Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Virginia fraud investigation about Michael Mann as a result of the Climategate emails

Unless there is an objection, I will be adding this to the Other Responses section of the article.

On May 4, 2010, it was reported that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had initiated a Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Virginia Code §8.01-216.1. et seq.) investigation into the activities of Mann while he was a professor and researcher at the University of Virginia.(fn1)(fn2) On April 23, 2010, Cuccinelli served a demand that the university produce all available documents and correspondence of Mann, based on the possibility of fraud in the administration of four federal grants and one state grant.(fn2) The university's Faculty Senate has condemned the action and the "potential threat of legal prosecution."(fn2) The university has refused to produce the documents,(fn3) and in early July, Cuccinelli responded to the university's petition in the Albemarle County Circuit Court.(fn4)(fn5) The investigation is focused partially on whether Mann's Hockey Stick graph and other research "fraudulently manipulated data was used to win government funding and/or submitted in an effort to claim payment in government funded grants."(fn6) Mann has claimed the investigation is vindictive.(fn6)



fn1. "Va. AG investigates Climategate scientist". United Press International. May 4, 2010. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
fn2. "Science subpoenaed". Nature. 465. Nature Publishing Group: 135–136. 2010. doi:10.1038/465135b.
fn3. "UVA challenges Ken Cuccinelli's motives in climate research case". Richmond Times Dispatch. July 21, 2010. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
fn4. Helderman, Rosalind (July 13, 2010). "Cuccinelli uses court filing to dispute Mann climate research". Washington, DC: Washington Post Virginia Politics blog. Retrieved July 26, 2010. (editorial control over contents exercised by Washington Post)
fn5. Brief in Opposition to Petition, The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia v. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, No. CL10000398-00, July 13, 2010

fn6. O'Dell, Larry (July 13, 2010). "Va AG: Academic freedom no bar to climate probe". Lebanon Daily News. Retrieved July 26, 2010.

Comments are welcome, and please let me know if there are any objections to the sources, as I have about 100 to choose from. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you really have 100 reliable sources about it, it might merit its own, separate article. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but this will do for now. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Already in Cuccinelli's bio, and in Mann's. Belongs in both of them. Doesn't merit more than a sentence here - the investigation by Penn State is a little peripheral. Cuccinelli's fishing expedition is a bit more of a stretch. Much as he may deserve it, it's inappropriate to use this article to mock Cuccinelli. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - the investigation is a direct result of the Climategate scandal and belongs in other responses. Irrespective of the wisdom of it, it is an investigation by a governmental body into possible misconduct that arose out of the scandal. GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not a significant part of the controversy, and unlikely to become one. WP:NOT#NEWS. And there is nothing new in Cuccinelli's posturing except for some minor political wrangling. If anything comes of it, we can consider where to put it. Now it's just undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If there are a hundred sources for it as stated above then i don`t think undue wil cut it mate mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Mark, the number of sources is not a good indicator for weight if they are low-quality or local papers or just agency reprints. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, so are you saying that with the VA AG's Office stating "The revelations of Climate-gate indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions," that it's not related to Climategate? Or is it that you think that there should be a separate article? GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused. I thought I was replying to your (identical?) suggestion over at Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. But note that I did not say anything about relationships at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
GregJack, if you decide to do a separate article on it, please draft it in your userspace or offline first before posting a completed, final version to mainspace. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This proposal would give a megaphone to a political stunt by a far-right ideologue. Read his bio. Not a good idea. Figureofnine (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't take sides on these topics, we just report what the sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, we are not just reporting what the sources are saying. See WP:IINFO. We summarise, organise, and select what we present. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"Cuccinelli has also sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its determination that greenhouse gases are harmful." Sounds like a plot for a wonderful comedy film. Should play well in Peoria. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
(@Cla68) That's an interesting point, because the proposed text actually doesn't report what the sources are saying. It just reiterates Cuccinelli's press release. Looking only at the sources listed by GregJackP (I haven't done my own search), they consistently tell a different story. Nature calls Mann an "internationally respected climate scientist", describes Cuccinelli's actions as a "witch hunt", compares them to the tobacco industry's effort to bog down honest scientists with vexatious litigation (noting that "climate-change deniers have adopted similar strategies with alacrity and, unfortunately, considerable success"), and speculates that Cuccinelli is motivated by a desire to pander to far-right political constituencies. WSLS focuses mostly on UVa's response, which accuses Cuccinelli of chilling honest scientific inquiry and academic freedom. The Washington Post blog and Lebanon Daily News similarly provide more context (including UVa's response) that is missing from GregJackP's proposed text. All of these sources clearly and prominently establish that Cuccinelli is a climate-change skeptic, and frame his investigation in that context. All of this is in the sources, but not in GregJackP's proposed text, so I don't see how we're honoring NPOV or "reporting what the sources are saying". MastCell Talk 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant that we don't determine when or when not to write an article based on the perceived motivations of the people involved. If the majority of the sources are saying that it is a politically-motivated publicity stunt, then the article or section in this article can reflect that. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember, it was an investigation by a US Congressional committee which produced the North and Wegman reports which upheld many, if not most, of McIntyre's and McKitrick's findings on issues with MBH98 and 99. So, government inquiries into research conduct by scientists is not necessarily something of minor importance. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember, Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate - New York Times – "endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body." NAS inquiries into science are significant, witch hunts into use of state funding are merely reminders of the acts of political proponents of the minority view among governments. Worth mentioning briefly as politics, without distorting the clear scientific consensus view. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
off topic
It's a shameful, politically-motivated witch hunt that has nothing to do with this article, and it's a dishonorable attempt to impede the working of climate science. The barbarians are at the gates. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As the CRU has discovered, as long as scientists' research is at least partially funded with taxpayer revenue, they are going to have to get used to having the government, and some of the taxpayers themselves, looking over their shoulders. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"NASA reports that global average temperature from January to June also was the hottest on record. Average temperature for the 12 months ending last March was the highest since record-keeping began, the federal space agency said. That record was broken again the following month - and yet again in May...On Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders announced they were abandoning efforts to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation before the August recess - which means the bill probably is dead until after the mid-term elections in November...The ramifications of that failure will linger for years to come. While China is gearing up to make record investments in clean energy, the United States is going nowhere."[1] Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Note to Cla68 and Viriditas: please don't use this talk page for general exchange of opinions about matters unrelated to improving the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't agree with the depiction of Wikipedia as a stenography service for the most extreme elements in American political life, herein engaged in a politically motivated witch hunt. I'm not saying don't report it, but one sentence is more than enough. Figureofnine (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the theft of data from the CRU, or the fauxtroversy that followed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm a new user and that this is a highly.... volatile... subject matter. However, it seems to me that while Cuccinelli's actions are highly pertinent to the broader global warming controversy, they are only tangentially related to the CRU incident. Both his EPA lawsuit and FATA investigation were prompted, according to Cuccinelli, by the "Climategate" emails. So perhaps it makes sense to have a sentence or two about it here.

As a result of the CRU incident, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli sued the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent the implementation of the regulation of carbon emission in February, 2010. [1]. Furthermore, in April, Cuccinelli launched an investigation into possible fraud by Michael Mann while he was a professor at the University of Virginia, also in response to this incident. [2]

Does this sound like a reasonable and fair statement, and appropriate to the relevance to this article? Being too new, I can't edit the article myself... Also, there is probably a better reference available for the second statement. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that for the time being, provided the basis for the fraud investigation is mentioned, i.e., that the alledged fraud involves 5 taxpayer-funded grants of just under US$500,000. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's better than the absurd original proposal. There needs to be some kind of response from the accused parties. Figureofnine (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two arguments against expanding it substantially more than I have already suggested. 1.) The more information included, the more likely the opposing viewpoint is going to want to counter that information, and thus the paragraph length and breadth will spiral out of control. 2.) Cuccinelli's legal actions are only tangentially related to Climategate. Statements about Michael Mann's grant size from the American government or arguments from an American university are not relevant to leaked emails from a UK university (although they are all relevant to a separate article on the subject matter, which should be linked to from here).Sailsbystars (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it belong in the Cuccinelli article, not this one. By response, I mean something like this.[2]. Just a sentence. Figureofnine (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Rather than (1) cluttering up this article, (2) coatracking some other article or (3) having some random individual create a POV-laden pile of junk that's fit only for AfD, I decided that the best option here was for a moderate, experienced, middle-of-the-road editor - i.e. me - to create a properly sourced, neutrally worded article on this subject. It's something I've been thinking of doing for a while, as there are more than enough sources to cover it and it does raise some significant issues. See Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation for the results. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I accept that the title is a bit of a mouthful, so let's just call it Cuccinelligate, shall we? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a good, NPOV description of the topic to me. It appears to me that UVa has a good chance of getting Cuccinelli's petition dismissed on legal grounds. If that occurs, we'll have to decide whether to keep the article or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV... again

See also related discussion: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_35#NPOV?

Several editors have been repeatedly adding back in a contentious POV tag with the summary "see talk", and despite being prompted for it here, no-one has actually articulated the concerns (the closest is complaining about a copyvio). This is bordering on disruptive editing, and an abuse of the NPOV resolution process. You're supposed to add the tag after you state your concerns, not to repeatedly revert the tag back in without fronting up with your concerns. A dispute that doesn't exist logically cannot be resolved, so I repeat -- what are the issues; how can we solve them? StuartH (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Do you see the huge discussion about the POV of the article title above this thread? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If it's the title, the wrong tag is being used (should be POV-title). But the taggers are not talking about the article title.
The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
This has not been done. Also, if it's the title, it's another example of why forum shopping it as an RfC is a bad idea - a tag about a proposed page move would be more appropriate given a rename is proposed. But seeing as the rename being proposed is far more POV than the current one, maybe not. StuartH (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's more than the title, the entire article reads like a UAE talking points memo. Keep in mind that several editors, such as me, are trying not to spend too much time on this article because ArbCom asked us not to. Please don't use attempts to comply with ArbCom's request as an excuse to say that POV issues have been solved A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. It doesn't matter why you can't explain your concerns (ArbCom or otherwise), if you can't, don't add the tag. (And once again, what does the United Arab Emirates have to do with this?)StuartH (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said at all. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is up to you to explain that all POV disputes have been resolved. Can you please demonstrate that this burden of proof has been met? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
For a POV dispute to be resolved, it must be articulated. The policy explicitly states that this must be done by whoever adds the tag. At the moment, all we have is a chain of "see talk" and "the whole article is POV". The taggers have been repeatedly asked to articulate their concerns, but instead they just add the tag back in without commenting. As one of the taggers, you have an opportunity to do so here. StuartH (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This is probably one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you're expecting, Stuart. Academics colluding to cover up an entirely made up "scientific phenomenon," (man-made global warming,) is analogous to Congressmen and CEOs of bankrupt companies voting themselves a nice, hefty pay raise every year.97.125.26.246 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
And here is a perfect example of what I mean about denial crowd not being happy until we have a libelous mirror of Conservapedia. But still no articulation of the POV concerns. In fact, the tag was added by Hipocrite, who accepts that the original dispute had been resolved. Therefore the tag should clearly go until a new dispute is raised according to the NPOV dispute process. StuartH (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that several editors, such as me, are trying not to spend too much time on this article because ArbCom asked us not to. - this is spurious. Firstly, because arbcomm didn't - one arb made a passing request, which is clearly void as it is being ignored. Second, if you're going to be good and comply then please do - don't fail to comply and then try to trumpet your virtue. And the tag is pointless. Your objections now seem to have spread to "the entire article" yet you make no attempt to improve it. If you aren't going to help, then please stop reverting the tag until you *are* prepared to help William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is up to you to explain that all POV disputes have been resolved"? Where did that come from, AQFN? Please quote the policy or guideline that says that. --Nigelj (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Nigelj: I'm going to assume good faith that you're not going to WikiLawyer about exact verbiage so to answer your question, it's right there in the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Has the dispute been resolved? Obviously not if editors are still discussing the POV issues of this article. Another thing to keep in mind is that when editors argue about whether a NPOV dispute exists, that usually means that it does, and you should leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You have been repeatedly asked what the dispute is. We can't resolve a dispute that doesn't exist. The tag is a 'last resort', and should serve as a platform for improving the article, but it is instead being used as an IDONTLIKEIT badge. If the concerns are raised, we can address them. If they have already been raised, it should be simple to point to where the 'specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons' are discussed. The original dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the tagger (Hipocrite). Anyone adding the tag back in without raising a new dispute is engaging in disruptive editing. StuartH (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Your question has been answered numerous times. Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur. The entire article is POV, and we're addressing it from the top down, starting with the title. The tag should stay until the issues have been addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The policy is clear. It's not valid to say "the entire article is POV", you must state (for the I've-forgottenth time) the specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Titles aren't directly covered by the tag, but there is a requested move discussion that should run its course and the only relevance to the NPOV guidelines is that there are people pushing for the current title to be changed to a POV one. The only suggestion that the current title is POV is from Kittybrewster, who is yet to raise it as an official NPOV dispute, and is yet to add the tag. If that is done, and the other requirements are met, we can discuss it. Same as any dispute. We're going round in circles with all the "see talk", "I can't tell you because ArbCom told me not to" and "Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you", but we can stop going around in circles if someone just states what the problem is. StuartH (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The stubborn resistance to read this very talk page and the stubborn insistence that editors constantly repeat all the POV issues in this article is both tendentious and disruptive. But off the top of my head, the following POV issues that have been discussed in the last couple weeks or so: 1) Article title, 2) Article image, 3) Overuse of primary sources, 4) Undue weight given to UAE's position, 5) No Lack of use of the word "scandal" in the entire article, 6) Lack of use of the word "Climategate" in the article. Again, that's off the top of my head. I might have missed a few. Arguably the POV dispute in this article is probably the biggest POV dispute in all of Wikipedia right now. Are editors seriously going to insist that there is no a POV dispute? I mean, seriously? Is this what we've come to?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel that the article should be perpetually tagged so long as all 6 points are not resolved in a way that is satisfactory to you? (This is a serious question.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, not every single one. But to argue that there isn't a POV dispute when obviously there is one is both tendentious and disruptive. I hope that ArbCom is watching this page and will examine the conduct of every editor who's falsely claiming that there isn't a POV dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, was it really that difficult? It seems most of your points relate to the current article not pushing a POV when you think it should (scandal/climategate/etc., all words to avoid), not using a copyvio image, undue weight being given to an Arab federation which isn't mentioned in the article (sorry to push the point, but you keep making the same mistake, even when pointed out to you), and the title (which is currently being discussed... but is currently neutral). And the only remotely valid point - an overuse of primary sources - can be resolved if specific cases are pointed to. Note that primary sources are not disallowed, and this is a case where some level of reference to the primary sources (particularly the reports) is appropriate. If there's interpretation or analysis being taken from primary sources, that should be resolved. So we're getting somewhere, and we would get further with more specific examples and a description of what it would take to satisfy you. StuartH (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I found that answering all the WP:ICANTHEARYOU objections to be quite difficult, but I think I've finally pulled it off - at least partially. The answers to these questions are all over this talk page and the talk page archives, but it doesn't help when people don't bother reading them. As for the rest of your post, this too has already been answered multiple times, but most recently here.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, I'm confused.

