it works. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although I suspect this source is still reliable, we do decide when an article in a usually reliable source is, in fact, unreliable, and we may use "unreliable" sources in the decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That hasn't been my experience. In my experience if two sources disagree, we note that in the article: "The Times says.... but the RealEarth blog disputes that, saying, ..." We report both. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise we are indirectly introducing WP:OR into the article. Our personal opinions and WP:OR shouldn't affect these decisions. Better to report all of the major views found in WP:RS and allow the reader to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Good research is an essential part of NPOV. We don't have articles that present every inaccurate daily news story as "the times says x, the independent says y, the Sydney Mail says z, the daily mail says something bizarre", whe research the issue to find the best and most reliable sources and present an accurate consensus view, showing major differences where there is a significant and notable disagreement. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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

The Thunderer isn't a reliable source on science, a subject for which academic peer reviewed publications are preferred. Your reading of the emails and of Times story is simplistic and wrong. . . dave souza, talk 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, the quote is from the article deltoid lifted his story from. You link to this blog story Leakegate: If you refuse to talk to Jonathan Leake, he'll quote you anyway however the blogger only used a part of the story as it suited his narrative, if you follow the link to the source psychology today and scroll to the end you will see the quote. mark nutley (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got you. I didn't link directly to that story, but to the "Leakegate" series. The Psychology Today article is a better source than the blogger, as is this Center for Evolutionary Psychology letter to the Editor of the Sunday Times. So, it's becoming pretty well established that Leake of the Sunday Times is not a reliable source. As it happens, he was the journalist who got and first published the ICO "statement". Any confusion between it and The Times is understandable as they both use the same website, you've got to look at the top left corner of the story itself to see which newspaper carried the story. In this case the question is the reliability of Ben Webster, who to my disappointment seems to be a questionable source on this issue. Since Misplaced Pages isn't news, we can afford to wait a bit and see what emerges during the various enquiries which start today, with the select committee in progress. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

dave, I’m happy with a position that peer-reviewed sources trump newspaper when the sources disagree on a point of science. However, I fail to see why that point is being raised—this is the CRU article, which is not a science article. Global warming (arguably) is a science article. IPCC and the related assessment articles are not, not is the criticism article. Perhaps we ought to make a definitive list, but I can’t image there being any question about this article. It’s a current affairs article, not science.SPhilbrickT 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Dave, how do you feel about the following argument which parallels the one you made above?

"The IPCC has often been a good source, but its present reporting on Global Warming looks very flawed. To a significant extent this may be due to sub-editors writing highly exaggerated sections for otherwise straight-forward scientific topics. However, in cases such as the misrepresentation of the state of the Himalayan Glaciers, this seems to be down to the the use of non-peer reviewed science."

Would you agree that we can now judge the IPCC to be an unreliable source for climate science since it has now been shown to have a poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight? --GoRight (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No errors have been reported in the Working Group 1 report on the climate science, to that looks solid. The Working Group 2 report on impacts and outcomes has one error, a bad one, on Himalayan glaciers. Some of the citations aren't ideal, but the info is reasonable. That's fewer errors in some 3,000 pages (iirc) than in a two column article in these newspapers. Not bad, but not good enough. Also note that AR4 is an accurate statement of the 2007 understanding, things have moved on in science. You were asking? . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble gleaning the answer to my question from your response. So does this mean you now consider the IPCC to be a WP:RS for climate change information, or not, given the errors that have been identified thus far? I ask because if your logic above is sound we should be applying it to the IPCC as well, correct? --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? We should use careful research and critically assess the reliability of all sources for the statement concerned, looking for corroboration from other reliable sources. AR4 is a reliable source for the science of 2007, hence a check could be needed for more recent science. By "American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up." Spot the difference? . . dave souza, talk 07:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still having trouble discerning an answer to my question from this response. Do you consider the IPCC to be a WP:RS, or not, now that it has come to light that they have a poor reputation for fact checking as evidenced by the discussion above? A simple yes or no will be sufficient. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he's saying you're begging the question when you write "it has come to light that they have a poor reputation for fact checking." Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. OK. Well this puts a different but related spin on the question to be asked, assuming you are correct. Fair enough. This then raises the question of whether he feels that he is likewise begging the question (or point) when he states "The Times is acquiring a reputation for unreliable reporting of interviews ..." in his comment above? It would seem that this is fundamentally the same type of assertion based on similar sorts of revelations as I am making here. Do you agree or disagree, Dave? --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Transfer to WP:RSN?

