Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 35

Per now archived (34), here are the CRU email controversy references for discussion; Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and U.K. ... WSJ
OK, thought discussion question was deleted, but now see that it is in "Archive 34" ... Here is one of the WSJ articles: Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists: U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness' and previously (Tuesday 6.July.2010 page A10) Review Finds Issues at Climate Panel: Dutch Agency Backs U.N. on Warming, Spots Error, Calls for Broader Summary. 99.29.185.123 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they do mention it briefly but seem rather muddled and I think we've already got better sources in the article. If you're the same editor that added this, your IP number has changed so you've missed the talk page message I left for you. It's a good idea to get a user account so we know who we're discussing this with, and you can build a good reputation. . . dave souza, talk 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A "user account" doesn't mean you "know" anything. Even one's "authentic" reality, is ultimately just faith, at least that is what i believe. 99.102.176.120 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It ain`t over till the fat lady sings
It appears not all are happy with the Muir Russell or Oxburgh whitewashes. Graham Stringer is not happy at all in fact,  Neither is Phil Willis  “Quite frankly, I couldn’t believe it. …There has been a slight of hand in that the actual terms of reference were not what we had been led to believe.” Were in the article should this go? mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a complete rewrite starting with the name. But a name is just a name. The real issue is that we are not much better off after the 3+ inquires. As I gather Lawson now wants an inquiry of the inquires! Maybe it would be best to wait a week and see if there is any other fallout? It would cut down on the aspirin consumption.91.153.115.15 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Work on this? 91.153.115.15 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology holds its own hearings on the matter, we can, of course, include mention of it in this artice if it is discussed in reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely that it will. My understanding is that Stringer was the only member of the committee to have complained about its earlier hearings, though as he appears to have denialist leanings that is probably not surprising. However, any decision to reopen the investigation would have to be agreed by the full committee. I very much doubt that they would want to reopen an issue they've already declared closed, especially as it's already been thoroughly investigated elsewhere. It's safe to predict that nothing will come of Stringer's demands. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You must have missed Harrabins interview with Phil Willis? Willis sounded fairly annoyed.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is going to be the pattern for the ArbCom case? If the committee doesn't find/state/conclude that all scientists are lying crooks and that GW is a communist conspiracy, then it too will be called a whitewash with cries to re-run it over and over until people get the result they want? Reliable sources may one day tackle this phenomenon wrt CRU, and then we can report on their coverage here. Until then there is no more need now to run with the extremist fringe than there was over the last six or eight months. Eventually sensible coverage will prevail, and then we will be glad (again) that we bided our time and kept the article sane until there were notable things to report. Not news, no rush, no deadline. --Nigelj (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you put it quite well with "no rush, no deadline". The inquiries clearly left lingering doubt and this has nothing to do with any conspiracy either way. At least it appears so due to the lack of major edits to the article. The new article in the Economist is particularly revealing as their prior coverage has been tilted the other way. (The well rounded comments are also worth reading.)91.153.115.15 (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is rather poor, in that it fails to ack the regrettable role of the media (inc the Economist) in this kerfuffle. The NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html?_r=1 is much better William M. Connolley (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an op-ed editorial about Climategate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * W00t. You're not bitter, are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, is that leetspeak? Bitter about what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(restoring indent) The Times editorial cited by WMC should be cited, given the newspaper's influence, especially on US policymakers. It's an editorial, the voice of the newspaper, not an op-ed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also a piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that is well worth reading. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we follow the NYT editorial (and others) and call it what it is - a manufactured controversy? Right now, that's only present in the lead, and only as the opinion of one source. Which, of course, it isn't. Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? As long as the viewpoints, in for instance the Economist, are also included. An entry such as "Climategate has been called a manufactured controversy by xxx but...yyy says..." Quite reasonable and supported by current sources.91.153.115.15 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one seems to mind, so I've added the Times editorial to the lead. It's strong language by Times standards, and I think its prominence deserves mention prominently. I've also done a little tweaking, as the language of the lead seems dense.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to summarize the Economist's article, but I'm having trouble getting my arms around it, as the wording is so hedged and mealy mouthed. Perhaps somebody else can take a crack at that. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel the Newsweek portion is a bit too much as it was published before the report came out. I would like to add the following directly after your last sentence. " The Economist, stated that "The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit." highlighting that the not all emails were reviewed. The Economist also stressed that none of the inquiries reviewed the accuracy of the science and that "The mode of production has been found acceptable, but the product is for others to judge."  ".91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotty; Would you be so kind to make the addition? The article is locked again.
 * Sure. I think that's a reasonable summary. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stated or found?
Good grief! No more warring on this, please. Why aren't you guys discussing it? My two cents: "Found" is better. Of course they stated it...after they found it. You could always say they "concluded" if somebody's really all that worried they "found" something that wasn't there. "Concluded" shifts the assertion subjectively back to people and away from the objective "found." --Yopienso (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, is pretty obviously a Scibaby sockpuppet. No point discussing anything with him... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Grumble. I would prefer "concluded", rather than "found".  (I'm sure they found something which wasn't there, but I don't have any hard evidence.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Concluded" seems fine to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concluded is good. Verbal chat  10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Concluded" or "found" are both fine for me - the key is that it was the result of a deliberate investigation, not a of-the-cuff statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Information Commissioner decision
This was done again - here Rumping interprets a primary source. This is not how article are written - we don't select which parts of a primary source should be included - instead, we rely on secondary sources to evaluate primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This was deleted from the article. I think it is a continuation of events described in the previous paragraph. If it is an inaccurate summary of what was said, perhaps someone else might look at rewriting it. --Rumping (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "In a decision published on 7 July 2010 on various requests from David Holland to UEA about CRU correspondence with the IPCC, the Information Commissioner ruled that UEA had in some cases failed to respond within the prescribed timetable set out by the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), in breach of regulation 14(2), and in other cases had failed to respond at all, in breach of regulation 5(2). He was also concerned that the requests in this case were not considered under the EIR despite the clear provisions of regulation 2(1), and that although the emails on the internet indicated prime facie evidence of an offence under regulation 19 of the EIR, the Commissioner was unable to investigate because six months had passed since the potential offence had been committed. It was of considerable concern to the Commissioner that the emails suggested that some requests for information were considered an imposition, that attempts to circumvent the legislation were considered and that the ethos of openness and transparency the legislation seeks to promote were not universally accepted. Information Commissioner's decision on one of the climate data FoI requests, FER0238017, republished by the Guardian"