  1. I accept that there is some dispute over the title, obviously.
  2. What's PoV about the image? What image would work better?
  3. Not a PoV prolem, it's a different tag ({tl|primarysources}}
  4. Where is undue weight given to the UAE, exactly? What would you remove to lessen their weight?
  5. Scandal appears in the Media reception section, though that's about how it was a manufactured scandal. Where have people attempted to add the word scandal to the article and had that rejected?
  6. The word "Climategate" appears in the info box, in the first sentence, in the Other responses section twice and in the Media reception section twice. How many times does it need to appear to not have a "lack of use?" Where else does it need using? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the image, I believe he's talking about the deleted copyvio. If so, that's not an actionable issue, so it's fair to ignore it. With respect to the UAE - again, I assume he means UEA, not the Emirates, although the fact that this error has been pointed out twice suggests to me that AQFK isn't actually reading the responses to his comments. That, coupled with the fact that two of his complaints are factually untrue (No use of the word "scandal" in the entire article and Lack of use of the word "Climategate" in the article) suggests to me that none of his complaints are serious. He's just continuing to be disruptive. Ignore him. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is clearly a scandal. When we discussed Yale's "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust", I noted that they use the term, "Climategate" 24 times in report compared to our article which only uses it once. They also call Climategate a scandal 10 times in their report compared to our article which only uses it once. In fact, they plainly state that "Climategate [is] an international scandal". BTW, spelling flames are lame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? You clearly didn't internalize it. You write "our article which only uses it once." But it dosen't - and I listed the uses in my list. Please respond to my points, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this confirms my suspicions. Nothing in his/her reply to suggest that AQFK has read anything Hip or I said. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read it and I would appreciate it if you actually address what I am saying and not what you imagine I am saying. Again, I'm trying to honor ArbCom's request and not spend too much time on this article until they announce their proposed decision. Admittedly, when I saw ChrisO threatening editors on Friday, that piqued my curiosity so I have spent some time on that one. Then yesterday, someone opened an RfC on the article title. Personally I think the RfC was premature and never should have been made, but it's out of my hands. So the RfC was placed and I've spent way too much time and effort on this article to not respond. In the course of these discussions, someone wanted a list of POV issues, and I provided one based on my recollection of what's been discussed in the past couple weeks or so. Nothing more; nothing less. So, if you're expecting me to discuss six different issues at once, no, I'm not going to do that when I didn't even want to be involved in the first two. Personally, I'd rather everyone just sit tight until ArbCom announces their proposed decision. Is that clear now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, if you read the responses, would you be so kind as to address the issues raised? That would be much appreciated. If you aren't willing to address these issues, there's no way to move forward on your concerns. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure there is. We do it one at a time. Like it or not, someone filed an RfC and I am participating in that discussion. But for editors to claim that there's not a POV dispute is patently absurd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps it should be phrased "...there is no legitimate POV dispute", if that helps to clarify matters for you. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, there's a legitimate POV dispute per all the reasons already given multiple times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you put "'Climategate' controversy" into wp search it redirects here, i.e. moot at best, diversionary resource-wasting tactics, ultimately inefficient. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over POV tag

Please follow not only the WP pillars, but the conventions of civility generally accepted by adults in today's society. OK, the tag is presently off. Please leave it off until a list is given here that justifies reattaching it. It doesn't have to be a long list. It could even be one good reason. Current discussion precludes using a disagreement about the title. Forget about that for now. Example:

Tagging article POV because:
1. [A specific statement]
2. [Omission of a specific statement]

--Yopienso (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No position on this tag, but typically an edit war over an NPOV tag, especially one that has more than two participants on the side of trying to add it, indicates that there is a legitimate question about whether the article is NPOV and further edit warring should cease, with the tag in place, until the matter is resolved and there is a clear consensus that there is not an NPOV issue. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what the "normal" scenario is, or if there is such a thing. What I see here is no clear statement made of the alleged POV problem, no clear proposal to rectify same ("add this to paragraph X" "take this out of paragraph Y"). ScottyBerg (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I would agree with this. Unfortunately, this is a case of a NPOV tag being slapped on as a badge of shame because a minority of editors supporting a fringe point of view disagrees with the neutral positions taken in the article. They seek to shoehorn their fringe viewpoints into the article and are forced to rely on the tactic of wikilawyering. This is not a dispute about the neutrality of the article, but rather it is a dissatisfaction with the neutrality of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. The article is not neutral, from the title to the last period. It has nothing to do with a so-called badge of shame, it has to do with the suppression of all other viewpoints. Just because some of the scientists don't agree with the herd does not mean that their views are fringe. By that thought process, Columbus would have never come to the Americas (because the scientific consensus at the time was that the world was flat), etc. The article is not neutral, it espouses a POV, and any attempt to resolve it is disputed to the point of filibuster. GregJackP Boomer! 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm always amazed how often Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q15 comes in handy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So, GregJackP... What point-of-view do you feel is overrepresented or underrepresented? Do you believe, say, that the article contains disproportionately opinions of those who believe the inquiries properly investigated the incident, and not enough of those who did not? Or do your concerns lie elsewhere? Anyone else, feel free to opine? - DGaw (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Presumably the section Irving's biography of Columbus in our article Myth of the Flat Earth is also POV because it doesn't give your position about Columbus (a known false popular misconception, as the article explains) equal or better validity than the historical truth? What are you going to do about it? Put a POV tag on that article too?
This looks like a clear case of conspiracy theory/ignorance pushing to me. Hans Adler 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hans. Understood. Which could mean that it is, in fact, a clear case of conspiracy theory/ignorance pushing. Or it could mean that you agree with a point-of-view that's being advanced, and therefore don't perceive a problem. Hence my question to those who believe the article is taking a non-neutral position: what position do you believe it's taking?
I think it's also worth noting that this particular article is not about climate change per se, which I presume is the subject about which you believe ignorance is being expressed. It's about the CRU incident, about which the truth of falsehood of AGW is largely irrelevant. - DGaw (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - DGaw (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Commodum ex iniuria sua nemo habere debet. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Pace!  :) - DGaw (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You guys must be Celtic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering how long the Columbus myth was going to be allowed to stand.... BigK HeX (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Whatever. It certainly seems very appropriate when someone pushes the ridiculous meme of a conspiracy of scientists to invent global warming with reference to another, equally discredited meme, that is similarly repeated by the media and a large number of non-experts including some pseudo-experts as if it was credible. Hans Adler 21:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Your assertion that the article is not neutral "from the title to the last period" makes my case for me. Despite hundreds of editors contributing thousands of man hours to the article, you claim it's all no good. That's a stunning admission of bad faith on your part, so what right do you have to question my good faith? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's pretty much the definition of 'fringe.' Also, bad example. Columbus was indeed a bit of a crank. Tsumetai (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Scjessey: Huh? What? Who are you accusing of supporting a fringe viewpoint? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would think it would be blindingly obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we even have very many skeptical editors left? Most were topic banned months ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Lar, if you add the POV badge, it needs to be a temporary measure to improve the article, and the concerns need to be stated on the talk page. The concerns which led to the first addition of the tag were resolved, but other editors were acting tendentiously and disruptively with drive-by tagging without backing up the tagging, despite being repeatedly prompted. There's a persistent fringe on global warming articles who would not be happy with anything short of a Conservapedia mirror, so if the fringe being upset about the current neutrality is taken as grounds for a POV badge, it's going to stay indefinitely and never improve the article.
Take the current title - it's a neutral compromise and has been the subject of repeated attempts to change it to a non-neutral title since last year. Those attempts have repeatedly failed, and there's another attempt currently taking place which looks destined for failure just like the others. Since the "Climategate"rs aren't getting their way, they're just adding the tag to say "I don't like it" because their efforts have been consistently and repeatedly rejected. The only way they will be satisfied is with a proposal that the community has rejected, so the tag is inappropriate here.
On the other hand, concerns have finally been raised by AQFK. They're wholly without merit and still not entirely specific, but at least we can talk about them now. StuartH (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh? They've been raised all over this talk page and the talk page archives. You just weren't reading them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I wasn't aware that using a simple analogy would go right over y'alls heads. I also thought I was at Wikipedia, not Citizendium, but whatever. As for the Latinphiles among us, consider Rident stolidi verba Latina and Supprime tuum stultiloquium - but for those of y'all that speak Texian, you can put your boots in the oven, but that ain't gonna make 'em biscuits. In any event, to those that don't see a vast conspiracy behind every bush, DGaw is correct - this is about the scandal, not the science. GregJackP Boomer! 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then explain why every source favoring the climate denialist fringe inevitably attacks the science? I don't think anyone seriously buys the argument that this is "about the scandal, not the science". This manufactured "scandal" is solely devoted to attacking the science, and hiding behind cover claims that this is about a "scandal". That doesn't wash. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
All 3 reviews (4 if you count Penn) were about the scandal, not the science. (Note that by "scandal" I refer to the brouhaha/row/uproar/media coverage without implying wrongdoing on the part of the CRU. As we know, some wrongdoing regarding FOI was found, but no fraud was found.) --Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
How is Jones writing an email advocating destroying information subject to an FOIA request "manufacturing" a scandal? What Jones proposed was a crime in the U.K. - granted he lucked out due to the statute of limitations, but you cannot withhold information. Nothing manufactured there - he did it himself. Yet there is next to nothing in the current article that covers that in a neutral way. GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoever it is that feels the article is POV, please list using numbered bullets, your objects below and we can discuss them one-by-one. I'll start with the first one. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Title should be "Climategate" because that is the term most often used in the media- This may be true, but the majority opinions in the most recent RfCs on the issue (above) rejected that title. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. Insufficient use of the word "Climategate".
  3. Insufficient use of the word "scandal". [Please see list and comment immediately below. POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal" --Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)]
  4. Undue weight being given to the University of East Anglia's position.
  5. Insufficient coverage of the initial allegations and undue weight on the scientists being cleared.
  6. Insufficient coverage of allegations that the investigations weren't truly independent.
  7. Over-use of POV terms like "deniers" and "sceptics." I'm striking "deniers" because neither it nor "denier" is used at all, according to my page search tool. --Yopienso (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  8. Over-use of primary sources.
  9. Insufficient weight given to the opinion that the emails may have been stolen by an insider, not hacked from the outside.
  10. The lede falsely portays all critics as climate change sceptics. In reality, Judith Curry, George Monbiot and many others were critical.

Might as well move some of the concerns from above down here. I haven't moved the WP:NFCC and WP:PRIMARY ones, since those aren't related to the POV discussion. We'll let it play out for a bit, and hopefully give each concern its own section to discuss further. StuartH (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Added a couple more. GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
StuartH:[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that the POV tag is justified until these concerns are resolved. I'll readd and ask that it not be removed until they are. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to how the current title counts as a POV issue. I think I understand why people want it changed, but the current title is about as neutral as they come. Could somebody who feels this is a legitimate POV issue explain exactly what POV the current title favours? Tsumetai (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
People who want it changed don't want a neutral title. They want a title that reflects their own POV. This is all they have left after the fauxtroversy failed spectacularly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that is the most important point here. Well put, SCJ. The POV war against this article is hotting up again now that all hopes of 'putting the final nail in the coffin' have clearly failed due to the official reports. The article is basically fine as it is. Much of the text has stood for months with little controversy after the initial fuss and until just now. There is no need to re-start the anti-science campaign here: it failed, climate science still exists, and the earth is still warming. --Nigelj (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The list of supposed POV issues above fails to satisfy what I believe is the requirement in situations like this, which is to specify the passages that are POV. I don't believe that the title is a bona fide POV issue, and neither is saying, for instance, that there is an overuse of the word "sceptic" or "overuse of primary sources." Neither of those two (and similar) alleged issues make out a case of POV, and no attempt is made to relate those . If people are serious about the POV claims they make, they need to explain how policy is violated in each such instance. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added a note onto the third item on the list. --Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a 'Media reception' section?

