Talk:Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

McIntyre's personal blog admissible?[edit]

Since this article includes comments made by Jones about McIntyre's actions, McIntyre's response to Jones’ comments about him is admissible to the article, even if those comments made by McIntyre, were made on McIntyre's personal blog. This is due to Wikipedia policy WP:ABOUTSELF. Some editors seem to feel that WP:ABOUTSELF is not applicable in this particular case. I'm asking that any editors who disagree with McIntyre's blog being used as a source, articulate in precise terms, why exactly WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply in this particular instance. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McIntyre spends more time talking about other people, not himself. Thus, wp:aboutself does not apply. — TPX 21:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your understanding of WP:ABOUTSELF, is that a personal blog is only valid, if and only if ALL OF THE CONTENT on the blog (and not just the material being cited for use in the Wikipedia article) is written entirely about the blog's author? Please clarify. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... it does not involve claims about third parties. The self-published source infringes this stipulation because its author claims that one climate scientist (identified by name) broke confidentiality agreements, and that other climate scientists (also identified by name) consciously turned a blind eye. The blog piece is about third-parties, not the author himself. — TPX 19:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to focus your attention on the bullet you've cited: "it does not involve claims about third parties". The "it" in this bullet, has been defined previously, in the first bullet of WP:ABOUTSELF as "the material". My understanding of this term - given that we're editing Wikipedia - leads me to believe that "the material" is most naturally defined as: "the content taken from a personal blog, that's included in the Wikipedia article." On the other hand, your interpretation of "the material" - and please correct me if I'm wrong here - seems to be: "anything and everything that has ever been written, spoken, or displayed on the personal blog". Is this an accurate representation of your understanding of "the material"? If not, please provide your own definition of "the material" for clarification purposes. Thank you. Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your starting point is wrong. The policy is Self-published or questionable sources of information, not Self-published material from paragraphs two and four, discounting paragraphs one and three. The source is a blog post in which the author makes claims against third parties (living persons, no less). The text you have edited repeatedly into this page is unambiguous in meaning. The blog owner in particular says that one climate scientist, identified by name, is not to be trusted. If you wish to source the town or city somebody grew up to a personal blog, our policy might help you with that, but making claims against third parties, nope. — TPX 19:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to ask a straight-forward simple yes-or-no question, so that I can gain a better understanding of Wikipedia policy, but nobody is giving me a straight answer. I'll try a third time:

in order for a self-published blog to be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, DOES 100% OF THE CONTENT ON THE ENTIRE BLOG HAVE TO BE FREE OF THIRD PARTY CLAIMS?

Please, for the love of Jimmy Wales, "yes", or "no". Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy refers to sources of information (of) therefore the source must be considered as a whole, yes. Otherwise any blog owner could make a series of allegations and freely link their page to Wikipedia, and that's not what the policy was intended for. — TPX 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not evident that Lenschulwitz|Lenschulwitz has been made aware of the Arbcom decision, I've given an informal note about the WP:ARBCC page and in particular that WP:ARBCC#Use of blogs and self-published sources is restricted to very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Continued attempts to use a blog as a source for allegations about third parties are liable to result in sanctions. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Dave, I appreciate it. I don't believe I was using "a blog as a source for allegations about third parties". My edit to the article reads as follows:

McIntyre responded to this account, saying ”none of these statements should be taken at face value”, and noted that Jones had not in fact been inundated with information requests "soon" after McIntyre's initial 2002 requests.

Who do you perceive as being the "third party" in this edit? Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempted edit tells us that McI accused Jones of making false statements. Fail. . dave souza, talk 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. McIntyre was responding to comments made by Jones. Hence, McIntyre is the first party (i.e. he is the self-published source), and Jones is the second party (i.e. he is a direct participant in the interchange between the two men). On the other hand, a third party has an entirely different meaning; principally that a third party must not be one of the principle actors in a given exchange. Jones, because he was a direct participant in the exchange of discussion with regard to the past actions that took place between himself and McIntyre, does not therefore qualify as third party in this particular case. Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]