 * Is there a reliable secondary source that discusses this primary source? Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that British newspapers are not a secondary source? The Guardian reported and quoted a primary source with the comment "The retired engineer and climate sceptic David Holland had made repeated freedom of information requests for climate data of the University of East Anglia and its Climatic Research Unit. He complained to the Information Commissioner's Office about the way the requests were handled – here is the ICO's response". Should we remove all UEA quotations from this article? --Rumping (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that there's no discussion of this primary source in reliable secondary sources. We include the UEA responses because they are central to the issue - this is not. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble understanding what's wrong with the passage in question. It may be a bit verbose, but apart from that, what's the problem? The Guardian is an RS. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Guardian didn't write that text - the guardian merely linking to "Scribd" which is not a reliable source. Even if the Guardian hosted the document, it would not be the Guardian's document, it would be a primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then a secondary source, which is preferable, should be substituted. With all the media coverage, I can't see how that can be a problem. In the Times story today it says "Echoing the findings of an earlier report by a parliamentary committee in London, the reviewers criticized the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit for consistently 'failing to display the proper degree of openness' in responding to demands for backup data and other information under Britain’s public-record laws." Isn't that what we're basically talking about here? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. We're discussing the ICO here. If a secondary source adresses this issue, it should be included - I agree. My concern is only about editors evaluating primary sources on their own, as opposed to relying on secondary sources. Please find a secondary source that adresses this information - like I asked the first time I removed it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying that. I agree with you in general on secondary sources being preferable. But until one is found, I'm not clear that there is a major problem here, or that it should be removed in toto. My concern about the passage is that it might be too long, considering that it appears to be collateral with all the other references to FOI violations. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying this may not be the ICO decision? The Guardian, as a secondary source, says it is and embeds it in their page.  Where is the evaluation in the paragraph in italics? It is intended to be a summary. --Rumping (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was a misunderstanding on my part. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a summary by you - it is your personal interpretation of a primary source. This is not how we write articles. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to consider any alternative summary you may wish to suggest which conveys what the Information Commissioner decided.--Rumping (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the section to match exactly what the summary paragraph stated. I still feel that we should have waited for a reliable secondary source before writing anything. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

and Rumping has immediately reinserted his personal research that "together with attempts to circumvent the legislation and prime facie evidence of an offence of deleting information" is relevent. I suggest that your insertion of parts of the report that you think are interesting is problematic - stick to the summary. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Paragraphs 46, 50 and 51 are all clearly relevant to the controversy. I think 49 is too, but I won't press the point at this stage. --Rumping (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That appears to be your original research. Please stick to the summary as provided. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite has a good point, that in summarising this document we shouldn't go beyond the summary provided by the ICO. In view of the BLP issues with the untested allegations, I've rewritten the clause accordingly. While it's noticeable that the case is about requests by Holland for correspondence, that's not in the summary so I've replaced it with a closer paraphrase. Given the campaigning and misrepresentation by the press of earlier ICO statements, care should be taken to find a balanced and reliable third party source to go beyond this summary. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reworked it further. I think it's worth reminding people of the rules for using primary sources (at WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources have to be reliably published. This criterion is met; although it's hosted on Scribd, it was uploaded by Adam Vaughan, the deputy editor of the Guardian's environmental section, and presented on the Guardian's official website. He has also provided a short summary.


 * Second, and this is for Rumping, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." Rumping's addition of personal interpretation is clearly not allowed. I've added a quotation directly from the source and made the text match exactly what the UEA was found to have done wrong. There will no doubt be further secondary sources commenting on this in due course. Until then, we should refrain from adding anything that seeks to interpret the ICO's decision, as opposed to simply citing what is in there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stylistically, I thought it better to quote the acronym used by the IC within the quotes, putting the explanatory expansion outside the quote marks. If anyone takes issue with this, you're welcome to undo my change without that specific undo counting in terms of 1RR. . dave souza, talk 18:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is definitely better. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up. My secondary source reference has become a primary source reference. The acronym has gone wrong. I am no longer convinced everyone has actually read the ICO document. Since people keep accusing me of putting my personal interpretation on this rather that being decriptive, though without saying where the interpretation is, I will simply show what the ICO actually said at the end of its document here and let other editors consider the issue, comparing what follows with the paragraph at the top of this thread.--Rumping (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "46. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with some of the requests in accordance with the requirements of the EIR in the following respects: it failed to provide a refusal within 20 working days in respect of the request of 31 March 2008 and therefore breached regulation 14(2); and it failed to provide responses in respect of the requests of 27 June and 31 July 2008 and therefore breached regulation 5(2)."
 * "47. As the complainant has indicated that he is content not to proceed with his complaint in relation the public authority’s failure to provide him with the information he had requested on 27 June and 31 July 2008, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken with regard to these requests."
 * "48. Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern:"
 * "49. The Commissioner notes the delays in compliance on this particular case. It is also of concern that the requests in this case were not considered under the EIR when the subject matter quite clearer falls within the definition contained in regulation 2(1)."
 * "50 The wider circumstances of this case, in particular the placement of a substantial number of emails allegedly from CRU onto the internet, has attracted considerable attention (November 2009). The emails suggested that some requests for information were considered an imposition, that attempts to circumvent the legislation were considered and that the ethos of openness and transparency the legislation seeks to promote were not universally accepted. This is of considerable concern to the Commissioner and in keeping with his duty to promote observance of the legislation he will now consider whether further action is appropriate to secure future compliance."
 * "51. The complainant made an allegation that an offence under regulation 19 of the EIR had been committed. Although the emails referred to above indicated prime facie evidence of an offence, the Commissioner was unable to investigate because six months had passed since the potential offence was committed, a constraint placed on the legislation by the Magistrates Court Act 1980."
 * Thanks for that, hope the Commissioner doesn't get after us for copyvio! The above was not accurately summarised by you, which is why it's better to go with the ICO's summary until such time as a reliable independent source or sources give a proper analysis for us to base the paragraph upon. . dave souza, talk 22:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Significance of FOIA decision
I have to wonder how significant this issue really is. It's been two days now and the Guardian appears to have been the only major media outlet to have raised this issue (and even then it didn't cover it in a report). The attention we are paying to it may well be excessive given the lack of press coverage. I wonder if we should hold off from covering it until we get a better idea of its significance? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern too, that it might be collateral. However, it should be mentioned at an appropriate length. It shouldn't be excised solely on the grounds of being a primary source. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this decision may turn out to be the only significant thing on the page, in a few years' time, so hold your horses... I don't think the article currently expresses it well, but David Holland himself considers this the most critical passage:


 * "“The Commissioner’s considers that it is not necessary for information to have a direct effect on the environment for it to fall within the definition in the EIR, only that it needs to be linked to a relevant subsection in regulation 2(1). He is of the view that the phrase “any information…on…” contained in regulation 2(1) should be interpreted widely and in line with the purpose expressed in the first recital of the Council Directive 2003/4/EC which the EIR enact.”"