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

Yes, I think we do. We can, however, put a limit on number of lines written and/or number of publications cited. The reason we need it is because the three reviews have not entirely satisfied all of the general public, and have raised further questions, doubts, and criticisms in some quarters. (If you're old enough to remember public reaction when the Warren Report came out, it's the same feeling--a crime, an investigation, an unpersuasive report.) Maybe later we can change the heading to "Public reception." But first we'll have to hear from the constabulary. --Yopienso (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Media coverage is an intrinsic part of this subject. You might say that this was a "media circus." It may be a good idea to have a full section entitled "media coverage," broader than a media reaction subsection as we presently have. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We need sources about the media coverage; We don't need POV pushers picking and choosing opinion pieces and editorials that criticize climate science. That's a transparent attempt at evading our sourcing policies. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That would leave only the CJR article. I don't see a POV problem if there's a fair sampling of notable media reaction. It helps readers understand the issues. If there is an over-weight on one side or the other, it can be remedied. Right now there are only very large publications in that section, plus CJR. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I very much doubt that CJR is the only RS to have covered the media. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
True, there was also Howard Kurtz, who is quoted now. I think that's about it. What do you think of a broader "media coverage" section? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The best way to remain neutral is to use the timeline and adhere to it, paying attention to the most notable reports referred to by other media. You really can't go wrong when you do this, but we need CJR, Kurtz, and others to do it. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if we dismantle the current section, we still have NY Times and WSJ editorials, and these are extremely influential in the USA. I can't see excluding them, whatever else may be taken out. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles don't use editorials as sources. If the editorial is notable, then secondary sources will have mentioned it, as they mentioned Dowd's when she called Obama "Spock", etc. Individual editors do not get to highlight which editorials they think are important, especially when it comes to a subject that involves significant political spin. If we are writing about the "controversy", then other sources will have covered it. Stick to those. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I was about to add that I made my comments above before seeing the current version of the article, and the quote tacked on from some guy at the Atlantic. Your point is well taken that this section can pose dangers if it is a repository for press comments presented in an unbalanced fashion. I think the problem is inbalance and a potential POV issue. I don't see problems with editorials per se, if safeguards are taken to not weight the section one way or the other. We may just want to include the WSJ and NY editorials, and jettison the rest except for CJR, Kurtz and whomever else is writing specifically about the media coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
How would we as editors judge 'balance'? The same number of quotes from 'both sides'? The same number of words per quote? What about the very serious possibility that 'both sides' are not in fact equal in any sense and that we should be reflecting, say, a 97:3 ratio, not 50:50. There are not two 'sides' anyway, there are at least half a dozen different important points of view regarding different aspects of the case and the reviews. We need to rely on secondary sources for analysis. No question. Then it won't be 'media reception', but all kinds of reception/comment/analysis. --Nigelj (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of the 3-point proposal I made near the to of the "Media reception" section of this page? Position, rebuttal, you-decide. What do you think of my proposed rewrite in the "Weird stuff" section? I agree that after the police report and some more tertiary summaries, there may be need for a separate article. --Yopienso (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"Position, rebuttal, you-decide": gross oversimplification. The three reviews don't represent a 'position', they praise some aspects of the work, criticise others and make important points about the science and the scientific methods. Selectively cherry-picking a sentence from an op-ed is not a 'rebuttal' of anything, much less of all the basic tenets of modern climate science. Finally, the point about climate science is not that 'you', the reader, should listen first to the findings of decades of painstaking work endorsed by the worldwide science establishment, then to quotes from a few American right-wing journalists, and then 'decide' on your own novel scientific theories. If we're going to go into the media's responses to, and effects on, this controversy, we need the guidance of scholarly secondary sources, not knock together our own synthesis. --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I should note at this point that three of the four sources you mention there are extremely right-wing (the Daily Mail notoriously so - it supported the fascists in the 1930s). We shouldn't give the false impression that this is anything other than a partisan controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a British, middle-market tabloid. Why is it listed here? The Michaels piece is an editorial short on facts and long on wild accusations; Not exactly material needed for an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Demonizing the right is precisely the POV that has been repeatedly challenged here. "Right" does not equate to "fringe". Judging by recent elections, about half the voters in the US and the UK are conservative. The Wall Street Journal is, according to us, "the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation." The Daily Mail "...is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper..." It would be egregiously POV to dismiss those sources. (Of course the Mail supported Mussolini in 1933; so did Churchill and Roosevelt.)
  • The Mail is listed here because it's listed here.
  • I give 5 sources: I cannot provide a direct link to the Financial Times article because it requires a subscription. There's a pop-up in the dot.earth blog (Revkin). Surely my fellow editors will not exclude Revkin, a reliable source that could form the basis for the "Media reception" section. These statements are too long to quote in their entirety, but I'd like to see the notions included:
--The reactions to the Independent Climate Change Email Review are flowing around the blogosphere, including—predictably—many shouts of “whitewash” by critics of climate science and proclamations of vindication by the scientists and institution thrust into the spotlight after the unauthorized release of a batch of e-mail strings and files revealed the sometimes-unseemly back story behind climate research. (Click on "whitewash" for the Financial Times blurb.)
--No inquiry of this sort will ever clear the slate given the polarization over this issue, fueled both by divergent ideologies and very large financial stakes related to energy policy. Everyone shares some blame in how this incident played out.

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

The Daily Mail issue has been rehashed repeatedly - ChrisO seems to be saying they are fascists, but that view has been discounted in the past, most notably by ChrisO when he said
"The Mirror is certainly a mass-market tabloid, but one with a fairly distinguished history ... and the second-highest circulation of any UK national daily. It does serious reporting"[5]
Let's not have the same discussion all over, it is looking a bit schizophrenic. Weakopedia (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Who mentioned The Mirror? Ain't the Daily Mail by any stretch of the imagination. Caution, the Daily Mail may be rather unreliable.[6] . . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
In looking at the list under Edit war over POV tag, I thought that rather than expand #6 to note the word "whitewash" doesn't appear, I would just add it. While I was at it, I did some more arranging but no deleting. If my edit stands, I won't worry about adding "whitewash" to the list; if it doesn't, I will. Simple. (The edit summary says +Harribin, rearrange paragraphs. I meant to add +Harribin, (+"Critics suspect a whitewash") rearrange paragraphs but forgot before saving.) I thought it well to end on a start with disclaimers, follow with doubts, and end on an accented solid note: "...its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever." --Yopienso (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Still not clear what the problems as: including the one above about this image - errm, which image? The one taht was deleted? We can't use a deleted image. If you want it undeleted, you need to go through review - not slap a tag on this page William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The image issue has nothing to do with POV, it's a straightforward matter of copyright. A twice-uploaded copyright violation isn't going to be undeleted by anyone. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO: Where can I find the image so I can see for myself? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't administer copyright, you didn't upload the image and you weren't involved with it, so it's none of your business, frankly. Please stop going on about it - it's a complete waste of time. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO: Ummm...this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I answered your question in the thread above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Does someone have a copy they can e-mail me? My e-mail address is A_Quest_For_Knowledge@yahoo.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So I can see it and decide for myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
To form a judgment on this matter, what you need is not to see the image (which I have described in all necessary detail to you), but to understand our non-free content rules. Why do you believe seeing the image would improve your understanding of the image policy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll let you know after I see the image. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Shrug. Have fun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, for the tl;dr people

Not helpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is this page referred to by something no one has ever heard of again? Climategate is the name by which this is most known, heck a g-news search turns up The USA Today, FOX News, and The Wall Street Journal, within the last month. As for the article's current title, the phrase doesn't come up in the top ten. Are we really going to turn this into the Great Northern Loon 2? Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You might have better luck with the title query here. StuartH (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
...I still don't see a rationale that goes against Climategate. The gate argument is negated right there in the WP:LABEL: Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt. As for the other rationales, I don't see how they apply. A non-neutral neologism? It's the name that everyone uses, neutral or not. The criteria listed in the WP:AT all seem to be met by the latter:
  1. Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so 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.)

Current title is descriptive. Yes, and is one that needs explanation whenever someone reads the page as no one has ever heard of a "Climatic Research Unit email controversy." Can't believe this has really any need for compromise other than POV-pushing... Soxwon (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, while I realise that the discussions here are too long for any sane person to read, these points have been addressed. Got that, dealt with that. Right or wrong is another matter. If I had to guess, I'd say try mid-January. Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
...No thanks, I don't feel like guessing where the hell to even find mid-January. I'm just going to call this one a lost cause and move on... Soxwon (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
And I don't get the Great Northern Loon reference. Sorry. Need to explain your reference/inside joke/whatever... Guettarda (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I and many other editors have never heard the term used outside of wikipedia. I've always heard common loon or great northern diver. *shrugs* The name seems to be yet another compromise. Soxwon (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
First ref in the article uses the name. Second ref is apparently a link to the IOC names. Since we use official IOC names for all birds, it seems appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive period

This talk page is currently well over 300KB in size, which besides causing of a few problems in editing, is surely a sign that it isn't being archived frequently enough? would somebody able to assess and fix the problem do so? i could do it myself but it would require the capacity to edit the entire page, which is too big for my currently available browser to handle. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The large size is due to the very intensive arguments on this page that Marknutley managed to set off with his proposal, yet again, to rename this article. Miszabot is currently set to archive this page at 7-day intervals. I will however see if I can manually archive some of the older/closed sections. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it seems that the archiving bot is broken, so I'll go ahead now with the manual archiving. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've got the page size down by 60 Kb to 270 Kb and reduced the archiving period to 5 days temporarily. Hopefully that will make it a little easier to use. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That may help. Would anybody mind if I moved the rename discussion into a sub-page and left a link under the section header? That would save a lot of space. --TS 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As the problem is so acute I'm going ahead with that suggestion. --TS 00:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent idea.--SPhilbrickT 01:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making the page more navigable. Sorry I don't have the expertise to help. --Yopienso (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a big improvement. Good work. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is still ridiculously big. I've noticed that there are a few unproductive but textually large discussions here that involve a small group of parties (often just one person arguing with everybody else). Perhaps the parties should go to an RFC to resolve the relevant questions by bringing in more uninvolved editors. --TS 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Argumenta ad nausea tend to make for long talk pages. If RFCs are being rejected on the grounds that ArbCom will look at it soon, and there is clear evidence that one side will not be happy until the article violates policy, maybe it's time to take a breather. StuartH (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The National Association of Scholars - "Climategate" A Different Perspective

Interesting article. Not sure if you guys want to include it or not in the article. NW (Talk) 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That`s funny, they call it climategate, who`da thought it :) mark nutley (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Anti-liberals calling it "Climategate"?? .... no way! That doesn't jive with editors' complaints at all!!11 BigK HeX (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw that the other day. It's worth referring to for Kerry Emanuel's opinion as a subject expert. Care must be taken to characterize his nuanced remarks accurately. --TS 20:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Very well written - thanks for posting it.--SPhilbrickT 22:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Add from the World Resources Institute Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science

Add Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science UNFCCC ... by Kelly Levin on July 12, 2010 Photo: Linda Shaffer World Resources Institute, excerpt: "A series of international investigations into recent climate science controversies are now publishing their findings, and so far, they have cleared climate scientists of manipulating the evidence, and reaffirmed the integrity of the basic science. The investigations arose from two separate incidents that both occurred in late 2009, one involving stolen emails at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), and the other involving queries regarding the evidence for regional impacts of climate change in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report." ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.230.202 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2010

Thanks, interesting brief intro which we should note in the article, and the summary itself gives a useful checklist for points we should cover. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal"

Without opening a fifth simultaneous title discussion, let's start addressing the concerns. It's pretty ridiculous that insufficient use of non-neutral terms to avoid is being used as grounds for tagging the article as POV. The tag is supposed to be about disputing the neutrality of an article, not objecting to its neutrality. "Climategate" has been used a number of times, but it is a loaded term that must be used with caution because it implies wrongdoing. Same with scandal. It is only used once in the article, and it is attributed to the party using the term, as it should be. If the issue is that we're not being biased, this one just has no prospect of resolution. StuartH (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would those who believe that the term is used insufficiently in the article now give their reasons why? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No. "Reasons why" is not enough. They need to show not only "reasons why" but also specific locations where these words belong. The idea is not to debate endlessly, but to resolve a POV problem, if it exists. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLETEST,WP:GOOGLEHITS "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" =4,930 results, "climategate" =3,210,000 results.--Duchamps_comb MFA 08:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:GOOGLE and the references therein - numbers above 1,000 are made up, and are completely impossible to interpret. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The incident is not called a scandal even once in the article, except in a dismissive way: manufactured scandal, yet in the MSM we find it called a scandal:

This article uses "scandal" 8 times, never in scare quotes, and "Climategate" 9 times with scare quotes only the first 2 times.
  • The Los Angeles Times July 7, 2010 This is the only opinion piece in this list.
  • Il Tempo This brief article is stamped "07/12/2009," an apparent error.
  • Adding a new one: CBS News.com July 7, 2010
  • Etc.
This is not a "Google list", nor an exhaustive one; there are many more. All these links take you to an article in which the headline or body or both call the incident a scandal, and in several cases, the "Climategate scandal." (You may find using page search a help in finding the word if it isn't in the headline or lede.) It would seem that avoiding the word scandal is not, in fact, neutral, but POV in suppressing what the MSM calls it.
I looked and did not find the word "scandal" used in The Guardian, the Yorkshire Evening Press, the NYT, or the Miami Herald. --Yopienso (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Most, if not all of those sources are either outdated or slanted opinion pieces. Please find more current, reliable sources for use in this article. We don't write articles from the POV of outdated sources. For a good example of an article that had to change not just its focus after the incident and event concluded, but also the title, see the history of Balloon boy hoax. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas apparently did not look at these articles, or s/he would have realized that his/her allegation that "Most, if not all of those sources are either outdated or slanted opinion pieces." is totally untrue. These are eminently reliable sources. I appeal to the integrity of all editors on this article to look at the facts objectively. --Yopienso (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I most certainly did look at the sources, and found many of them to be outdated and full of slanted opinions. We favor current sources over older sources at all times, especially when those newer sources supersede the older ones. We also favor neutral and accurate sources. I'm not aware of any encyclopedias that rely on editorials or opinion pieces as sources for their content, are you? Yopienso apparently did not look at the example of the Balloon boy hoax article I provided. We had to rewrite the article to represent the newer sources, and we even had to change the title indicating that it was a hoax. In that case, we did not rely on older sources or quote them as if the information was still current. They weren't, so we discarded the outdated information and replaced it with the newer. This is academic. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at Balloon Boy. Naturally articles have to be updated, and that's the beauty of WP: we don't put out annual "yearbooks" to amend outdated info. As you noticed, 9 of the 14 dates are from June 30 or later, and only one is an opinion piece. They are all from the MSM, no skeptic blogs or articles allowed. Why, then, do you say they are "outdated" and "slanted"? Do you really think the sources I've cited are slanted against AGW or the CRU? Please offer proof. Please look at the links I later provided to SciAm. I'm genuinely perplexed by your comment as it seems so far removed from reality. --Yopienso (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, we have our own policies and usage guides. In particular, WP:LABEL says that contentious labels should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So they should always come with in-text attribution, and if they're not widely used, they shouldn't be used at all. With several sources managing to avoid the term for good reason, we also need to consider exactly what we gain by littering the article with pejorative "climategate! climategate! scandal! scandal! climategate! scandal!" edits. "Scandal" has neutral equivalents such as "controversy"; "climategate" can be used as an in-text attribution where relevant, but doesn't need to appear in every sentence. Again, this, like most of the concerns isn't a dispute about the article being neutral, it's a complaint about it being neutral. StuartH (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've established that it is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." Nuff said. --Yopienso (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Except that not to accurately describe it as a scandal is not neutral. Even Jimbo states it is a scandal, "It is absolutely implausible to say that no aspect of this incident is or has been described as a scandal. It is a scandal, if anything ever was." Yet that word doesn't appear in the article but once, and then in a dismissive way. It is the term used by the media thousands of times. GregJackP Boomer! 10:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Straw man. It's not that it has never been described as a scandal, it's that our policies dictate that we not describe it as such. StuartH (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not true. See Watergate scandal, Lewinsky scandal, United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Black Sox Scandal, BALCO Scandal, etc. Wikipedia policy does not require that we censor what it is called in the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. May I ask, how is this article a scandal in the same way as the articles you've listed above? A brief reply should suffice. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't even apply. That essay is about notability in keep/delete discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It most certainly applies, and OSE reasoning can be used in any discussion and is not limited to AfD. "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" are also arguments to avoid in many other Wikipedia discussions, as they are usually fallacious at their core. GregJackP has argued that because other articles exist which have scandal in their titles, this one should as well, otherwise we are guilty of censorship. I then asked him to explain the similarities in the articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if it did apply (which it doesn't), that doesn't give you free reign to just invoke it without justification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Please answer the question. How is the topic of this article like Watergate scandal, Lewinsky scandal, United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Black Sox Scandal, and BALCO Scandal? Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like they were all scandals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There are six scandals listed above, four of which are political, and two sports-related. CRU does not seem to fit that pattern. There's no sex, no betting, and no political parties warring against each other. So, where does this article fit? We have a hacking or theft of e-mails, and then a public posting of those e-mails, and then an unprecedented, coordinated and sustained attack against climate scientists in the media just before the major climate conference at Copenhagen. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit that when someone says "here are some articles called scandals, what makes this article like those?" for someone to respond "This article is about scandal," I am hard pressed to continue to assume good faith. Perhaps you should stop responding, Viriditas? Unless those who would like the PoV tag to remain present specific and actionable changes to the article, perhaps those of us who want it removed should just wait a few weeks and then say "you've had a few weeks to propose specific and actionable changes, or to make specific changes to fix the article - you've done neither. We are removing the tag." Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. This is getting ridiculous. StuartH (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe we should start noting those that are climate scandal deniers. Read some of the 60,000 GHits for the "Climategate scandal" - only someone with their head in the sand would not describe this as a scandal. Why were there multiple investigations into the scandal launched? GregJackP Boomer! 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Google bombing isn't evidence for anything. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hah... shows what YOU know! There's over 1.2 MILLION GHits for the phrase "Obama is a socialist" and we all know that's clearly true! Only someone with their head in the sand would discount the Google hitcount of partisan topics!!11! BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you say the hacked CRU e-mail was a scandal in the same way, as say the resignation of Shirley Sherrod? Newsweek called that manufactured controversy a scandal (with scare quotes)[7] yet the word isn't used once in the article. Why not? What about the manufactured controversy leading to the resignation of Van Jones? Was that a scandal, too? Isn't it interesting that this incident began with shrill calls for the resignation of Phil Jones? Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is worse. As noted above, evidence of criminal activity was found in Climategate, while none was found in the Sherrod case. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this covered in the current article? Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sufficiently. GregJackP Boomer! 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Explain how it should be covered. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
GregJackP is flat-out wrong. Evidence of "criminal activity" was not found. The Deputy Information Commissioner said that the emails were "prima facie" [i.e. at first sight] evidence of a breach of the Freedom of Information Act. No further investigation took place and no determination was ever made of whether the emails actually showed that any breach had taken place. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The "prima facie" appears fairly important. Someone mentioned the Barack Obama birth certificate issue. Check out what it says at the bottom of his birth certificate. [8] 'This copy serves as prima facie evidence in any court proceeding.'91.153.115.15 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In English law prima facie evidence is a necessary precondition before a court case, it doesn't determine the outcome of the case. Don't know what legal system Hawaii has. . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a simple breach of FOIA constitutes criminal activity anyway. Tsumetai (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's correct. The process is as follows: the ICO first investigates a complaint, and "Where the ICO is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with any of the requirements of part I of FOIA or parts 2 and 3 of the EIR it may serve that authority with an enforcement notice." If the enforcement notice is ignored, it can certify that fact to a court for the court to deal with as contempt of court. See its enforcement policy here. No investigation took place in this case because the statutory six-month cut-off point for enforcement action had already passed. Because of that, there was no enforcement notice issued, and obviously no court proceeding. Legal action is only taken after an enforcement notice is issued and only after the target persistently refuses to comply with the enforcement notice. That is a very, very rare event (in fact, I can't think of any cases of it happening). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, hacking the email server may have been a criminal act. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It undoubtedly was - the Computer Misuse Act criminalises hacking, and the publication of the data was a blatant breach of the Data Protection Act (which can attract unlimited fines and/or imprisonment). That fact very likely explains why some people have been so keen to claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the server wasn't hacked. Note that even the whistleblower scenario wouldn't get around the fact that there was a large-scale violation of the DPA. However, I rather doubt that this is what GregJackP was referring to... -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Stealing the emails was a crime. GregJackP, wrt the UEA's flouting of FOI regulations, seems to confuse crime with civil offense. --Yopienso (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Time out, guys. I have a question: What constitutes "sufficient" use of those terms? Are there specific passages (which I would like to see specified) where they belong? Let's try to resolve this issue, please. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, exactly. Please use this page to discuss specific changes to the article, not general debates about the topic. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
Change this:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. Allegations by climate change sceptics that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media.
to this:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. A media scandal dubbed "Climategate" quickly erupted when climate change sceptics alleged that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. --Yopienso (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems with this is that it labels all critics as climage change sceptics which clearly isn't the case. Judith Curry, George Monbiot and many others were critical. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Simple--add like this: "...when climate change sceptics and other critics alleged..." and footnote to the sources.
Even simpler--change to: "...when critics alleged...", again referencing both sceptics and climatologists convinced of climate change who alleged the emails revealed misconduct. --Yopienso (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking--if I have the story straight, it was initially climate change skeptics who made a fuss, and later the Currys and Monbiots joined the fray. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Yopienso (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Did I not hear something several weeks ago that a formal review of the leaked correspondence was completed and it was found there was no impact on the science? If there was no impact, the charge of misconduct would seem spurious and any further weight given to the event reinforcing "Climategate" and "scandal" is POV. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you did. But we knew that a half-year ago. But we still have to explain what the scandal is about and do it in an WP:NPOV way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, time to start trying to reach a compromise here. I just looked over the article and don't really see anywhere where the word "scandal" or "climategate" should be inserted without it looking gratuitous. "Climategate" is mentioned in the lede. Would those who thinks the word "scandal" should be mentioned in the article please make a suggestion as to where and how it should be mentioned? Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this request, but I don't think "compromise" is the correct word to describe what's needed. If there is an NPOV issue, there can't be a compromise. Either it is or it isn't NPOV. My concern is that there is no bona fide NPOV issue. What's needed is "clear articulation of the alleged POV issue," not "compromise." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
What you're missing, Vecrumba, is that we editors don't decide if there was a scandal or not; we reflect what the RSs say...and many--more than enough to justify, nay, to dictate, that we include the word--say it was a scandal. The scandal isn't necessarily the scientists' actions, mind you, but the furor in the media.
The charge of misconduct was dismissed, but the charge of opacity was found to be true, and this has greatly impacted a significant sector of public opinion. Since the CRU is partially supported by tax monies, and elected officials depend upon their pronouncements to guide policy, public opinion is important.
Cla68, please look immediately above at my suggestion posted 19:05, 29 July 2010. --Yopienso (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Yopienso: Below "Scientific American" is listed as a reliable source using Climategate; it actually says "so-called climategate", small "C", that is, acknowledging the affair has been hyped in the press and has damaged perceptions. But to harp on it being "Climategate" capital "C" and a scandal (as in laws broken) because the press loves using those two words is giving those words undue weight. I didn't hear FOX carrying the news of no impact to science. No logos screaming across the TV screen. Lastly, every time something is discussed in private and subsequently leaked to the public, there will be always charges of opacity, regardless of whether there was any malicious intent. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear as to what "Below 'Scientific American' is listed..." means, but Scientific American is clearly calling it "climategate" (Whether with a capital or not makes no difference to me.) and a "scandal."
In December, Scientific American headlined an article, "Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy
On July 1, a headline read, "Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again"--no scare quotes.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again
The lede referred to "...Michael Mann, one of the central figures in the so-called 'Climategate' e-mail scandal"--scare quotes, scandal
"It is the third formal inquiry to clear scientists involved in the scandal..."
A caption read, "Climategate scientist Michael Mann has been cleared of academic misconduct allegations."--no scare quotes
Further into the body, "...scientists identified in the Climategate e-mails."--capitalized
On July 19, they wrote a headline, "WSJ Caught in the Pit of Climategate"--no scare quotes.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wsj-caught-in-the-pit-of-climategat
Beginning of article: "so-called 'climategate'"
Farther down: "Climategate has exposed some scientific mess-ups"
Later: to "'set the record straight' on climategate "
and: "climategated scientists"--!
and: "Climategate exposed inappropriate discussions..."
and: "Investigation after investigation since climategate..."
Finally: "Some of the Investigations Into 'Climategate' and the IPCC Report"
Tally: 6 times without scare quotes, twice with
Since I don't watch Fox News, I can't comment about that.
These are not charges from the public or the skeptics about opacity, but findings by the official investigations. --Yopienso (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't find the final tally particularly convincing, given that the three articles either use scarequotes in the title or use the construction "so-called 'Climategate'" as the first mention of the term in the text. The fact that climategate appears later in the same article without scare quotes is irreleveant, IMHO. The first usage makes the author's position on the term clear, and the others should be interpreted in that context. Tsumetai (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are only showing a willfulness to disregard the facts. --Yopienso (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kindly point out a single fact I've disregarded. Tsumetai (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Gladly.
1. Scientific American went so far as to use "climategated" as a modifier.
2. Scientific American used "scandal" four three times, never in scare quotes.
3. In my post of 08:39, 29 July 2010 you will find a dozen RSs that use "scandal."
I don't share your opinion that SciAm's omission of scare quotes is irrelevant. Is it relevant that they use them? Clearly, they are following the common usage in dropping them once they've established that this is not their own coinage or preference. This is what WP is supposed to do--reflect what the MSM is saying. --Yopienso (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Cla68: Here's my attempt at rewrite of the lede: "Climategate is a scandal that began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. Critics alledged that the emails revealed that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted raw data, or manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Subsequent investigations largely cleared the scientists of misconduct though the Information Commissioner Office concluded that freedom of information requests were 'not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation'. Climate change skeptics had seized on the e-mails as evidence that global warming is a hoax, but the investigations reaffirmed the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity"." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