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

Done.

Whoever dunnit, please sign your posts here and at RSN. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who took the Times there, but I've also added the blog.99.141.252.167 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles? It raises pointers to questions for further investigation, and the issue remains that The Times is proving to be a questionable source on the subject of this article. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not global warming. In the above, I can't find your criticism with respect to the Times' reporting on law and ethics.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of FoIA material

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

ICO's statement is still removed, while UEA's "damage control" about the statement is now present. ICO found that UEA breached the FOI, but that prosecution was time-barred. I'm not going to restore the appropriate information at this time, but it should be done soon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of hidden at the end here: Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#UK_Government. The context for the statement (added by Dave Souza here) obviously dwarfs the statement itself, which might be remedied a per WP:UNDUE. Any thoughts on another version?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hidden is being nice. The majority of the section is now the EAU's response to.....what exactly. I was temped to re-insert it pending the previous discussion now that it appears that the primary reason for removal was the belief that "The Times" is not a reliable source. Clearly I don't see how anyone can make that claim per WP:RS, so the next step is to agree on a version. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I think you're mixed up. The quote you give is a statement from the ICO that they have handed over the letter they sent to the UEA. It's not a quote from the letter they sent, and it gives no indication of their position regarding the CRU researchers.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought I made it clear enough. On 29 January and 1 February 2009 the university and the ICO exchanged private letters. These are not public statements, though they've just been made public by agreement. As reported in the press on 25 and 26 February, the university made a statement. The statement by the ICO above, which doesn't say very much exiting stuff, is the ICO's response to the university's statement. Now wait for the select committee findings. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did you say not very exciting? The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to image more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offense may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of elapsed time, is a very serious matter... I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.” ] There are some who get very excited indeed about this, including, apparently, those who want to conceal, camouflage, and delay the imputation of scandal. Oiler99 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza. The ICO quote you give states that they made a press conferencestatement. It obviously is not simply private correspondence. Even if it were, it's being reported all over the place, which suffices to make it notable. If we could get back to formulating the revised version and abandon this diversion that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? The quote I give says press statement, not press conference. Please read with care. Note also "our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry" in the ICO's letter. Just because rubbish is being reported all over the place doesn't make it right. In that same letter, the ICO say "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them". Nor, it appears, can they be expected to make their "statement" public. At Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk – "Former information commissioner Richard Thomas told the committee he could not comment on whether the university had broken the rules, as a recent statement from the information office suggested. But he suggested that there was a stronger case for public disclosure when data had been used to influence public policy, such as in climate science." Not a ringing endorsement of the "statement". . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, the ICO's statement emphatically does not indicate that they have found the UEA "guilty" of anything. It is very conditional. Note that it says "the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here." It does not say that such an offence has been found, or that it is proved, and goes on to say that there is nothing further that the ICO can do about it (including proving or disproving it) because of the statutory time limit. People who claim that the ICO has found the UEA guilty of a breach are simply wrong. The ICO has not made findings of any sort, as its letter makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless "prima facie" means something different in UK law than an US law, the ICO has not made findings, but the UEA "correspondence" web page contains misstatements. "Prima facie" means "on the face", and the ICO statement could not be interpreted as other than (including):

1. Section 77 prosecution is time-barred.
2. If it had not been time-barred, there would have been prosecutions for violations of section 77, unless evidence to the contrary was provided.
3. The fact that prosecution is time-barred is "extremely troubling" (to ICO).