 * This puts a new onus on anyone involved in any kind of climate research, and is more notable than it first appears. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Dave
 * There has been discussion of the chilling effect this has on communications between colleagues, and of the effect of FOIA requests forcing premature release of research information. This will affect science generally, and introduce hitherto underfunded costs of the bureaucracy needed to deal with such requests, at a time of budget cuts. As the ICO note, their remit is set by parliament, and the government may wish to review these effects of legislation and amend relevant acts. Pretty sure I've seen that in print, we need to find and cite reliable secondary sources for the article. . dave souza, talk 04:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, one of the emails is from East Anglia's FOIA officer warning the CRU staff to keep their emails professional as they might be subject to FOIA release. Just my opinion, but they probably should have followed his advice.  As far as "premature" release of data, I would think that scientists would appreciate having someone checking their research, for free, as it progresses. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate and Holocaust Denial
In the "Holocaust Denial" wiki, the information pertains to "Holocaust Revisionism" i.e. only certain aspects of a large event are called into question. The controllers of that wiki admit this. They maintain that the wiki must be titled "Holocaust Denial" rather than the more accurate "Holocaust Revisionism" because it is referred to as "Holocaust Denial" by "reliable sources". It does not matter to them that "denial" is a pejorative, nor that it is manifestly incorrect. On this wiki, we have the opposite. "Climategate" as dubbed by the media, is not allowed because "-gate" is a pejorative. Never mind that this is the term used by "reliable sources". This discrepancy needs to be addressed by someone with the proper permissions, on this "free" encyclopedia.

I find it especially odd that these two cases are wrongly applying the wiki rules in the most destructive way possible. Holocaust "denial"/"revisionism" is the expression of an opinion. "Climate Research... whatever (honestly?)"/"Climategate" is the exposure of misdeeds. Yet, it is the former that is presented in the pejorative and the latter that is presented as neutral. This baffles the mind. How did these crooks at wiki even come up with the name for this article?


 * We're supposed to be neutral and name our articles based on the most commonly used name. "Holocaust denial" is the most commonly used name for that article topic.  So the editors at  Holocaust denial are correct.  However, the most commonly used name for this article is "Climategate".  So, why isn't this article named Climategate?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because that claim is complete nonsense, as you well know. Only those Wikipedians who seem to support the manufactured scandal refer to this article with that denier-created term. Everyone else refers to it by its current title. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While you might personally think that reliable sources are wrong, arguments based on WP:TRUTH have no merit here at Wikipedia. No, Wikipedians who are trying to follow WP:NPOV also use the common name.  Not that it matters what Wikipedians are calling it.  What matters are what reliable sources are calling it.  What's the most common name for this topic as evidenced by reliable sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Let me repeat what you said above: "However, the most commonly used name for this article is 'Climategate'." - NOT TRUE. The most commonly used name for this article is the title. The most commonly used name for this manufactured controversy is "Climategate", which is not the same thing as what you said. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've misunderstood the topic of this discussion. The OP was asking about the name of this article.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to you. In your comment above, you said that everyone referred to this article as "Climategate", so I responded by saying that obviously was incorrect. I was not commenting on what people call the actual incident, because that was not what you said. Anyway, it is all rather academic because my response was evidently based on something you miswrote, rather than any misunderstanding on my part. I accept your apology. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He also defended "Holocaust revisionism" as "more accurate". I hate to resort to an obvious ad hom, but sometimes it's required. As the grandson of a Nazi, I believe there is no room at the table of civilised discourse for those who deny the Holocaust. And I've yet to come across someone who advocates for the "revisionism" label without actually embracing the belief. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's a proverbial third rail of civilized discourse. I'm not sure if the media will continue to refer to this episode as Climategate or not in the future.  It all depends on what the ulimate fallout is, and it will be awhile before that becomes evident. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK has compiled a long list of RS's that use the term "Climategate." It is surely the most common term for the row, and we see "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" is so unwieldy that SCjessey, who with no documentation insists that's what most people call it, resorts to calling it "title."  :D   We do need to agree "controversy" refers to the emails--the theft, publication, and storm of accusations and defenses that followed--and not to the science itself.  --Yopienso (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a list of articles that contain the string "climategate". Given the term is inherently loaded, that "-gate" suffixes should be avoided under wikipedia policy, and that it's inevitably tied to fringe viewpoints, the argument for changing the title needs to be more compelling. Indeed, one of the last times the name change topic came up, I went through every reference in the document and found that most sources don't use the term, and almost all the remaining sources make it clear that it is a term used by others that they do not use themselves (e.g. "dubbed 'climategate'"). This is why the phrase most often comes with quotation marks: because the reliable sources tend not to use or endorse the term themselves due to its loaded nature. Things may have changed since then, but the situation is the same - the argument to change the title needs to be more convincing. The current title was the result of a compromise, and is an appropriate compromise that is consistent with wikipedia guidelines. StuartH (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can people stop using the Fringe-argument all over. It doesn't get more correct even if you repeat it in Ad nauseam without WP:RS sources backing it). It may be covered partly by our article, but it's used to move "skeptics" papers outside "significant-minority views" as described here WP:FRINGE as far as I see.
 * Look also at this list Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Climategate usage and what Jimbo Wales has stated "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article [...] but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)" and "It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what it is called - it is up to the world at large, and they have - overwhelmingly - decided.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)" on his talk page. Nsaa (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is welcome to edit if he wants. But he is wrong: the scandal isn't the emails, which have proved on examination harmless. The scandal is the "sekptic" and media responses to the manufactured controversy; this is becmoing ever clearer William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the emails have not been proved harmless, but have proved the scientists were not open, for which they have been formally criticized by reviewers. --Yopienso (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. But why are you going over all this again? If you have some proposal for changing the article content, that would be different William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you are disagreeing with the facts as ascertained by the Russell review. I don't like to let disinformation stand. "'We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA,' the report, commissioned by UEA, said." And a RS commentary on the review: "'The damage done to the credibility of the anthropogenic climate change argument will remain, as much for the tone of those notorious e-mails as for their precise details,' writes Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph." My proposal, it's true, isn't to change the article content but to be free to use "CG" on this page to refer to the scandal without being corrected or hushed.  --Yopienso (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad Jimbonem failed at the time, and it's no more valid now. If anything, the recent investigations have shown how even many respected individuals may have jumped the gun. George Monbiot has admitted as much himself. I think we should reach a decision based on the arguments, not on who is making them. StuartH (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Jumping the gun" is a nice euphemism for completely failing to investigate a story and report it accurately. If the media can't do their jobs, then what is it exactly that they are doing? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC, StuartH and Viriditas are arguing The Truth®. I suggest that if this is what they want to do, they find a 9/11 "truthers" forum where the rejection of reliable sources will be welcomed with open arms.  But here on Wikipedia, we don't care about The Truth®.  What we care about is verifiability.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insightful comment! Yes, now that I think about it, this article must have a section devoted to biased media coverage, especially the missteps, poor reporting, multiple apologies and retractions, and attacks upon the climate scientists.  I want to thank you for a wonderful idea, AQFK! Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Given the term is inherently loaded, that "-gate" suffixes should be avoided under wikipedia policy" There is no rule against article titles using -gate suffixes. Nor is there a rule against using a title that expresses a viewpoint. See List of articles whose titles express a POV. The key question here is simple: What is the most commonly used name for this article's topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The important thing to note about all of those examples is that they are historical examples. While it appears to have been cut during a recent Manual of Style clean-up and simplification, the sentence I referred last time this came up was "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources". This would clearly disqualify "climategate". At the time I also expressed concern about how common the name was, given that most of the references used managed to avoid it, and many of the remainder only used it in quotation marks. To override the importance of a neutral article title as set out in the NPOV policy, the alternate name needs to be used by a clear consensus of reliable sources. I'm open to compromise on the issue, but if I'm to change my mind on this issue, I'll need to be satisfied that the policies and guidelines have actually changed to accommodate "-gate" titles on current affairs, and that since the last discussion the use of the term has increased to the point of being used by a clear consensus of reliable sources. StuartH (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece SCjessey quotes says, "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming." Everybody get that?   ...KNOWN AS CLIMATEGATE...  No "scare quotes," even.  --Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't quote any article. Please strike out your comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misrepresenting your manufactured controversy (stamped 23:54, 11 July 2010) as a quote when in fact it was an allusion, or perhaps you were only repeating what other editors had said and not alluding to the Times at all. I meant no harm and am happy to strike my reference to you. Please forgive.  --Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy is about whether a title appears in "a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources", not a single article referred to using a large font. Last time this came up, I was able to go through the references and came to the conclusion that this condition was not met, and from the failure of the rename request, this conclusion was shared by others. I might be prepared to try something similar if a rename request comes up again, but I do have better things to do with my time, and I think people have a right to be hesitant about repeated attempts to push for a rename that has been repeatedly rejected. StuartH (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you only looked at the articles from the last two months the task would be less of a burden and at the same time more accurate as the story has matured. I would also wager that the press supports the use of climategate by now.91.153.115.15 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The press has always used climategate, but if you googlenews for Climategate from Apr-Jun, 2010 you get 435 hits. With scare quotes you get 392 hits. All the MSM call it climategate mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments presented here that claim "Climategate" is not in general use in the MSM are examples of the bias and advocacy to which I alluded above under "Manufactured controversy" etc. & NPOV in my post of 05:20, 12 July 2010. As I've said before, since there's a redirect from "Climategate" I don't care what you call the article; it does, however, prove the bias is not only alive and well but controlling.  --Yopienso (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @StuartH: The trouble with this is that some editors discount RSs they don't like.  AQFK's list is actually quite accurate, and very long.  Last time I bothered to supply a current reference it was totally ignored. (Not actually sure it was the last time.  One time.)