How about changing your first sentence to, "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy, often referred to as "Climategate" and sometimes labeled a "scandal" in the media, began in November 2009..." Would that be ok with everyone? Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No. If we have to go out of our way to include a contentious label, it shouldn't be used at all. Since we are required to used in-text attribution for the label, if it's going to be used, it should be used in the body along with the responses. "Climategate is a scandal..." is just being tendentious. If anything, change "sceptics" to "critics" in the current lede, but the current one is overwhelmingly preferable to AQFK's from a NPOV perspective. StuartH (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
How so? The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources are calling this Climategate and saying that it's a scandal. To override what reliable sources are saying is to turn NPOV upside down on its head. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to stick with simplistic Google News tests, which it appears we are, not even a majority of sources using Climategate call it a scandal - in fact, it's less than a third. Hardly an "overwhelming consensus" that is using both. But even still, policy is clear - if we use it, we use in-text attribution and consider precisely what it adds to the article. A sentence that reads like it was thrown in just to satisfy those who want "scandal" mentioned doesn't add anything to the article. Changing the first four words to "Climategate is a scandal" when Climategate is not the title, and has been repeatedly rejected as the title, and "scandal" directly violates policy and has limited support for inclusion in the article at all is not remotely constructive. StuartH (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, besides Stuart, does anyone else object to Quests' wording with my suggested modification? Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I think that the current wording is better, that the effort to introduce "scandal" is strained and awkward, I am unclear how the absence of the word "scandal" in the lead can possibly be considered a "POV issue," and lastly I also am unclear whether making a change on the "scandal word" issue would terminate this dispute, since there appears to be no bona fide issue here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Toot-toot! (Tooting my own horn, there, and trying to remember this is not a life-or-death matter.) Does anyone object to my wording? It's above at 19:05, 29 July 2010. Then Quest had an objection, to which I responded with a suggestion. Two, actually.
I'm not sure the "overwhelming majority" of RSs say "climategate" and "scandal," and I don't know on what basis Stuart comes up with "less than a third," but I've done my homework, (See above, 08:39, 29 July.) and know "climategate" is more ubiquitous than "scandal," but both have enough significant usage it would be POV to omit them. --Yopienso (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been more clear. "Climategate" on Google news gets 535 hits. "Climategate scandal" (not using quotes for the search itself) gets 158, "Climategate -scandal" gets 383 hits. Not sure why the last two don't add up to the first, but they correspond closely enough to say that less than a third of articles which use Climategate also use scandal. Adjusting the search time range yields similar results. Of the two rewrites, yours is much more neutral, but the current lede is better still. We already are using Climategate and scandal doesn't belong. StuartH (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for a polite and logical reply. (I don't quite follow the math, though, since 158/535 = 30%, but 383/535 = 72%. But if this is what you call "simplistic Google News tests," I agree that they are not very valuable. My method is to actually look at articles across a broad spectrum of publications. Did you see my work above?) In any case, I'm puzzled as to why you don't think we should use "scandal" since the MSM so often does. --Yopienso (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said - the total isn't the sum of the parts, it's off by a few articles so the maths will be a little off. It's probably because the article count is dynamic (trying again, I get 536/160/385, but 28% and 30% are both less than a third). Gauging consensus is always going to be difficult. Pointing to several examples of a term being used doesn't demonstrate "consensus" and it certainly doesn't demonstrate use by an "overwhelming majority" of the sources. If we were to go through in more detail, the percentage would drop even further - many of the articles are along the lines of "manufactured scandal" or "so-called scandal", some only contain "scandal" in the comments, some use scandal to refer to something completely different (e.g. the MP expenses scandal). "Scandal" is a pretty loaded term, and from a NPOV perspective we should be looking for good reasons to include it, not good reasons not to include it. It's apparently not used by a consensus of the sources, needs to be attributed anyway, and doesn't add anything when we have neutral alternatives. Rewriting parts of the article just to include a word that isn't a good fit anyway comes across as awkward. StuartH (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still don't get your objection. If 25% of the MSM (A very low estimate) use the word, surely that's significant enough a minority to include?
My rationale is this: the local Norfolk paper used it, major British and US papers use it, as well as papers in Italy, Colombia, Germany, Russia..., Nature News and Scientific American (also New Scientist, though I've not documented that on this page), and CBS (also MSNBC and ABC, and I keep promising myself not to look for any more) use the terms, so that convinces me it's widely used in the MSM. Any attempt to exclude it would be entirely POV. As I've said before, it would be deflecting rather than reflecting what the MSM says. I can quite confidently assert that any person who has followed this in the news at all has heard it referred to as both "Climategate" and a "scandal." I really don't see how editors can disagree with that. You are reasonable, so I'm asking you once again if you can articulate a good reason based on WP principles and common sense that would not allow the word "scandal" to appear in our article. Cheers! --Yopienso (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not completely against including the word, but its absence is pretty spurious grounds for a POV claim, since it is a contentious label that our guidelines suggest we avoid. The current appearance of "scandal" in the article is a good example of how to do it properly - attributed to the source and relevant. The claim that it is used by an overwhelming majority of the sources is clearly wrong, but it needs to be true if we're to overlook its pejorative nature and feature it heavily in the article, including the lead. "Significant minority" just isn't enough, and citing the lack of contentious words as grounds for a POV tag just means the tag will stay indefinitely, which is not what the tag is for. There are neutral alternatives, and like most sources, we should use them instead. StuartH (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I disagree, but genuine thanks. See my renewed proposal at the end of this section. --Yopienso (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You mean apart from the weasel wording, substandard quality of the writing, dubious accuracy, POV-pushing... Well, apart from that, I'd say there's the issue of proposing major changes to an article while beating up other editors for not adhering to this voluntary "topic ban" that you keep praising yourself for adhering to. I'd think now is a bad time to try to upset the relative calm here, but hey, it's a bit late for that, I suppose. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda, we're trying to make some progress here on a compromise. You are welcome to participate if you have a helpful suggestion for reaching a middle ground. Making a personal attack on one of the editors probably isn't very helpful. Back to the subject, what about Yopienso's suggestion, would that be more acceptable to everyone? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Compromise? By proposing weasel words and giving undue weight to fringe views? That's not improving the article, that's just stirring the pot. Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Guettarda's general objections. I don't find the proposals here as superior. BigK HeX (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the supposed compromise is not "acceptable to everyone." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, then, BigK and SBHB, you need to make a counterproposal or we're not going to make any progress. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My counterproposal is that we leave the article alone. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand how this is played - you might want to read my thoughts on how compromise is reached between people who care about an encyclopedia and people who have been trying for years to push their PoV into an encyclopedia - User:Hipocrite#Why_encyclopedic_editors_lose_to_POV_pushers. You have to put your honesty on the backburner when someone askes you for a counterproposal to an initial proposal that is a disaster, or else you will get run over - suggest that we turn this article into a redirect to ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics - so that the current version seems like a compromise! Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. More at Overton window and the logical fallacy of argument to moderation. Be sure to read the delightful "examples" in the latter for amusing but instructive examples of how absurd this approach is. As an antidote see the book Getting to Yes by the Harvard Negotiation Project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The problems cited with the lead are that it needs to include Climategate (it does), it needs to include scandal (not supported by consensus or policy), and that skeptic should be changed to critic (a fair call, in my opinion). There's no need to completely rewrite a lead that consensus has brought us to if only minor changes are needed. You need consensus to change it, you don't need consensus to reject a flawed proposal. StuartH (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Me again, and then I'm out for awhile. Not surprisingly, I really like my proposal. :-)
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. A media scandal dubbed "Climategate" quickly erupted when climate change sceptics alleged that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community.
It agrees with the title, which we've agreed to leave alone for now, it preserves the opening sentence that's been worked on so assiduously, it improves the style, ("Allegations by climate change sceptics that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media" just wouldn't win a writing prize.) it appropriately includes "Climategate" and "scandal," and, perhaps most importantly for the constraints in which we are working--that of a bias toward liberal academia--we lay the those words squarely on the media, distancing them from the scientists. (Also note I've rejected the suggested change wrt to skeptics provoking the storm. See just below my original proposal.) I agree we should wait for the ArbCom decision I keep forgetting about, but nothing wrong with preparing. Whaddya think? --Yopienso (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
How about "Dubbing the controversy "Climategate", critics/sceptics alleged that the emails revealed a "scandal" of misconduct within the climate science community." ? Gets the contested words in, but with the attributions (checking the citaions agree, of course). StuartH (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
When I do a Google News search on "Climategate scandal", I get 167 hits. When I do a Google News search on "Climategate controversy" I get 76 hits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Counting hits on "Google News" isn't a useful tool in trying to write an encyclopaedia, nor is searching for text strings. Didn't Google try something like that, to hilarious effect? Fact of the matter is that credible sources have recognised that the only "scandal" is the manufactured controversy. Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm all in favor of changing the lead if there's a problem with it, I'm not sure there is. Nor am I clear that this would resolve the alleged NPOV issue, since it has not been clearly articulated, with the specificity that would allow it to be addressed. This seems to be a kind of endless process. Again, we need to focus on "What specifically needs to be added/removed to make this NPOV"? Time to wrap this up. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that we'll just be going around in circles indefinitely on this. If there's no prospect for improving the article, let's move on. StuartH (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Guettarda--You are mistaken; I have documented many usages of both "climategate" and "scandal" in credible sources, including Scientific American, who even apparently coined it as a modifier, (climategated scientists) that use the terms, both for the "manufactured" controversy, begun by skeptic bloggers, and the ensuing one by climatologists and journalists who responded to and/or investigated the manufactured one.
@Scotty--I have clearly and specifically articulated the POV issue that contriving to keep "scandal" out of this article is overt NPOV. What is wrong with the rewrite I've twice proposed? If you just read the comments I personally have made in the past few days you'll see quite a bit of specifying. The fact that is has been largely ignored tells be there is a dreadful and intractable POV. --Yopienso (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your coming up with an actual proposal for the lead. But I'm not sure of a couple of things: first, is this an improvement? To say that a "media scandal" erupted is awkward wording, as it sounds almost like a scandal within the media. Secondly, is that what people are saying is the NPOV issue? Will figuring out a way to add "scandal" to lead rectify this supposed problem? Thirdly, if we are to refer to this as a scandal, we have to say in the lead that the scientists were cleared in the inquiries. The discussion has been so unfocused, and the proponents of the NPOV tag have been so much over the lot (the one who placed the tag claimed the article leaned too far in the skeptical direction) that I continue to believe that the NPOV tag is unwarranted. I'm concerned that we're running around in circles, not because there is a bona fide NPOV issue, but because there isn't any. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
We're running around in circles because editors are playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU games. The problems have been clearly articulated and several proposals have been made to fix the issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
We have a proposal on the lead that I'm having trouble viewing either an improvement or addressing POV issues. Someone previously came up with a list of ten concerns, but no attempt was made to directly relate that to specific passages in the article, or to explain how they were POV issues. Now, the discussion is long, so maybe I've missed something, as I've been following it only sporadically. But I've tried my best to address all the proposals that I've seen, including the list that I just mentioned. What else am I missing? I'm really trying to get a handle on what kind of "POV issues" were dealing with here, and I reached out to Hipocrite, who put the tag on this article in the first place, to that end. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My proposed lede helps address issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Which assumes that these are genuine issues. 1 is the title, and the title would not be changed, and 8 is primary sources, and I don't see how that would be affected by the change in lead. More fundamentally, I don't like the process here. In order for there to be a bona fide POV dispute, a genuine one, people who feel that way need to show with some specificity what is wrong with the current version of the article - demonstrate how it is contrary to policy, not just make bald lists of requirements, with only minimal effort to explain how that is contrary to policy, perhaps in the hope that enough editors will get behind them. The reason such a demonstration needs to be made, not just assertion, is that the danger is that you have an NPOV article that will be made POV. On the word "scandal," I fail to see how omission of the word from the lead harms the article. However, personally I don't see a problem with adding that word, if some way can be found that is neutral and fair. On "Climategate": the current usage is actually more prominent than is being proposed.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to read all the discussions going on this talk page and the archives. The amount of detail covering these issues is at times staggering, particularly for 1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Staggering about all over the place, and lacking clear focus. Rather suggests pink elephants. . dave souza, talk 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
{e/c}@Scotty--1. Yes, we know the MSM is currently using "Climategate" more than WP! This is precisely my complaint--POV-pushing editors are tying our hands and not letting us say what the MSM says. 2. What is not neutral or unfair about my proposal? 3. This article illustrates the media scandal very well. I find it hard to imagine the average reader will not realize "media scandal" refers to the media headlining and debating and discussing and accusing and defending various aspects of the emails. Please look at this source I'm providing. --Yopienso (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Dave--untypical and unwarranted criticism. I'm disappointed. --Yopienso (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I think Dave is correct. The suggestion that I go back to the archives further indicates to me that there is no bona fide POV issue. If it can't be simply articulated, there isn't any. I've tried in good faith to ascertain what the complaint is, and I am about at the limits of my patience. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. It's been explained over and over again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see some basis for the view that the repeated claims of NPOV issues, without proper basis, are disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. People here are forgetting that WP:NPOV is a policy. In order to show a NPOV violation, you have to find some text, find the bit of the policy it violates and quote them both. What we're hearing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT over this strange ongoing chant of 'I explained it all in the past'/'I'll explain it all in the future'. It is looking disruptive. --Nigelj (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well put. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Nigelj & ScottyBerg: Scroll up and start by reading my post dated 12:18, 26 July 2010. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, scroll down and read my post of 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Encyclopedias are not news-feeds and don't have to echo everything that appears in the popular press. Our job is to understand issues, to understand history, and to help the reader put some of the rubbish they get from the commercial media into context. --Nigelj (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Deleted by Yopienso 18:41, 30 July 2010, AGF accidentally; replaced by Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I am very grateful for your GF; it is not misplaced. My sincere apologies. --Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Yopienso - no, I'm not mistaken. You actually did exactly what I said - you say that ScAm used the term "without quotes", but it opens by saying so-called "climategate". That's what happens when you use search engines instead of actually reading and understanding the article. And, as I said, Google showed that trying to write an encyclopaedia that way produces gibberish. Guettarda (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