Now, we can't actually say that, even though no other interpretation is possible, but it is certainly inappropriate for us to imply otherwise, or to allow UEA's implications otherwise to be treated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that inconsistent with the university statement? Also, where is the UEA "correspondence" web page? Do you mean their submission to the select committee? IANAL, but this would presumably be presecuted under English law (though it's a UK Act) and prima facie means that on looking at the emails, ICO think they could make a strong case in court. They hadn't consulted the university, so had not considered opposing evidence, and no "finding" could be made. . . dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what the outcome of this little tiff is. I'm not currently arguing content. I'm just saying that your original statement had no bearing on the debate at hand nor supported your conclusions in any way (though perhaps you can find such support elsewhere). Let's stick with straightforward, rational talk (something like WP:SPADE). p.s. 'conference' for 'statement' was a typo. Sorry about that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see how this comment is aimed at improving the article, or who it's addressed to. . .dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It was addressed at you, sorry if that was unclear. I was hoping for a more focused discussion as those currently active have become diffuse, to say the least. It makes consensus exceedingly difficult to sort out.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments are focussed on the issues raised on this page. . dave souza, talk 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The UEA press release (correspondence web site) is not a WP:RS, as being self-published and self-serving. The correspondence, itself is allowable as a record of the correspondence, not to used except as evidence that that is the official position of UEA and ICO, not toward the truth of the accusations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO's official position is relevant, and UEA's may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is a reliable source. According to WP:PSTS, it's called a "reliable primary source". As long as it isn't used to create original research, it's all good. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously coming from an actor in these events, the UEA press release can only be taken as an RS for its own views per WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion, and not even about itself or events relating to itself, per WP:SELFPUB (see Item 1--because the material is self-serving). Moogwrench (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the material that relied on citations from the UEA website in accordance with that policy. Seems commonsensical enough, anyway.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA for operating in an unduly self-serving manner w.r.t. to precisely the report in question: "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained."University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010. Reconsider? Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA. More than one? Also this is again getting strange.. ICO accused UEA, then the Uni defends..., one MP critizises the response.. so? Things should really be given in normal order. Hence I don't think edits of Heyitspeter are the best possible. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to rise an issue why Heyitspeter thinks the letters published by a respected university are in "reasonable doubt as to their authenticity"? To my knowledge the content has not been challenged. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I've reordered the statements to make the sequence a bit clearer, have attributed the comment on the response as being reported by The Times, and have followed the balance shown in the source by mentioning the university's response. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...and good edit but I feel this sections is starting to look bloated? Could/should the first part be updated?130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncorrected Evidence from the Institute of Physics

Yes, time to get this material in: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece You can be sure it would be up in lights if the ICO had cleared UEA. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

These links from the UEA web site are useful, too: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICO+response+to+UEA Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

"ill informed submission" - Do you have any evidence that their submission was ill informed, besides your own WP:OR that is? While I clearly respect you as a fellow editor I think it would be prudent to rely upon what reliable third party sources are saying when making these assessments, and not our own research. Would you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Much as I hate to agree with GoRight, he's correct, this time. The Times article is not misleading, and this is not a scientific article, so your attempt to apply the proposed RS/scientific guidelines is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of academic physicists in the UK will be members of the IOP: it is the body that accredits both individuals and physics degrees. Of course many climatologists are not physicists. You can look for the initials "MInstP" or "FInstP" or "CPhys" on CVs, but most academics don't bother including professional affiliations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. In any mention of this statement, we should take Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk into account. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The IOP is not bound by the statute of limitations which some are using to confuse legal liability with culpability. As such they made an assessment (unanimously approved) based on the prima facie evidence in front of them. This was not ill informed, but rather the application of common sense. I found their "clarifying" statement to clarify little. The clarification notwithstanding, the original statement certainly did cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm. To now say that they reaffirm belief in the greenhouse effect is not saying much and doesn't change their original assessment in any substantive way I can see. JPatterson (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think your reading of the statement over reaches in terms of the implications the IOP were actually expressing. "1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context." is clearly a damning statement for the state of Climate Science but I think we need to be careful with statements such as "did cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm".