An editor who prefers not to be named or quoted asked in March for a good source that used the term "Climategate" consistently and also asked why we should use it. This was my response:

We should use it because it is the most widely used and recognized name for it and is far less awkward "The Climate Research Unit hacking incident." ''The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web....As the repercussions of ClimateGate reverberate around the virtual community of global citizens... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8388485.stm Yopienso (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)''


 * That article uses it one more time: "...these are questions that have become much more important in the wake of ClimateGate." And then again in a heading inviting comments:  "Does the ClimateGate affair have implications for the way science, and climate science in particular, is run?"  And then 26 times more in reader comments.  (Yah, they don't count as RS, but do show the public says "Climategate" instead of "CRU email controversy."  (The word controversy appears only twice on that page, both times in reader comments, and neither time to name the hacking incident.)  But that article is so last year...


 * Here's the BBC on 7 July: No "controversy," but "Climategate" in the title and twice in the body:  "The rigour and honesty of the scientists at the heart of the "climategate" row is not in doubt,..."  "...Gavin will be discussing the implications of the report and the whole 'climategate' affair in the studio."
 * How many time does the Guardian use "Climategate" as a title on this page?
 * Title and body of USA Today
 * Sub-title and body of LA Times.
 * Can anyone find "Climate Research Unit email controversy" as a title? I've googled it and found it only on WP mirrors and on this and related pages.  This one's close.  I think the fact that "Climategate," with or with "scare quotes," with or without a hyphen, with or without a capital "G," is by far the most commonly-used term is amply manifest.  --Yopienso (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't think we need to demonstrate that "Climate Research Unit email controversy" is widely used. Based on the WP:TITLE policy, we have two choices for the article title - "Non-neutral but common names" and "non-judgmental" "descriptive titles". The initial presumption should always be in favour of neutrality, and many of the editors pushing for "climategate" have been rather non-neutral themselves, pushing opinions of the "controversy" that have been eviscerated by multiple reviews into the e-mails. Given the phrase "climategate"'s ties to the manufacturing of the "manufactured controversy" here and in the denialosphere, we are right to exercise caution and require a strong and convincing argument for using "Non-neutral but common names".
 * I can only speak for myself, but not all sources are reliable, and not all reliable sources support "climategate". How best to gauge the consensus of reliable sources isn't an easy problem to solve, but having gone through the sources already vetted as reliable (by appearing in the article), I wasn't convinced. At the time, the term was largely being used as a pejorative and ignored by the wider media except when referring to the response of "skeptics". On the other hand, as the misconduct claims started to evaporate, the pejorative lost its impact and "climategate" became more of a failed smear campaign. So the context is a little different now.
 * There have also been policy, guideline and manual of style inconsistencies on this that need to be resolved. Perhaps the usual suspects aren't in the best position to decide? I still maintain that Jimbo Wales is but one editor who I often feel is in a lesser position to judge individual issues than most concerned editors, but to his credit he rarely exercises his administrative power. However on questions of policy rather than fact, the input of a wider range of uninvolved administrators and users might be needed here. StuartH (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input, Stuart. In response,

1. What I find at WP:TITLE is:

Every Wikipedia article must have a unique title.[1] While not always possible, the ideal title is:


 * Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
 * 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).
 * Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
 * Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

"Climategate" is recognizable, easy to find, as precise as is necessary to identify the topic, and concise. "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" is more precise, but is not a name or terms commonly used in RS, is not easy to find, and is certainly not concise. (I do not understand how the last point would apply to this subject.)

2. Earlier you said, "The policy is about whether a title appears in 'a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources', not a single article referred to using a large font." So why do you say, "I don't think we need to demonstrate that 'Climate Research Unit email controversy' is widely used?"

3. Please provide 3 reliable news sources (sources, not individual articles) that do not use the term "Climategate." I know the University of East Anglia doesn't, and the Muir Russell report uses it only in quoting titles. But they are primary sources, not news media.