What I actually wrote was, "Tally: 6 times without scare quotes, twice with." This is true of the July 19 article I cite; read it yourself, like I did. Did you miss my line way up this page, "This is not a "Google list"," and my later one to Scotty, "But if this is what you call 'simplistic Google News tests,' I agree that they are not very valuable. My method is to actually look at articles across a broad spectrum of publications,"? --Yopienso (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you were aware that the argument is nonsense, but you're still making it? I should have known better than to take another shot at trying to communicate with you. Nothing but mendacious nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Please, Guettarda--as I said, SciAm used it WITH AND WITHOUT quotes. My argument is the RSs use both "climategate" and "scandal" in reference to what WP calls the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy." This is absolutely true. I would never promote an argument I knew to be nonsense. I don't know where you're coming from. --Yopienso (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying you didn't read the ScAm article? Because there's no way that someone could read the article and make the claims you make. Yes, they are technically correct. But only if you simply counted words and didn't read the article. Either you're not telling the truth when you say you read it, or you read it, but you're intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way, you're not telling the truth. Which is the reason why I have said in the past that you are not welcome on my talk page. Guettarda (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't say I didn't read the SciAm article. What does that have to do with anything? Which article, anyway? The July 19 one? For the record, I've read all 3 of the SciAm articles to which I link. My claim is that SciAm uses the word "Climategate" with and without scare quotes and "scandal[s]" without scare quotes. What do you think I'm misrepresenting? Where am I not telling the truth? To reiterate, and this is the third time I've said this, "The scandal isn't necessarily the scientists' actions, mind you, but the furor in the media." --Yopienso (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you think I'm misrepresenting? Where am I not telling the truth? Hmmm....did you read what I wrote? Either you're not telling the truth when you say you read it, or you read it, but you're intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way, you're not telling the truth. You are misrepresenting the article. You are making claims based on the article which, even the most cursory reading of the article makes it clear, are not consistent with what the article says. And misrepresenting sources is dishonest. And as I said before, the reason you're unwelcome on my talk page is your repeated misrepresentation of sources. Which is tiresome. It would make for a much better environment if you simply stopped doing that. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you referring to this July 19 SciAm article? This is the claim I made about it: "Scientific American is clearly calling it [what WP calls "Climatic Research Unit email controversy"] 'climategate'." That is true. So you must be referring to something else, but what it is I cannot divine. Please elucidate me; if I have erred, I want to rectify my error. --Yopienso (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
We should be using academic third party sources as a basis rather than the MSM which has been shown to give poor coverage to this issue, jumping on the exciting soundbites at the outset then neglecting the considered reports on it. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Yopienso, by no means untypical, a little levity tending towards snark. Don't take it too seriously, carry on chaps. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, I'd missed the joke. :p More seriously, discarding the MSM coverage because you don't like it contravenes WP policy. As academic third party sources are produced we will naturally update. I really need to force myself to take a break now before I literally do start seeing pink elephants! --Yopienso (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets look at a few 'scandals' on WP. Lewinsky scandal: A US president was impeached; United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal: resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements, together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses; Teapot Dome scandal: Fall was indicted for conspiracy and for accepting bribes, sentenced to a year in prison and fined $100,000. And the original -gate, Watergate: led to the resignation of the President of the United States, and the indictment and conviction of several Nixon administration officials. So, compare: '"Climategate" scandal', no indictments, no resignations, no sackings, no one in jail and no one fined, despite the very best efforts of the campaigning groups. There is no comparison, and that is why the article is NPOV as it is. --Nigelj (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: Your argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policy AFAIK, and seems predicated on the desire to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Nigel, this is obstructive stonewalling that we've been over and over.
  • Once again, I will point out Wikipedians do not define or select usage, but reflect what the MSM says.
  • Once again, I will paste in the definitions of "scandal":
1 a : discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person b : conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another 2 : loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : disgrace 3 a : a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it b : a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality <a scandal to the profession> 4 : malicious or defamatory gossip 5 : indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion
  • Climate science and the CRU have suffered significant "loss of or damage to reputation," enough that Jones contemplated suicide, received death threats, and the US Dept. of Energy is hesitating to renew what had been almost automatic funding of the CRU.
  • The "manufactured scandal" alleged "apparent violation of morality or propriety," and, as has been discussed, at first sight the layman would draw negative conclusions about apparent violations, even though investigations showed them not to be such.
  • I think we could all agree about "malicious or defamatory gossip."
  • Wrt to fines, sackings, etc., Jones did have to temporarily stand down; there have been 3 official investigations into the CRU, one into Mann at Penn, one by the EPA, and in-depth and quite neutral coverage by the Guardian; we hope there will be an arrest and appropriate fine and/or imprisonment. The scandals you cite are long over; this one is not. --Yopienso (talk)
[Weird--sig but no time stamp. I'll try again. --Yopienso (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)]
No, I think that he's raising a valid point. To call this a "scandal" at this point in time in the lead, based on early reaction, would be simply factually inaccurate based on the outcome of the controversy, which is unfolding and is definitely not indicative of a scandal. If there are reliable sources after the inquiry results which state explicitly that "a scandal is ongoing regardless," then we should give serious consideration to adding them somewhere. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Scotty, what is your justification for ignoring what the MSM call it? --Yopienso (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yopienso, I don't think we're ignoring what the MSM call it, indeed we cite MSM through much of the article. A secondary source summarising the media response is better than picking examples ourselves, as that's rather close to original research. If there are specific sources which should be cited, then we can consider adding them. However, more academic sources are emerging, and there need be no rush to make drastic changes like changing the name of the article. If more scandal is properly justified in the body of the article, then that improves the case for including that in the lead which is of course a summary of main points. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My concern about use of the word scandal from initial media accounts (I emphasize) is that they were based on the initial leaks and not upon the entire course of events. We now know that there was no scandal, in the accepted sense of the word. However, as I said earlier, if a reliable media source has recently analysed whether it was a scandal, given all that has happened, that is something we may want to consider for the article. It would be deeply wrong to use throwaway language tossed into a newspaper article in the heat of the initial accusations. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yopienso, I assume that you deleted my comment above by mistake, but at 18:29, 30 July 2010, I had made an important point about not having to echo everything that's printed in the media. I do not appreciate my contributions here being labelled "obstructive stonewalling" by you. Please remember that it took some considerable time here to get anyone to state why the POV banner was even being added to the article, and refresh yourself at WP:AGF, before you make comments like that again. As I said above for the first time (not "over and over"; it seems to be you that's pasting in the same things again and again), I do not think there is any evidence that this hacking has uncovered an actual scandal, just that some people hoped it had. In the past. The article makes that quite clear. --Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Nigelj--Thank you very much for assuming I'd deleted your comment by mistake. If you hadn't drawn it to my attention I would have been unaware of my error. My Firefox did crash as I was making that post. I was able to reload, and then got a signature w/o a time stamp. I cleared my cache and took a break. Please accept my apology.
Regarding the "stonewalling" and the "over and over," I stand by my words. If you are not obstructively stonewalling and this was your first such comment, you must have jumped into the middle of a long discussion without apprising yourself of what had gone before. As I have repeatedly made clear, including just a few hours ago, I have not suggested "that this hacking has uncovered an actual scandal." Did you read the definitions I once again pasted in, and my applications of them? Yes, it is I who am pasting in and repeating again and again, because again and again the same questions are asked. Frankly, it's tiresome. Once again, the scandal was the media treatment:
"I have documented many usages of both "climategate" and "scandal" in credible sources, including Scientific American, who even apparently coined it as a modifier, (climategated scientists) that use the terms, both for the "manufactured" controversy, begun by skeptic bloggers, and the ensuing one by climatologists and journalists who responded to and/or investigated the manufactured one." [I think I was mistaken about their coining the usage of "climategated" as a modifier.]
You wrote, "Our job is to understand issues, to understand history, and to help the reader put some of the rubbish they get from the commercial media into context." No, our job is to avoid OR and SYN and to echo what the MSM says. "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." As more academic third-party sources become available, they will quickly be incorporated into the article. Until then, I hope we can work together with the most reliable sources we can find. --Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What you call the "MSM", Yopienso, is not what we call reliable sources. All reliable sources have reported that there was no scandal here. It's been the most underwhelming fizzled firecracker I've seen in many a year. --TS 23:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Which of the following do you not call reliable sources, Tony? Pasting in yet again the usage of "scandal" in the MSM/RS:
This article uses "scandal" 8 times, never in scare quotes, and "Climategate" 9 times with scare quotes only the first 2 times.
  • The Los Angeles Times July 7, 2010 This is the only opinion piece in this list.
  • Il Tempo This brief article is stamped "07/12/2009," an apparent error.
  • Adding a new one: CBS News.com July 7, 2010
  • Etc.
This is not a "Google list", nor an exhaustive one; there are many more. All these links take you to an article in which the headline or body or both call the incident a scandal, and in several cases, the "Climategate scandal." (You may find using page search a help in finding the word if it isn't in the headline or lede.) It would seem that avoiding the word scandal is not, in fact, neutral, but POV in suppressing what the MSM calls it.
I looked and did not find the word "scandal" used in The Guardian, the Yorkshire Evening Press, the NYT, or the Miami Herald. --Yopienso (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
My rationale is this: the local Norfolk paper used it, major British and US papers use it, as well as papers in Italy, Colombia, Germany, Russia..., Nature News and Scientific American (also New Scientist, though I've not documented that on this page), and CBS (also MSNBC and ABC, and I keep promising myself not to look for any more) use the terms, so that convinces me it's widely used in the MSM. Any attempt to exclude it would be entirely POV. As I've said before, it would be deflecting rather than reflecting what the MSM says. I can quite confidently assert that any person who has followed this in the news at all has heard it referred to as both "Climategate" and a "scandal."....--Yopienso (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC) --Yopienso (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, lots of media sources have used the term loosely to sell newspapers and whatnot. But there was no scandal. The matter was investigated at great length and now we're stuck with that fact. --TS 00:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)As I said, we don't write articles based on Google searches, word counts or mechanically-generated text. Yeah, it's possible to find sloppy reporting in newspapers. The bigger the sample, the easier it is to find them. Letterman and Leno do segments on their shows made up of weird stories from newspapers. Picking a handful of examples, scattered over the course of a year, is cherrypicking of the worst kind. And if you bother to read some of these, instead of counting words, you'll see that many of them are logically inconsistent - for example, calling it a scandal while reporting that everyone has been cleared of wrongdoing. This is why we don't extract trends from news stories, we don't create our own generalisations based on primary sources. Guettarda (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please answer my question: Which of those sources is not reliable?
  • New question: Are you alleging SciAm and Nature News, et al., "used the term loosely to sell newspapers and whatnot"? That they are guilty of "sloppy reporting"?
  • I have engaged in no cherry-picking. I reported those RSs I checked that did not use the word "scandal." None of those are "scattered over the course of a year,"--this just happened in November, remember? Most are less than one month old.
  • At WP we do not have the liberty to set aside those RSs that say what we wish they didn't. We don't even have the liberty to second-guess them and say they just used that word to increase circulation. I'm afraid the fact we're stuck with at present is that there was quite a scandal, and it's not entirely over. (As I've already said, "The scandal isn't necessarily the scientists' actions, mind you, but the furor in the media.") --Yopienso (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please answer my question: Which of those sources is not reliable? I didn't say they weren't "reliable", I said they were sloppy. The problem isn't with the sources, it's with your cherrypicking.
  • Are you alleging SciAm and Nature News, et al., "used the term loosely to sell newspapers and whatnot"? That they are guilty of "sloppy reporting"? No idea what you're talking about.
  • I have engaged in no cherry-picking. Simply untrue. Did you pick a representative sample of sources? Is that what you're claiming? Did you pick the best sources, the ones that discuss the issue in a thoughtful, thorough manner? Is that what you're claiming? No - you picked a handful of sources that can be used (or misused) to support your assertion. That's cherrypicking, plain and simple. I can't believe that someone would make such a demonstrably false statement and expect anyone to take them seriously.
  • At WP we do not have the liberty to set aside those RSs that say what we wish they didn't... - Please read WP:IRS and WP:NOT. Your statement is so filled with fallacies it's impossible to comment on it in any meaningful fashion. Guettarda (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of which is not reliable. The most reliable sources have clearly determined that there was no scandal. Where less reliable sources--those without access to the facts or that haven't taken the trouble to check the facts--differ, this is not a problem for us. We go with the facts, and the opinions, suspicions, conspiracy theories, scandal-mongering or simple ignorance of selected sources doesn't make any difference. --TS 00:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you're being disruptive if you won't answer which of the sources I've listed is/are unreliable. You said, "What you call the "MSM", Yopienso, is not what we call reliable sources. All reliable sources have reported that there was no scandal here." Prove it. Your edit summary says, "We go with the facts," which is my mantra, too, but at WP verifiability trumps truth. But it does just happen to be verifiably true that many RSs call it a scandal. --Yopienso (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What we don't have, though, is a consensus of reliable sources. We don't even have a majority. There's just no compelling reason to include a pejorative term that only some reliable sources use, if our own guidelines advise against it and every attempt to squeeze the word in results in either a ridiculously biased rewrite or an awkwardly-worded sentence that quite obviously reads like it was put in just to satisfy those who say we have to include their pet POV term. StuartH (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Tony: Your argument seems to be based on what you perceive to be The Truth®. The fact is that reliable sources call this "Climategate" and a "scandal" and continue to do so. Here's an article from just yesterday which clearly calls Climategate a scandal.[9] Please remember that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to violate WP:NPOV which you seem to be advocating. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, on the contrary I waited months for the reliable sources to appear. If you want to elevate the reliability of journalists above that of the sources that have evaluated claims of scandal, and found nothing worthy of the name, that's your concern. But it isn't how we do things on Wikipedia. A newspaper article is not an automatically reliable source. --TS 13:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, we need a consensus of reliable sources, and even if we had it we would require in-text attribution (to my knowledge, I'm the only one to suggest an edit which satisfies this requirement, despite even the need for an in-text attribution failing). What was claimed as an "overwhelming majority" of reliable sources was actually a clear minority of sources. The argumentum ad nauseum here is getting annoying. StuartH (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources have already been provided here.[10] I note that the only attempt to provide a counter list was quickly debunked.[11] You don't need in-text attribution for statements of which there is no serious dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This section alone is now around 75KB and there's no sign of consensus. Why not put the question to a content RFC to resolve the it with input from previously uninvolved parties? --TS 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in an RfC with ArbCom's proposed decision around the corner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that, then there's no point in arguing in favor of any remotely contentious proposal until the Committee makes its decision. I suggest that we drop this discussion and await developments. --TS 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a daft argument. No one doubts the existence and MSM use of the word "climategate" - it's mentioned in the article at least 7 times, including in the first line, in bold. Climategate redirects here. No one is being misled and this article will be found by anyone looking for the term on WP. What some want to see is more use of the term. Where is the reliable source that says that seven uses in one article is not enough? I think people are just bored cos an arb said to leave the articles alone. --Nigelj (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be a daft argument if someone were making it. Please address what people are saying, not what you imagine that they're saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So-called "climategate"