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

I agree. The fact that the IOP statement is damming about process should not be read as implying anything about their beliefs about outcomes. Their clarification about outcomes should not be read as implying that they resile from their comments about process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From their own statements, the physicists Dr. Andy Russell and Dr Ian Hopkinson consider the statement damagingly inaccurate, and are reviewing their membership of the IoP. This could prove interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While I wrote to the IOP (as a member) congratulating them on their stance. So what? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dave souza - This strikes me as rather self-serving (no PA intended, just a turn of phrase). The AGW proponents have traditionally made a big deal out of the statements made by the various scientific organizations regarding their positions on AGW because they saw that as a way to raise the bar above the opinion of individual scientists. Now we should suddenly care about individual dissenters in the ranks of these organizations? Dave, this mirrors the discussion above. If you feel that a couple of statements from dissenters neutralizes the official statement of the organization in this case, and if I can dig up some dissenters from each of the various scientific societies regarding their positions on AGW in general, would you support me in getting those put into the main GW/CC articles? Scientific opinion on climate change and Climate change consensus both come to mind since they quote those very opinions. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that these scientists agree with my view (that the statement "cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm"), taken issue with above. In fact, Dr. Hopkinson says so explicitly. "2. Item 4 specifically casts doubt on the historical temperature reconstructions based on proxy measures whilst not acknowledging that such reconstructions have been repeated by a range of research groups using a range of methodologies, as described in the IPCC 2007 report." JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@GoRight: That seems like a distinction without a difference. If "worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research" then it follows that that conclusions of that research are suspect even if the raw data is not. I read the IOP statement to be an indictment of the process, not the data, but the validity of the conclusions are just as dependent on the process as they are on the data. JPatterson (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the two are obviously related as the one affects the other. The distinction is rather like the difference between saying the resulting Climate Science conclusions could be wrong vs. saying the conclusions are wrong. I think the original IOP statement justifies the "could be wrong" statement but not the "are wrong" one. I also think that the "could be wrong" one is consistent with both of the IOP's official statements whereas the "are wrong" one is not. The point of the IOP clarification, IMHO, is merely to say that the emails themselves do not directly contradict the currently stated conclusions outright, they merely suggest that those conclusions could be wrong and so unless proven to be so via some form of re-verification they are still the official word on the topic. There's a subtlety in there somewhere.  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"The distinction is rather like the difference between saying the resulting Climate Science conclusions could be wrong vs. saying the conclusions are wrong." I agree completely which is why I said "casts doubt" and not "refutes" :>). But this discussion shows we need to choose our words carefully. Obviously some take "casts doubt" to mean something stronger than I intended. I think that we are all mostly in agreement that the IOP is mainly indicting the process and the article should reflect that emphasis. JPatterson (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Inhofe calling for criminal investigation

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

I am sorry but the noteworthy item here is the "Hacked climate science emails" title the Guardian is using to describe their section on what is known as "Climategate." Gee, I wonder how that happened.... go Misplaced Pages! 24.11.186.64 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The Guardian titles that entire section using that terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Useful advice

Climategate

I don't wish to reopen what was clearly a long and heated discussion. However, I see that non-English versions of this page typically go by the name of climategate (or foreign language variations thereof). At the very least there should be consistency.

Apologies if this point has already been raised. --Junder1234 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #1. Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I read it ; it doesn't address my point. --Junder1234 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Different language editions of Misplaced Pages have their own content policies (within the primacy of the neutral point of view) and are not consistent with one another or with English Misplaced Pages. --TS 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A neutral point of view can hardly be said to have primacy if a "loaded term" is used in a page written in one language and not in an another. --Junder1234 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

In other languages, the "-gate" suffix may well have considerably less of its American-English meaning. Interpretation of the NPOV may also have developed in different directions on other wikis. Possibly this may be something for discussion at Meta. --TS 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Junder1234 and I also raised the same point before. I feel you are dodging the question by pointing to NPOV. Is it reasonable to believe that the English speaking Misplaced Pages is superior to all other language versions? In this case it would appear more likely that the English language version is out of sync. I frequently see shortened articles translated from the English language version. This means the content is typically shorter and I end up switching to English for the details. In this case it's the other way around. I also do not know of ANY part of the world that is unfamiliar with the Watergate scandal.91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing two uses of NPOV. My first mention of NPOV is just a historical reference to the fact that Jimbo Wales stipulates that NPOV is "non-negotiable". Junder then referred to NPOV within the context of this article's name (and NPOV has indeed figured in discussions of the article name, as Junder clearly understands when he refers to a "loaded term").