4.  I would appreciate acknowledgment from those editors who up until now have maintained the opposite is true that "Climategate" is presently being used widely in the MSM to refer to the incident and its aftermath. I'm not asking for people to like it or use it or even to change the title of the article. I am asking to be able to use it myself on talk pages without being accused of being a denier or worse. (I would prefer on talk pages to call it "CG" as a shorthand just as we use "WP" for Wikipedia.) --Yopienso (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While "climategate" has always had wide usage in some MSM, it's not a neutral term and it would be premature for Wikipedia to support one side of a developing debate. Once the dust settles it would be appropriate to review this. The issue has again been the subject of MSM debate and there do seem to be signs of widening usage, but this is rather a busy time for editors and reopening the issue right now is just once more distraction. dave souza (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Unfortunately on this issue there is no ideal title. Some of the criteria for an ideal title point towards "Climategate", and some point towards "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". The former is more concise, the latter is more precise. While it's a unique event, the latter is more consistent with a general avoidance of "-gate" suffixes from the title guidelines. The use of redirects should resolve the ease of finding it, and "climategate" might have a slight edge on recognisability. But we also need to consider the neutrality of the title under the policy, and the current one is sufficiently concise and recognisable in its own right to be used if "climategate" fails on neutrality grounds.
 * 2. We don't need to demonstrate that the current title is widely used because the current title is a descriptive title, not a common name unlike "climategate". The policy differentiates between the two cases.
 * 3. Having done a few Google searches, it doesn't appear that there are any news organisations who have avoided the term altogether. But it is a little difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff with a google search, with blog comments and without the context. Maybe I've missed them, but it seems most have used the term at some point or another (since it's what I found, it's only fair that I state it). Whether or not the consensus of reliable sources requires a consensus within the reliable sources (something that isn't as clear), I'm not sure. Another policy question perhaps best left to uninterested editors, perhaps.
 * 4. "Widely used" is relative. It's possibly more widely used than a few months ago when this was last discussed. On the other hand, it's often referred to, but not directly used, by reliable sources. It has been much more widely used by one side of the debate than the other, which is another concern. But I should make it clear that I don't consider everyone pushing for "climategate" to be a denier, or even those much more critical of the CRU scientists than myself (although it's clear that many of these people may have been mistaken). But most climate change articles seem to get a lot of attention from the deniers and that almost all of them are pushing for a pejorative title should be telling. StuartH (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well lets see, who is currently using it. George Monbiot Such an alarmist i`m surprised he has not melted. Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz use it  As does Scientific American  and the British Medical Journal  It still is and always has bee ncalled climategate mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've wasted enough time over arguing about this article's title. None of this stuff is new. Why is this a useful use of anyone's time? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well pointing out the obvious: It appears to worth your time.91.153.115.15 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been avoiding this whole discussion because I was annoyed by the implicit equating of Climate Change with the Holocaust. This has become yet another discussion of the title, which was settled a while ago. Can't we get back to improving this article? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any point in reopening this issue. It's all been discussed before and the arguments on both sides have not changed. If anything, now that the initial claims have been disproved or non-substantiated, there is even less justification for using a POV term that intimates wrongdoing. Can we not move on to something more productive, as ScottyBerg asks? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO: The validity of the allegations has nothing to do with the most common name of the article topic. The claim that we shouldn't use a POV term has no basis in Wikipedia policies.  In fact, WP:NPOV says the exact opposite: "proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.".   It is not realistic for you or anyone to expect this issue to go away so long as we continue to use the wrong name.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length and settled. If you want to be constructive, move on and do something more useful. Obsessing about the article's name is not constructive. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to fix the article title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah. Chris is right. The unequivocal exoneration of the scientists and the confirmation that their science is sound is proof that resistance to the scandal/"Climategate"/leak/fraud nomenclature preferred by the promoters of this manufactured controversy was well founded. While poor-quality reporting by discredited media organs through the use of opinion pieces pushed the denier agenda, this article remained a beacon of objectivity. Continued demands to change to a POV title like "Climategate" boggle the mind, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What boggles the mind is how few editors are showing up on this page. And all the same people have the same opinions. Apparently persistence is the only thing that counts. Sad. I'm getting a beer.91.153.115.15 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scjessey: Thanks for your comments but they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. As long as we continue to violate WP:NPOV, this issue will keep coming up.  Live it, learn it, love it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @ A Quest For Knowledge, sorry to hear that you intent to continue violating NPOV, you are strongly urged to cease this disruptive behaviour. . dave souza, talk 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec, @AQFK) - I'm not violating any policies, and the current title isn't violating any policies either. I get that you seem disappointed that science and reason have prevailed over the energy industry and deniers, but that's not my problem. The current title is perfectly okay. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave souza: Where did I say that I intend to violate NPOV? Exact quote, please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scjessey: Discuss the article, not editor's motivations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever. -- Kettle (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm down please, both of you. AQFK, this is an issue that has been discussed at great length. What we have now is the result of compromises on both sides. "Climategate" exists as a redirect to this article. The term is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article. The reader is not inconvenienced in any way by the article title being as it is. Both sides have had to compromise to get to this point. You'll recall that there was resistance to even including the term in the article in the first place. The arguments over the title wasted a huge amount of everyone's time that could have been put to much better use doing other things.