I know - lets follow Time and call it the so-called Climategate scandal by stealing e-mails from European climate researchers.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008081,00.html?hpt=T2#ixzz0vaQIBV44 [12] (note the bit about stealing, BTW) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

EPA rejects challenges based on the stolen emails

The US Environmental Protection Agency, having several years ago been ordered by the Supreme Court to apply the Clean Air legislation to greenhouse gases if in their (the EPA) view the science merited the classification of such gases as an environmental hazard, completed its review in late 2009 and duly issued the statutory instrument required to trigger regulation. This was challenged and the EPA investigated the challenges. the other day the EPA issued its response, in which it rejected the challenges.

Of those challenges specifically based on the hacked emails: “Several independent committees have examined many of the same allegations brought forward by the petitioners as a result of the disclosure of the private CRU e-mails. Their conclusions are consistent with EPA ’s review and analysis. The independent inquiries have found no evidence of intentional data manipulation on the part of the climate researchers associated with the e-mails. " Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the source for that? It may be worth adding. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that this would be appropriate as an example of the impact, or lack of impact, of the various popular conspiracy theories and whatnot on the environmental regulatory system of a major carbon economy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The source of that, as I stated. Is the EPA. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my appalling punctuation. My telephone is working to the limits of its capacity with this enormous talk page. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

07/29/2010: EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science press release, "The petitions to reconsider EPA’s Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA finds no evidence to support these claims. In contrast, EPA’s review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger."
“The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.
Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.
Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.
Two other claims re the IPCC are summarised. Interesing as a rs for "a manufactured controversy". Details given at Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change | U.S. EPA giving links which I've yet to read. . dave souza, talk 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Myths vs. Facts.... U.S. EPA is rather good, giving some specific responses to claims about the emails. Factsheet is ok, adds a little to the summary above. The Preface indicates a lot of useful detail about the claims re. CRU and Mann, as well as the various IPCCgates. Still to browse in detail, so much to do..... dave souza, talk 18:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that myth versus fact section is not all that good, although par for the course. Too many entities use the myth versus fact paradigm improperly. The "fact" line may well be fact-based, but it often is a rebuttal to a straw man argument. This example isn't egregiously bad, but typical of the genre.--SPhilbrickT 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Your expert opinion is of course valued as much as any other expert editor on WP, however we go by the sources ;-) The detailed sections may be more to your taste, as they show actual arguments rather than what you may think are straw man arguments. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we go by the sources, occasionally even when they are wrong. But we don't have a rule that says every single source that mentions an issue must be included in the article on the issue. Consequently, the value we, as editors supply, is picking and choosing which sources are best to illustrate the subject. For an extremely narrow subject, that may be most of the sources. For a subject such as this, we cannot possibly add all the sources. Given the need to make choices, I suggest we shouldn't add crappy sources, when good ones exist. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 20:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely, which is why the academic and carefully considered EPA report is a good resource, and of course we should show great caution about crappy sources like The Hockey Stick Illusion. Glad we're of one mind about this. . dave souza, talk 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
How exactly is a political document academic? Who here is surprised that the EPA will reject petitions which will take away bureaucratic power mark nutley (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I frankly don't know the status of the EPA report - I don't know who wrote it, whether it is a primary or secondary source, whether it ws peer-reviewed, or edited by responsible people. I can tell, just by looking at it, that it isn't well-written (simply an observation, I know that isn't particularly relevant to its status as a RS), but I have no interest in examining its provenance until some significant number of editors suggest it ought to be considered as a source. So far, that hasn't happened.--SPhilbrickT 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Of all sources, the EPA document being prepared by scientists and based on reviews of the science is a reliable source on the science. It is also a reliable source on the direction of US environmental policy. It definitely belongs in the article alongside all the other expert commentary, and it also represents a policy position by an arm of government that happens to have a law mandating science-based control of pollutants. The decisions of the EPA as referenced in that document count for a lot because by US federal law they may result in actual, real life measures to control carbon dioxide. --TS 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? This isn't an article about US environmental policy. I agree that a statement from the EPA would be relevant if that were the subject of this article. But it isn't. Plus, if anything it is political commentary, not expert commentary.--SPhilbrickT 23:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is about a hacking incident and related outcomes. One of the outcomes was that some people petitioned the EPA to abandon a highly significant element of US environmental policy, and the EPA considered it and declined to go along with the suggestion. That's a pretty significant outcome and, because it involved a deliberation the EPA was forced to undertake by the high court, adds considerably to the significance of the topic. This was, I think, the most significant outcome of the affair. Had the scientific concerns voiced in the wake of the hacking been significant enough, the entire tide of US environmental policy would have been turned. The expressed scientific concerns did not, in the end, achieve that object. Unless enjoined from doing so by the courts, the United States will now proceed to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.
And your claim that the EPA's commentary was political and not scientific is falsified by the manner in which the EPA reached its determination. Please read up on this matter. --TS 23:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The EPA is a government agency. By definition, what it does is political. Did you seriously think the EPA was going to change its decision based upon a few emails? I don't think anyone who has followed the subject thinks that was a remote possibility. There may be other valid reasons to reconsider the ill-advised notion that a government agency should regulate CO2 without so much as a law passed, but no one who even remotely has paid attention thinks a that a handful of emails were going to sway the decision, Surely you don't think that was possible, do you? Sorry for straying - one more time, debating the contents isn't improving the encyclopedia, unless someone makes a credible case that a decision by a single government agency only tangentially related to the CRU incident somehow deserves prominent mention.--SPhilbrickT 01:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What the EPA does may be political but why it does it is not automatically so. The EPA isn't chosing to regulate CO2 simply because of a political decision; it wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't a scientific finding involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is automatically so. One certainly hopes they obtain good scientific input and use that to form their decision, but they are part of a branch of government - what they do is by definition politics. Sometimes the word "politics" is used in a pejorative sense - that isn't how I'm using it. I'm using it in a description sense. Political organizations made political decisions. If they pass a resolution declaring that 2+2=4, it might match what mathematician believe, but it is a political statement. cf. wikt:political--SPhilbrickT 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you can't reduce everything to politics. Example: the FDA recently approved an anti-clotting drug on the basis of scientific evidence. Was that a political action? Regulatory agencies make decisions based on science all the time. That's their role - it's what the law requires them to do. Regulatory decisions may have political consequences but that doesn't mean that they're driven by politics. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's much more complicated than saying "they are a branch of government". The EPA is a branch of government, one that happens to employ scientists who do research. As is the USDA Forest Service. As is the USDA ARS. As is NASA, the USGS, or, for that matter, any public university. Not to say that there's no politics, but its not correct to say "it's a government agency, thus it's politics". Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

←Is this stuff from the EPA getting much media play? I'm concerned that although the source is reliable and the material is relevant and interesting (including noting that this whole affair was a "manufactured controversy"), it's really a primary source without much mainstream media coverage. There are a few secondary sources writing about the EPA's release, but not the sort of level I would describe as "significant". It could certainly be used as a reference for other stuff (like the aforementioned "manufactured controversy", "stolen emails", etc.), but I don't know if it's worth an addition in itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox Business has a rather good article on this which quotes the head of the EPA and also gets some responses from the likes of Cuccinelli and Inhofe who obviously oppose the EPA. Two government entities heavily dependent on coal and oil production, the states of Virginia and Texas in fact mounted some of the ten challenges. We really should be evaluating sources--I specifically eschew the recent trend to do Google News counts and treat all news sources equally. This high quality secondary source can be cited and, because the EPA response has an immense national significance (which I summarised above) it passes due weight easily. --TS 13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking again, I notice now that the EPA response is getting coverage from the likes of Washington Post, Reuters, Xinhua, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times. --TS 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Tony: What on Earth are you talking about? "Immense national significance" has absolutely no basis in determining WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If that is your belief, I don't think anything I can say would have any effect on your opinion. I've already pointed out that this takes the EPA one step closer to regulating greenhouse gases across the nation. If that's something you think an encyclopedia should ignore for some reason, I don't think you're on the same page as the rest of the people trying to produce a high quality encyclopedia. --TS 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, your argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Weight is based on the prominence given in reliable sources. This is Wikipedia 101. It is your argument that is out of step with the community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll rest on that because it's clear that your arguments on this matter aren't getting anywhere, for all your persistence. --TS 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's quite debatable that this incident moved the EPA one step closer - they had the authority, and a challenge was defeated, leaving them in the same position they were before the challenge. I'm in agreement that the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases is enormously significant, but it is tangential, at best, to this article. It belongs in EPA or Politics of global warming (United States), not in an article discussing the implications of some emails. The Politics of global warming (United States) article doesn't even mention the EPA power, much less the recent failed challenge.--SPhilbrickT 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The challenges in question were in part based on doubt allegedly cast on the science as a result of the hacking, and the response of the EPA specifically addressed those claims. This, I would have thought, makes it relevant to the hacking and indeed the secondary sources have not been slow to report on that.

I don't claim that this incident moved the EPA one step closer. Not at all, and I'm sorry if I gave that impresssion. The challenges, had they succeeded, would have stopped the EPA taking this step. Had the science been called into question as a result of the hacking (a bit of a stretch, but that's what the challengers claimed had happened), then the EPA would not regulate carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court was quite clear that the EPA must do so if it finds the science to be valid. The only way to stop the EPA being obliged to do so (other than changing the controlling legislation) is to invalidate the science. But that's beside the point, really. The fact is that the EPA advisory was challenged using evidence based in part on the contents of the emails. The EPA's designation of the CRU hacking as a manufactured controversy is obviously significant on its own, too. As far as I'm aware that is a characterization--and from an expert source, too--that hadn't appeared from a US government agency. The response of Senator Inhofe to this is probably also significant (although I can't resist remarking that he gets his facts wrong). --TS 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also remark that it's naive to say that EPA is in the same position it was before examining and responding to the challenges. This is part of the procedure for enforcing the Clean Air Act. As the WSJ has said: “[u]nless superseded by congressional action, the EPA ruling eventually could lead to stricter emissions limits. Business that stands to be affected range from power plants and oil refineries to car makers and cement producers." As a result of examining and dismissing the challenges, the EPA has placed itself a step closer to enforcement. --TS 20:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TS, assuming there is only one of you, are you aware that you’ve made these three claims in this thread:
  • this takes the EPA one step closer to regulating greenhouse gases
  • I don't claim that this incident moved the EPA one step closer. Not at all,
  • the EPA has placed itself a step closer to enforcement
Which is it?
Are you also aware that you started a point with “As the WSJ has said: ‘[u]nless superseded by congressional action…’ “ (emphasis added), then go on to claim that challenges, which were not congressional action, move the EPA one step closer. Do you understand that the challenges were not congressional action?--SPhilbrickT 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
When you challenged my statement that the rejection of the challenges took the EPA one step closer to regulating greenhouse gases, you did so with these words: "It's quite debatable that this incident moved the EPA one step closer". I assumed that by "this incident" you mean the CRU hacking and so I clarified by saying "I don't claim that this incident moved the EPA one step closer. Not at all." It looks like we're talking to cross purposes. Obviously rejecting challenges of this sort does take the EPA further down the road, but I didn't mean that the CRU hacking itself had that effect. The relevance to this incident are:
  • the challenges based on this incident were rejected
  • we have yet another official statement from a competent authority describing the allegations were manufactured. This is not surprising but it goes towards an encyclopedic understanding of this storm in a teacup, particularly on how it has completely failed to impact the science of climate change. --TS 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Add "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley (ISBN 978-1401323264) ... "known in the U.S. as Climategate" on page 425 ... i.e. only a regional term.