I'm not really clear whether Junder has a serious question. Yes, of course articles about any given subject in different language Wikipedias tend to have different text, predominantly prepared by different editors, and they have different names. Are we supposed to do something about that? If so, what? --TS 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I for one have the luxury of being multilingual so I occasionally read 5 or 6 different language versions of the same articles. If I find a reliable piece of information in one I try to translate it. Sometimes the translations are not perfect but it usually doesn't take long for someone else to correct my small mistakes. A certain amount of consistency is a good thing. At least the outlines should be similar. At some point the French language version of this article was preferable. Many others are shorter but well balanced. This also potentially clears up conflicting editing, done with almost religious dedication, by small groups of editors in one language version.91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Junder, I was one editor who previously pointed this out.

The short answer as to why we don't call the article "Climategate" here is, there is a substantial group of editors active here who are absolutely opposed to that name. Because... well, because WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. In my view, of course. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusing people of engaging in disruption simply because they disagree with you is unacceptable Pete. Please retract your comment and try to assume good faith. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps they see WP:WTA as a sound and reasonable guideline, not to be tossed aside lightly for the pundit pejorative of the day. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Without objection, it has been stated and presumptively accepted that the WP:WTA clearly states that for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. The term Climategate, as a title, satisfies the wiki policy of using the common term, and does not violate NPOV since it is descriptive only, albeit pedestrian, and does not add an imputation of scandal not previously recognized. I solicit recognition of that. Best regards, Oiler99 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the title "Climategate" is that it is not generally accepted. It is similar to "homicide bomber", a term that indicates a certain point of view. People who call it "Climategate" generally believe that climate change is a hoax. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, Climategate is generally used around the world by newspapers, magazines, and other wikipedias. The term refers merely to the scandal surrounding the revelations of inappropriate activity by those who wish to blame human activities for global climate. Climate change of course is not a hoax. The anthropogenic cause is however unproven, and more implausible with each passing day, whence the scandal. Homicide bomber is by the way a tautology, not used by thinking people outside of television studios. Suicide bomber is additive, and descriptive. Best regards, Oiler99 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proof is for whisky, "climategate" is a partisan label deployed by those claiming that AGW is a "hoax" or "conspiracy" and treated more cautiously or avoided by many serious sources. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that all those who use the term Climategate are convinced that AGW is a hoax or a conspiracy, rather than a simple misinterpretation of the evidence? Oiler99 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While I will accept that people who use the term "climategate" believe that climate change science misinterprets the evidence and that they do not deny climate change but the anthropogenic cause, the term "climategate" is still not neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out numeous times, in policies WP:NAME and WP:NPOV, proper noun article titles should follow common usage in RS, even if that common usage is non-neutral. Even in the guideline WP:WTA (which, as a guideline, takes a subordinate position to the aforementioned policies) naming conventions allow for a title involving a -gate suffix formulation in historical cases. How many months must pass with its usage as a common title for this controversy in order to satisfy those who would use this guideline to trump policy? Moogwrench (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If the label is entirely partisan, why do the media in the UK and US use it so extensively? Again, we are not talking about the first few days of the story. They have latched onto and continue to use this label after months of controversy. The term "Climategate", as it is employed by the media, centers around a pattern of conduct of the UEA scientists and the public's reaction, be it positive, neutral, or negative. One can believe that UEA scientists were sloppy, unprofessional, or committed some kind of violation of FOIA (or even admit others with reasonable minds believe this) without denying that climate change is real or that it has a significant anthropogenic component. So I find the idea that Climategate is a term only employed by "climate deniers" or "climate skeptics" is belied by its common usage and acceptance as an umbrella term for this particular controversy (unlike other -gate suffix inventions for other controversies, which never were extensively used by RSs and were the exclusive domain of a specific party to their respective controversies). One can believe that the scientists acted inappropriately while still accepting the overall science behind AGW. Moogwrench (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