You need to be pragmatic here and accept that neither side is going to get 100% of what it wants. By their nature, compromises won't satisfy everyone completely. Please accept that a compromise has been reached and move on from this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was much happier when 'climategate' wasn't mentioned until deep in the second paragraph, when the text was explaining the way that bloggers and some parts of the media got hold of the story. If we're going to use it, though, I would like to see a small section about the origins, meaning and usage of the term by various parties at different times, which can be duly summarised in the lede. In particular I'm interested in the fact that a whois query shows that the internet domain climategate.com was first registered on 5 Jan 2008, nearly two years before the theft, by an organisation based in Arizona. So, no, none of us have all we want. --Nigelj (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not planning on suggesting a new article name right now. I'll wait until ArbCom makes its decision.  I suspect they'll rule against SPOV and in favor of NPOV, but let's wait to find out.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've missed a few of the administrative developments in the last month or two - could someone point me towards the ArbCom case or quickly bring me up to speed? Thanks. StuartH (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of any ArbCom case either. Second the motion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume he means Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Needless to say, there's zero chance that ArbCom will dictate the name of this or any other article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I'd like to know why the hell I wasn't notified by the agenda-driven editor who posted this "evidence", as required by process. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't notified, and I doubt if anyone else targeted by this person was notified either. However, I don't think process has ever been an issue for him. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Manufactured controversy" etc. & NPOV
With recent additions, the article seems to be veering off NPOV. I think we need RS'd adds pointing out that not everyone is happy with the way the CRU (etc) inquiries were conducted. I'll be on the lookout. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand you. Why is "manufactured controversy" off NPOV? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. If there are differing opinions in the media, then each can be attributed..."The New York Times stated that it was a manufactured controversy, but the Economist opined that it raised legitimate concerns." or something along those lines.  That's how to keep it NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There is no doubt that this was a manufactured controversy, a highly notable fact. But there is little evidence in reliable sources to suggest "legitimate concerns". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this is what the sources are reporting. The Associated Press article on the release of the report gave several paragraphs to the concerns over CRU's and Mann's behavior, noting that they had rejoiced over the death of a sceptic.  Cherry picking media sources to add opinions to the lede is not very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single significant investigation and report has completely exonerated the scientists, and reliable sources have given this fact significant coverage. Inevitably, this has been followed up by sources confirming what we all already knew - that this controversy was manufactured. Some sources also note that the faux controversy has also demonstrated that scientists aren't very good at handling criticism (what a big surprise!) or repeated requests for information from climate change deniers hellbent on attacking their good work (another big surprise). That aspect of it is hardly newsworthy, and has little coverage in the mainstream media. So it isn't cherry picking. It is simply noting the signal and ignoring the noise. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the Economist summary suggested above. If there are continued POV problems, I can think of several possible solutions. One is to move the paragraph in question elsewhere in the article, leaving a summary of the press reaction. Another is to add more press reaction. Re the "cherry picking" comment: if there are other major media editorial commentaries, feel free to add them. I'll look around myself. The Wall Street Journal is one likely possibility for balance. POV concerns in this article need to be taken seriously, and while I don't agree I can see why that objection might be raised. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching the Wall Street Journal, I came up with this op-ed article dated 7-12: "The Climate Change Whitewash Continues.". That should be added, but what I'm looking for first are editorial commentaries, rather than op-eds by one side or the other. This one is by a professor and Cato Institute fellow. I'll keep looking. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved the Economist piece down to the report it deals with. The other two discuss the controversy - it appears the Economist is only discussing the Russel report. I also question - Newsweek and the NYT get one sentence with one quote each when they say something, why did you provide three sentences and two quotes to The Economist saying something? After EC - that's an opinion piece and should not be weighted equally to editorials. Hipocrite (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like there are so many opinions on the significance of the incident that trying to quote them all will be unwieldy for the lede and the paragraph should be moved to the bottom of the article. A summary for the lede saying something like, "Media reactions to the controversy were mixed, with some calling it a manufactured scandal but others opining that there was more to the incident than the investigations had revealed." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's correct that media reaction is mixed. We need to compare apples with apples: staff commentaries and editorials (such as the Economist, Times and Newsweek) can't be mixed in with op-eds such as the one from the Cato Institute gent in the Wall Street Journal. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've found a source that says that in their own words. You can certainly keep looking. Media reactions appear to be universally stating it was a manufactured controversy, while noting that skeptics still feel there's some there there. Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC: You ask, "why is 'manufactured controversy' off NPOV?" Because it's an opinion--a point of view--that supports one side of a controversy, and is therefore by definition not neutral.  I think you would agree that there are people out there who hold a contrary opinion, as some number of them post here. One gets the impression that the inclusion of the sentence is meant less to describe the controversy than use the article to argue in favor of a position.
 * If we are to include editorials and opinion-based magazine articles, including balancing opinions would definitely appear to be in order. DGaw (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scjessey: I would also note it's not clear to me what "manufactured controversy" means, here. It appears clear that there are people who believe the leak revealed evidence of professional malpractice, and people who believe it did not.  Regardless of who is right, and what investigations determine, the disagreement between these groups appears to represent real controversy.  What was manufactured?  DGaw (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The plain meaning of "manufactured" is obvious, that this is a phony scandal, concocted by skeptics. More importantly, I disagree with Hipocrite's moving the Economist text out of the lead. It's needed for balance. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have a real problem with the fact that you misrepresented the Economist's views. Please review your initial sentence regarding .3% and determine if it's saying that the review should have looked at more emails, or if it's saying something else. I have real problems with you taking the IP at face value. You are responsible for all of your edits - and this one was irresponsible. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's wrong or misstated, feel free to fix it. However, I do think something from the Economist, or some other publication, is needed for balance in the lead. NPOV concerns can't just be shrugged off. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, as soon as someone can find a source that says it's not a manufactured controversy, we can put that up there. Of course, we could use the Economist to say that skeptics remain unsatisfied - I'd be fine with that as the counterpoint to the media saying they think it was manufactured. Hipocrite (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to find a source that says it's "not a manufactured controversy." The declaration that it is, however, is a point-of-view, and it is necessary to either balance the article with alternate opinions or strike those that are unbalanced.  Question for those who believe this belongs: in what way do you believe the opinion that it was a "manufactured controversy" improves the article? - DGaw (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hip, that's not the only comment that needs to be balanced. Also I tend to feel that the paragraph is becoming unwieldy for the lead. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dgaw, to answer your question: I think the fact that two reputable, influential, mass-circulation publications use nearly identical and very strong language to refer to Climategate is extremely important for this article and deserves a mention (if not at current length) in the lead. Both articles, especially the Times, raise a significant point: which is that Climategate is harmful to the public interest by falsely discrediting a cause of great public importance. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ScottyBerg: You sort of touch on my concern, here. As you know, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "advance the public interest" or address issues of "great public importance."  While we all might have strongly held opinions about the controversy, it should be impossible to determine from the article.  Hence: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox".  Our job as editors is to describe the controversy without taking a position.  While not perfect, the first section seems to do a reasonable job of maintaining a neutral POV--right up until the last paragraph, where it run off into opinion. - DGaw (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)DGaw, the idea that it's a 'manufactured controversy' is supported by the results of the various investigations. The sources simply provide the label. More to the point, this conclusion is attributed, and the alternative view is also represented. The alternative view is less notable, since it's based not on the investigations, but rather on people saying "not good enough". Oddly reminiscent of their response to all evidence for climate change. Guettarda (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda: I agree that the results of the investigations are encyclopedic, and belong in Wikipedia. It's less clear that the opinion that those results represent a "manufactured controvery" is similarly appropriate.  Simply providing a label that is POV is perfectly OK in an op-ed, but not in an encyclopedia. - DGaw (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These are not op-eds but the editorial voices of both publications. I think that's an important distinction. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That opinions happen to come from reporters and editors who work at the NYT or Newsweek seems somewhat immaterial as far as neutrality is concerned. Wikipedia is held to a different standard of neutrality than are those publications, no? My sense is the article would be stronger without any of this editorializing, and that if this paragraph belongs at all, it belongs down in the Reactions section, not the intro.  If, however, we're going to leave it here, I think it still needs a bit of work.  The NYT and Newsweek quotes offer opinion supporting one side of the controversy, while the Economist reference simply comments on the other side, without providing a balancing opinion.  I'll go ahead and cite an RS which does, and, let's see how that works. - DGaw (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of that paragraph is to add perspective to the article, by providing a fair assessment of independent media reactions. Yes, that would be the staff of reputable publications, as opposed to partisans. The question is whether it fairly represents the reaction to the studies of the scandal. Are there other notable reactions we need to include and, if so, do they make that paragraph too large? Should there be a media reactions section? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Here's another reaction article. I suggest that we either add this to the lead or elsewhere, with a summary in the lead section. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DGaw - can you explain what you mean by "it's less than clear" that this POV - present from the start, but now substantiated by the reports - should be in the article? I don't quite get the basis for your assertion. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. As you know, Wikipedia's job is to describe a controversy, including a fair characterization of both sides, not take a side in it.  Neutrally stating the positions of both sides of the disagreement, including what the reports found, is entirely appropriate.  Reading the last paragraph, I instead get the impression from the tone that the editor(s) who drafted it agree with the opinions presented in the NYT and Newsweek, and are including them here to advocate for them--as if the article should persuade the reader that the scientists were right, and the skeptics were wrong.  (This may not be how the editors feel--but it's how the sentence comes across.)  Maybe it just needs a bit of work. - DGaw (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the controversy was "manufactured" in that the perpetrators who released the emails were deliberately provoking a scandal designed to draw the public's attention to the skeptical viewpoint of climate change, derail or at least hinder the aims of Copenhagen summit, and penetrate the insular world of CC scientists. In this they succeeded. Where this WP article is NPOV is in assuming the scientists were above reproach and the perpetrators, beyond the criminality and breach of privacy entailed in the theft and publication themselves, are maliciously spreading false accusations against the innocent. Advocacy has sometimes held sway, although I don't want to exaggerate the case--a good deal of balancing material has been allowed to stand. A fair complaint is that the opinions of some editors are markedly exhibited, whereas ideally, our opinions should be wholly hidden, Cronkite-like, behind our strict neutrality.