From Talk:Climate change denial, for the "deny-and-delay" crowd; in "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek (ISBN 978-1401323264 on Politics of global warming (United States) & Category:Climate change policy) excerpt on page 425: ... "The new excuse for skepticism, known in the U.S. as Climategate, had barely penetrated the Bella Center walls {context clarification 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference} before they showed up (though news of it was already fueling climate doubt in the U.K. and Australia as well as in America." ... also included are Phil Jones (climatologist) & Stephen McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Fox News Channel & The Wall Street Journal,Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Marc Morano of Climate Depot.com of Jim Inhofe's office, and Spencer R. Weart, among others. 99.54.141.180 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that. But how about Mann Bites Dog: Why ‘Climategate’ Was Newsworthy William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

While I remain unmoved by proposals that the article be renamed, I must note that in addition to appearing in the US press, the term "Climategate" appears, for example, in news stories in the Canadian Globe and Mail here [[13]] the UK's Guardian here [[14]] and the Sydney Morning Herald here [[15]]. Pooley's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, the term "Climategate" is not regional unless the region you mean is "those places where English is spoken." - DGaw (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"BBC apologises to University of East Anglia for "incorrect" remark"

BBC apologises to University of East Anglia for "incorrect" remark

Haven't read it fully yet; it just popped up in my Google Reader from ScienceBlogs (this post). Might be worth inputting into the article though? NW (Talk) 18:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Real Issue

This link suggests what has already been stated over and over: the claims of the IPCC and East Anglia are partisan. An agenda exists. What the alarmists and their defenders fail to acknowledge - over and over - is that those of us who have serious questions about AGW are not stupid or mislead; we question the objectivity of the scientists NOT necessarily the findings. Any snot-nosed, pin-headed, self-important, misanthropic math major can torture numbers until they confess. Water-boarding those numbers won't necessarily yield the truth. It might. It MIGHT. But scientific Truth is usually more easily seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.147.52 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I think you typed the wrong thing in to the address bar. You're currently at the talk page of the CRU email controversy article involving a specific set of emails and other documents that were leaked. This talk page is as with all article talk pages dedicated to improving this article. It sounds like you want the 'random rants on the IPCC' article instead Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent review

What sort of independent review was actually initiated? I was contacted on my user talk page, where it was suggested that I take it upon myself to undo a link to Independent review, an article which I started. (There's a consensus that it should be merged to Peer review, which I agree with, but I don't agree with simply reducing it to a redirect without or before a merge.)

I gathered that the general purpose of independent review is to act as a check against bias such as that which comes about as a result of financial pressure or ideological bias. We all know about the tobacco industry's "research" purportedly proving that there was no link between tobacco smoking and cancer. It is now an article of faith that money can influence scientific findings. A paper in the British Medical Journal confirms this.

If the purpose of the UK independent reviews was different, then we can either remove the link or - better yet - add to the Independent review article an explanation of the sort of independent review that is relevant to the CRU incident. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Beeb apology

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/johnhumphrys William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What about "deleted raw data?"

This allegation was mentioned in the intro, but never followed up on in the article... 74.64.88.203 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Climatologists

@WMC--I don't follow your logic. If we don't "need the bit" identifying Pat Michaels as a climatologist working at the Cato Institute, why do we need the bits about Hansen being a climatologist, and about Curry being one at GIT? I'm suggesting, for consistency's sake, they all have their "bit," or none be identified, letting the reader click on the hyperlinked name to find out more. My instinct is to revert your deletion. --Yopienso (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Michaels' position at Cato is not as a climatologist; he conducts no scientific work there. It is inappropriate to lump him together with practicing scientists. If you want to say "a scholar at Cato who formerly was involved in climatological research" or similar that would be fine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
He`s a climatologist. To remove that fact is just the usual POV pointy behaviour from the usual suspects. I`ll put it back tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of starting a series of reversions back and forth, can you all please come to an agreement on the talk page first? NW (Talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Y: the section is titled "climatologists". Everyone there is a climatologist by default. You are correct re Hansen (and Curry, who you missed): we don't need it for him either. I've removed it. In general, we should use the minimum of description and rely on people following the link if we care exactly who these people are and how qualified. Puffing people up with descriptions risks peacockery. @Boris: agree re Cato, but Cato wasn't his only affiliation. @MN: usual knee-jerk stuff. Pause to think first. @NW: good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur with WMC. I removed the descriptor from Reay and von Storch also (apparently missed by all). The fact that they are in the section identifies them as climatologists. GregJackP Boomer! 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yay! Wikipedia wins again! Thanks to each for the collegial atmosphere here and the intelligent edits. Ciao! --Yopienso (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight for retired professor's opinions

Our "Media reception" section presently concludes with 6+ lines of retired professor Rodney Tiffen's opinions. Tiffen is a retired political scientist of no particular renown; his wikibio consists of 3 lines. This seems grossly WP:UNDUE. Propose striking his remarks, which don't seem to add anything substantial to the article. The bit about the political impact of Climategate in Oz should be retained, but is out of place here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I pruned Tiffen's remarks, and moved the Australian political impact to a separate subsection. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New Source

The first of what I predict will be a series of books on this topic since the first investigations have closed has been published- The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming by Fred Pearce was published on July 27. The book appears to expand on the 12-article series he wrote for The Guardian. I've read most of the articles in that series, and it seemed to me that Pearce took a relatively neutral view on the topic. If anyone wants to use this book to expand the information in this article, it appears to be a reliable source. I may get a copy myself because it appears to have information that would be helpful for expanding several different articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Experience shows one should be wary of anything with "truth" in the title, but I might take a look at it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The title is obviously somewhat sensationalized. I thought his series of articles was well-written. I hope the book does expand on them with all the additional information I'm sure he gathered but was unable to print in the newspaper due to space limitations. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I just ordered it (along with Kraftwerk's new complete box set). Hopefully I'll be reading the book while listening to the tunes soon. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Kraftwerk? Ah, good, there may be hope for you yet... you should check out Faust (band) if you like Kraftwerk Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When the source calls the controversy Climategate....

When the source calls the controversy Climategate, we should ordinarily follow suit, I believe. I raise the point because editor ChrisO recently replaced "Climategate" with "the affair" diff in our "Media reception" bit re a NY Times editorial that opens "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us..." [16], and did the same thing diff to an Atlantic essay entitled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie." [17]

I don't see any valid reasons for these edits, and propose to return to the term that the source actually used. I don't think this would be controversial, were the "C-word" not involved. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. That is what the source said, and that is what we should use. GregJackP Boomer! 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Pete Tillman - Are you refering to a specific section of the article? Could you call out what sentences you are focusing on?
As a general rule, I'd note that if some event/contraversy is given several names by various reliable sources, it seems a little silly to jump back and forth between the different names within the WP article about that event/contraversy. On the other hand, I do always think one should stick as closely to the RS as possible. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It's our Media reception section 4.4. The NYT leads this section with
A New York Times editorial, after the July 2010 reports, called the affair a "manufactured controversy," ...
Para. 3 of same section opens,
Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into the affair, ...
In both cases, the original sources refer to "the affair" as Climategate, see links above. Diffs. I thought of your concern, looked before my first posting, and the original flows better, imo. Less confusing, too, as "the affair" has, um, other connotations ;-} Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If the source calls it Climategate, then it's probably ok to use the word "Climategate" in the text describing what the source said. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

In light of the tags restriction [18]: why is there still a POV tag on this article? It appears that the (articulated, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) concerns have been addressed.

I propose removing the tag. It makes the encyclopedia appear foolish and causes one to doubt the content of what appears to be a fair article written in accord with WP's content policies (especially WP:DUE). Bkalafut (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree. I see no new discussion about it here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The restriction refers to the addition or removal of such a tag, so it looks like we're stuck with it for now. I don't think that it should be there either, as there appears to be no realistic possibility of achieving a version of this article that somebody doesn't think is POV, which is not the purpose of such a tag, to quote part of Template:POV, "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. " Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears the restriction only requires consensus. So I'm fishing for an articulable explanation for not removing the tag.128.196.189.36 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, if consensus can be gathered to remove it, feel free to do so. NW (Talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support removing the tag. Minor4th 01:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Have all the concerns listed here been resolved? I tried to mediate a discussion to resolve them but it seemed to bog down after just the first one or two were resolved. Are there any remaining open items from that list? Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
These were the concerns:
      1. Title should be "Climategate" because that is the term most often used in the media- This may be true, but the majority opinions in the most recent RfCs on the issue (above) rejected that title. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      2. Insufficient use of the word "Climategate".
      3. Insufficient use of the word "scandal". [Please see list and comment immediately below. POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal" --Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)] [Update: see Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 36#POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal"--Nigelj (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)]
      4. Undue weight being given to the University of East Anglia's position.
      5. Insufficient coverage of the initial allegations and undue weight on the scientists being cleared.
      6. Insufficient coverage of allegations that the investigations weren't truly independent.
      7. Over-use of POV terms like "deniers" and "sceptics." I'm striking "deniers" because neither it nor "denier" is used at all, according to my page search tool. --Yopienso (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      8. Over-use of primary sources.
      9. Insufficient weight given to the opinion that the emails may have been stolen by an insider, not hacked from the outside.
      10. The lede falsely portays all critics as climate change sceptics. In reality, Judith Curry, George Monbiot and many others were critical.
      11. Cherry-picking excerpts from sources (especially primary sources) to present an unbalanced view of the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      12. Undue weight to death threats in the lede. (This was fixed before, but it looks like someone added it back in.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
#1 is not a content dispute. The title is not content. The POV tag reflects on the article, not its "handle" on the site. #2 is not a content dispute. We could decide to call the incident "Shirley" with the instruction that to readers who call what happened "Climategate" "Shirley"="Climategate" and to readers who call it an "email controversy" or "manufactured pseudoscandal" "Shirley"="Email controversy". The information contained in the article remains the same. But more seriously, a mention that the term "Climategate" has become common but not universal slang for the incident should be enough. #9 was perhaps a valid concern last December but has since been made obsolete. Bkalafut (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not all the concerns have been addressed. I'm just not a big fan of tags. I'm probably not the best one to weigh in on this one. Minor4th 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: Aside from our own internal use to improve the articles, POV tags serve as important warnings to our readers that this is a difficult article for us, and that they should take everything they read with a piece of salt. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think I just took care of #10, and I don't think there is anything to do for #1. So why don't we start addressing points 2-9 and 11 one by one and trying to resolve them? Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
As you say, if the POV tag going has to wait for #1, it can wait for ever. But neither is it acceptable to stuff in lots of "cliamtegate"s just to make "skeptics" happy William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
WMC, please see the discussion When the source calls the controversy Climategate...., above, and comment there. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, gosh. POV tags are a poor substitute for dealing with content disputes. If we allow everyone who disagrees with things to place POV tags, then all articles on difficult subject will be indefinitely tagged. Personally, I think "climategate" is a fine term and I wouldn't be afraid of it whichever side I am on... but that discussion was had a long time ago. Actually, all of these are old discussions. Ideally there would be a different tag to note, as AQFN says, that this is a difficult article, not that a particular editor has a problem with the content. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
#8 is going to be the one that "sticks" but only because this is recent history and secondary sources are few. It should be possible to move forward (and remove the Badge of Shame) before it's possible to fully switch to secondary sources--and whether or not a "history" article is POV shouldn't depend on the recency of its subject. We seem to be left with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and maybe 11. I came to this as a "dis-interested" editor but would be willing to have a go at 6. Bkalafut (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Go for it :) Cla68 (talk)

Hacking, cracking, or inside job

Who has called the incident a "breach" or referred to the data as "stolen"? The Norfolk police referred to an "alleged breach", and a Washington Post writer called the data stolen: "Hackers broke into the electronic files."

But is this a case of a reporter giving her own opinion - out of thin air? Or was she summarizing information she got from someone else? (If it's the latter, I'd like to see that source.)

All I've seen from the University of East Anglia is, "This information has been obtained and published without our permission ..."

Now I'm not calling it an inside job. In fact I doubt it, personally, but WP:OR says my opinion doesn't matter; I'm just a contributor, not a source. But I'm wondering who our source is.

Is our source a Washington Post writer? Or does she have a source we can quote directly? That's all. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Need a cite - Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme

We need a cite for the last two sentences of the "Content of the documents" section. Obviously, I should put a {fact} tag for those two sentences, but the last time I pointed out that we had unsourced content in this article, I got viciously attacked for days, so I'll just post a message here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I put a {cn} there. I get attacked on a regular basis, so I'll take the hit for the team... GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I can understand the confusion. The source is here. It was formerly cited in the article but for some reason it seems to have got lost along the way. I've restored it to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the same source covers everything in the paragraph after "According to an analysis by The Guardian..." - it is this analysis that is being cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I just found a fuller, sourced version here, as well. --Nigelj (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've no idea why someone removed that material, since it's obviously relevant. I've put it back in. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
{EC} ChrisO: Are you sure it supports everything that precedes it? Maybe I missed it but I don't see any mention of the "hockey stick graph". BTW, please make sure you haven't violated the 1RR restriction on this article. It appears as if you might have already violated this restriction.[19][20] Perhaps you should self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
Actually, looking at it again, it doesn't seem to mention Mann at all. It mentions Briffa, not Mann, as one of the four. I'll take that bit out. Thanks for pointing that out. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This was the edit by Heyitspeter where the citation disappeared. --Nigelj (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why he did that, since it's not in the previous section. I think he might have got mixed up with Schmidt's previous statement on the hack of RealClimate. This statement by Schmidt concerns the hack of the CRU (he was the one who alerted them to it). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the edit history for 30 March, it was one of a whole series of edits he made that day. Maybe when somebody makes a string of 20-30 edits on a single day on a 1RR article, with some controversial ones buried in the series, it might be better to revert the lot and work forwards again, to avoid 1RR problems. Actually I don't know if that would work, as re-inserting their stuff after double-checking it might count as reverts too. Maybe 1-revert articles need 1-contribution limits too? --Nigelj (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
A string of uninterrupted edits or even reversions counts as a single edit for #RR purposes. NW (Talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/feb/18/cucc18_20100217-221409-ar-7967/
  2. ^ http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/cdp-news-local/2010/may/01/attorney_general_demands_papers_on_climate_data_fr-ar-70282/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_36&oldid=1144571984"