At what point does this constant bleating about how the article should be called "Climategate" start to produce blocks or topic bans for tendentious disruption? Must we have the same argument over and over again? "Climategate" will never, ever be an appropriate title. Those reliable sources that make use of the word almost always use quotation marks to indicate it is not "their word", and also only use it for convenience. But you will not find a single reliable source to corroborate the legitimate use of the word to describe the theft and illegal dissemination of data from the CRU. The word is non-neutral, best avoided and non-descriptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to good faith, policy-based arguments as disruptive bleating is not exactly convincing. I appreciate your opinion that it will, in your words, "never, ever be an appropriate title," but a plain language reading of the common proper noun naming conventions of both WP:NPOV and WP:NAME seem to contradict your certainty. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an good argument being presented here for why the Misplaced Pages:WTA#Controversy and scandal guideline should be set aside for this particular case? "Everyone else calls it that" is not one that I would call "good", however. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Everyone (or, at least all reliable sources) call(s) it that is" exactly what WP:NAME suggests as a reason to call it that, even if the name contains words to WP:AVOID. Now, we're not there yet, but all media do call it "Climategate"; so far, the only reliable sources using a different name are UEA and the police. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted repeatedly, in the eleventy-billion threads we've had about this, the notion that "all media do call it 'Climategate'" is a misrepresentation of the facts. Virtually all of the mainstream media refer to the term in quoted form, distancing themselves from it and indicating at the very least that is is a neologism. The media echo chamber has been used extensively by the skeptical crowd to promote the term's use, but that doesn't change the salient facts that the term is non-descriptive and non-neutral, making it inappropriate as a Misplaced Pages article title. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Common proper noun names are preferable to descriptive ones made up by Wikipedians, per WP:COMMONNAME, so I don't know why you would suggest that a non-descriptive title is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. I find it hard to accept your assertion that news outlets are "distancing" themselves from a term by frequently using it their articles and reports, quotes or no quotes.

Also, consensus is important, even if it does take "eleventy-billion threads" to hash it all out in the end. It sure does beat edit-warring on the article page, don't you think? Thankfully, participation in Misplaced Pages is voluntary; if one is tired of seeing alternative viewpoints, might I suggest a wikibreak? Moogwrench (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate" is non-neutral and ambiguous. Policies like WP:NPOV stomp all over guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, so we can put that argument to bed. Also, please don't make vague, nebulous accusations of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't know many people who would confuse the subject of "Climategate", so I can't see how it is anymore "ambiguous" than the current title.

2. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, not a guideline, as you erroneously state (it is a link to the WP:Article_titles#Common_names). As a side note, I have also documented how Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article_titles permits the use of common, non-neutral names as "legitimate article titles," so I don't see how WP:NPOV "stomps all over" that argument. It actually supports it.

3. Celebrating discussion over revert wars is not accusing anyone of edit-warring. However, using phrases like "constant bleating" and "tendentious disruption" to refer to the talk contributions of other editors does tend to deprecate that process, don't you think?

Moogwrench (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the current name as, while possibly being not the optimal name (then, what might be?), it also covers the theft aspect of the incident. My "cons" to climategate are: 1) it's kind of stupid compare to media-usage or normal talk, where you simply choose the most convenient and short name; 2) I have to agree with them here who consider "climategate" being a slightly non-neutral, colloquial name, trying to push a view that the incident is crucial to correctness of AGW 3) arguments based on some needed "consistency" with other wikis are quite funny but nothing more. 4) I can't help wondering why certain people so badly want to promote the name.

And my "pros"? 1) the most used name in most connections, by my own experience 2) it somehow better describes all the hassle after the publishing of the hacked files. So, to summarize I'm against the name-change. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

J. Sketter, just to engage you on your points that you made, take a look at what Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title suggests are the characteristics of an ideal (or optimal, to use your word) name:

1. Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.

2. Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).

3. Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

4. Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)

5. Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

1) Per item 4 of the article title criteria, article titles should be "concise," i.e. "a convenient and short name" in your words. "Climategate" is far more concise than the longer "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"

2) As far as neutrality goes, WP:NPOV and WP:Article titles both allow for seemingly non-neutral titles when it is the common name for that thing in RSs. Also, "Climategate" really isn't about AGW per se, it is about the scientific process and people's reaction to it. People can believe that the underlying science is good, yet find the behavior of the UEA unacceptable or not... the reaction is the notable part.

3) Per item 5 of the article title criteria, article titles ought to be "consistent," and one could argue this applies cross-wiki, if possible.

4) As to why people are promoting it: It is Recognizable, Easy to find, and Precise enough to identify its topic. It seems to fulfill all the aspects of an ideal title. The current title, in the view of the proponents of the alternative title, seems less than optimal is many of those respects. Moogwrench (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomen Omen

Science and Technology Select Committee (uncorrected transcript)

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

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

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