The Russell review examined three areas: honesty, rigour,  and openness. (See p. 10, point 8.) The scientists went 2 for 3, and we need to present that as verifiably and neutrally as humanly possible. Also see p. 94, point 32: ''The Review found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance) by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR. We believe that this must change and that leadership is required from the University‘s most senior staff in driving through a positive transformation of attitudes. Public trust in science depends on an inherent culture of honesty, rigour and transparency.'' --Yopienso (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the inquiries found, the honesty and rigour of the scientists is unimpeached, climate change science has already set a level of transparency going beyond most other fields of science but the proposed openness to meet the demands of internet access and blogging is an untried experiment. As both Mann and Jones have stated, this ends emails as a quick and informal method of private discussion, and considering every word for possible misinterpretation will take time and involve extra costs which will have to be funded if progress is to be maintained. Something our article should cover. It'll be interesting to see if governments remain keen on this degree of public scrutiny of private communications. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is false. None of the inquiries dealt with the "rigour" of the scientists, and climate change science has set a level of hiding the raw data untried in other fields of science.  (Many other fields don't make the raw data available, but climate change science is the only field where it is denied that the raw data (or even the list of ground stations) still exists, without noting that it discredits the irreproducible results.)
 * The Mann and Jones comments about E-mail seem relevant, but that's not the only thing going on. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to check your facts. For a start, the scientists couldn't possibly hide the raw data because they're not the collectors or keepers of the raw data. The raw data can only be hidden by the national meteorological services that are responsible for collecting and preserving them. Your claim that "none of the inquiries dealt with the 'rigour' of the scientists also has no factual basis, as the latest report specifically upheld the "rigor and honesty" of those involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is original research, but I don't see how point 18 of the executive summary is consistent with scientific rigor. Personally, I would want outside, even critical, researchers to be able to confirm my results.  But that may just be my personal quirk.
 * The Russell review at executive summary point 8 specifies: "It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work." Some people are conflating scientific (or academic) rigour with scientific accuracy.
 * As for governments, the US Government has required that Barack Obama's BlackBerry automatically archive sent and received messages. I agree that it probably does make things more difficult for the President, but.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The next big question to tackle is if the reports were done by people of neutral or bipartisan viewpoints. If the investigation was done by people who agree with the CRU, what's the point in even listening to their conclusions? PokeHomsar (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have to tackle that question here or anywhere else. As encyclopedia writers, we do not investigate the viewpoints of individuals or engage in witch hunts based on preconceived conclusions.  We leave that kind of nonsense to the pundit puppet show of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and their gullible, uncritical audience who lap it up, spoon after spoon, hour after hour.  And it's not a coincidence that they are the very ones pushing this now debunked and discredited story.  The line must be drawn here. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we can tackle that question, if it's discussed in reliable sources. It's not absurd to conjecture that &mdash; at least for the reports requested by CRU &mdash; that the committees were selected to be people generally familiar with the scientists in question, who might be disposed toward those scientists.  We can't say that if not reported in a reliable source, but we can say it if is is reported in a reliable source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shorter Arthur Rubin: let's add conspiracy theories to the article! I can't see how anything could possibly go wrong with that... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have a conspiracy theory in the article, right there in the lede, although it's brief: "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal". So far, no evidence has been presented to support this alleged conspiracy, but that's typical of conspiracy theories. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, we have a lot of evidence that newspapers and media outlets run by a singular entity pushed a false news story in the press which promoted false claims about climate science and misleading quotes attributed to sources who have denied making them. We also have a previous record of the same entity doing the exact same thing on other issues in the past, establishing a consistent pattern. This is academic. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please identify the "singular entity"--I'm lost. --Yopienso (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reaction section?
I wonder if there's any interest in building a "media reactions" section, with a cogent summary in the lead paragraph? I'm not around for much of the next week, but perhaps others could do this. I think it would be helpful to have a thorough discussion of the media analysis, so as to provide a bit of context, especially on its impact on GW generally. More can be made of the Christian Science Monitor article, for instance, and the recent Guardian article should be cited if that hasn't already been done. The objective is to provide a representative sampling of media reaction, which I would define as reaction by professional journalists and not reaction by partisans/scientists/activists. My initial observation is that the US media seems more to take the "they've been exonerated" stance, while the UK media is more nuanced, more focused on the lack of transparency.

I was struck by the comparable and harsh wording used by Newsweek and the NY Times. I think that that needs to be specifically mentioned in the lead, in summary fashion, while expounded upon in greater detail in the separate section. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Media reaction" sections are generally abused by POV pushers, as such sections allow editors to cherry pick whatever opinion they want. Two examples of this problem that come to mind are Sicko and A New Beginning.  What we need instead, is coverage of of the meta-media reaction, in other words, reliable sources which have analyzed the controversy as it was reported by the media.  This will cover the poor reporting, the manufactured allegations, and the personal attacks that occurred as a coordinated attack against key climate scientists, which used conservative media outlets as a soapbox to push an anti-climate science agenda and pursue the scientists in the op/ed sections of certain newspapers.  Yes, we need this section. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, fair point. However, I think that we need the media mentions in the article, preferably somewhere other than clustered in the lead. At the moment, the only meta article I know of was in CJR. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The info in this paragraph from that article, Scotty, could be worked into ours; I think we've reached a consensus on everything in it except for the use of the term “Climategate.”

"In a similar vein, the 'Climategate' investigation in the U.K., which was called for by the University of East Anglia but run independently by former civil servant Sir Muir Russell, criticized climate scientists for 'a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness' with regard to dealing with public requests for information and complying with freedom of information laws. Both the Dutch review and the Russell report are, however, just the latest in a series of reviews dispelling the notion pushed by many global-warming skeptics this winter that climate science is a corrupt field coming apart at the seams." --Yopienso (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with a lot of sources is that they sound like they are repeating information from a press conference without any critical thought. Really bad MSM journalism. Then we have the hardcore right wing nuts. Guess what they write? The really critical in-depth coverage is hard to find. I would put the CJR article in the (mostly) non-critical bin. The writer is an environmental reporter with a "proven track record". Guess his focus? So what is good and what is bad? I think a "media reactions" section could work but to make it in a fair an balanced way all media reports should be cataloged and sorted and then a few representative samples selected. That's way too much work but that's what I think it would take.91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty tricks
This topic has ratfucking written all over it, but not a single mention of the dirty tricks tactics that were used against the climate scientists. I suggest that this angle be taken up, and sources found to support its inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I found at least one source on this topic:

The irony of this story is that climate change deniers are notorious for their dirty tricks. During the Bush administration, satellite images showing the shrinking ice cover in the Arctic – an emblem of the damage done by climate change – were kept secret. In 2007, a committee on US government reform criticised systematic efforts “to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to Congress”...The book Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan and Richard Little­more documents minutely how naysayers manipulated and fabricated data to support their position. A case in point is the way one relatively cool year (2008) – a widely predicted blip – has been used to suggest that the world is cooling when, as Ed Miliband keeps reminding us, we have had nine of the 10 warmest years on record in the past 15 years....Much of the denial industry is driven by the oil and coal industries. A conference in New York in March, entitled “Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?”, was organised by the Heartland Institute, funded by Exxon Mobil until three years ago. And a leaked memo recently revealed the much-quoted Professor Michaels is funded by an electricity company running coal-fired power stations...This lobby has succeeded in confusing the public. A recent poll in Britain suggests around one-third think the link between climate change and man-made emissions remains unproven, and 15% do not believe global warming is happening at all. The instinct for balance in the serious media is partly to blame for this because of the platform these titles give to climate change creationists and the way analysis often treats both sides equally. Meanwhile, several of the right-inclined tabloids are overtly sceptical. Recently Sir Nicholas Stern, the government adviser on the economics of climate change, compared the naysayers to “flat-earthers”. “If you look at all the serious scientists in the world, there is no big disagreement on the basics of this,” he said.
 * Viriditas, do you have a source which specifically states that there were any "dirty tricks" here, besides the discussions among the CRU staff about strategies they could use to get away with not responding to FOIA requests? Remember, if the statute of limitations hadn't expired, Jones and others at East Anglia would now be potentially facing criminal prosecution.  Also, the emails help show the concerted, behind-the-scenes effort to get Amman's paper, which helped "save" the hockey stick, published in time for it to be used in the IPCC report.  Some of these efforts appear to have attempted to subvert the peer-review process, although not enough, evidently, to result in a finding by the investigations.  There are "dirty tricks" on both sides.  We should report on all them as they appear in reliable sources.  I think when the first books start coming out in a few months we'll have ample sources and information to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "I suggest that this angle be taken up, and sources found to support its inclusion." No, no, no. That's a recipe for a bad article.  Instead, you read your sources first, and then base your article content on the sources, not the other way around.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the campaign being waged against climate science and climate scientists is well documented and has been going on for years. This topic is only the latest example.  The angle I am talking about is already well sourced, and should become a part of this narrative. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you should be cognizant of WP:SYN issues. In any case, we should start with the sources first, not seek out sources to support some pre-conceived notion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Viriditas, I haven't seen much documentation on "dirty tricks" used by the sceptical lobby, besides blog posts in RealClimate and DeSmogBlog. If you're talking about fake grass-roots groups set up by lobbying interests, I haven't seen much in any sources stating that they had anything to do with what these scientists were saying to each other in these emails.  It's true that Mann, Jones, and some of the others did appear to have a siege mentality, but most of their ire was directed at McIntyre and others who had legimitate concerns, including papers published in peer-reviewed journals, criticizing their work.  That's one of the reasons for Mann's famous email diatribe against that science journal which printed a paper he didn't approve of.  No dirty tricks there, at least from the sceptical side.  In my opinion, the main story here is not dirty tricks by the sceptical side, but the constant, ongoing tug of war going on over the veracity and credibility of the hockey team's and CRU's research methods, using tree rings, weather reporting stations, etc., and how the data was collected.  This story isn't well represented in this article but I expect that forthcoming books will explore it more completely. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that environmental issues bring up some rather dirty tricks and there is some merit in including this as background information. But the thing is dirty tricks go both ways. I remember being recruited (unsuccessfully) into a environmental group that used tricks such as breaking and entering, vandalism, sabotage of day-to-day operations etc etc. Big business of course also tries to protect its interests but in general legal means suffice. With the exception of heated debate and bizarre arguments this has been a mostly disorganized war of words. Also I don't get the logic of blaming oil and coal while missing the point that the nuclear lobby is winning. We just got 3 new nuclear power plants approved here in Finland. Thank you climate change!91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The source Viriditas has found is from the early days of this topic, and while it does state "This is a reference to “Climategate”, the row over leaked emails... The irony of this story is that climate change deniers are notorious for their dirty tricks.", it's a comment piece by Anne Johnstone whose credentials are unknown to me. As and when better sources analysing this aspect are found, we can duly consider the reliability of these sources and as appropriate add a summary of their statements to the article. A couple worth examining: Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies | Environment | guardian.co.uk, and Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk, to be read with the linked response by Santer. . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, I've sent a note to Anne Johnstone regarding her credentials. No idea when or if she will respond.  Meanwhile, you will appreciate this later column of hers. Note the paragraph beginning "Ergo..." that discusses what we call undue weight.  --Yopienso (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At first skim, "The irony about the UEA story is that, if anyone is routinely manipulating data, it’s the deniers" is an interesting comment. A bit old now, there's a more up to date news story in The Herald. . .dave souza, talk 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My object was in reading more of Johnstone, not in reading more about "Climategate" (as both Johnstone and the anonymous author of the 8 Jul 2010 report call it.) My thought was that you would consider her a RS. The "Ergo..." paragraph speaks of overdone "fairness and balance." Johnstone herself has no worries about balance as she rushes to defend the CRU's honesty and rigour and disparage those who questioned it. She offers insightful comments on how the CRU should adjust to the 21st century with its attendant cares of transparency and public relations. The even-keeled tone of the report to which you link, though differing nothing in substance, is more to my personal taste and what I'd like to see at WP. --Yopienso (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As most of you know The Guardian published a series of articles, 12 in total, by Fred Pearce. Highly recommended reading! While there is no lack of material it also presents a great opportunity to pick and choose soundbites. The articles are quite nuanced. Has anyone read the book he wrote? I've heard very little about it.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Grauniad articles are poor, in my opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that Fred Pearce has problems with going too far in being "fair and balanced", which has put me off buying his book. However, the newspaper report series is still one of the better sources on the controversy, so far. . dave souza, talk 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Viriditas. This is viewed by many, and possibly titled at one point, as a "hacking" scandal. It was correct not to make that the title, but there could be more on the illicit aspects, if sourcing exists. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The police investigation is ongoing, and as is normal in the United Kingdom the police do not say much until they have completed their investigation, except for instance to make appeals for witnesses to crimes. So there's nothing much to say. --TS 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I meant it when I said we won't be using books written by cranks as reliable sources on factual matters on Wikipedia. --TS 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, to be honest, that sounds like censorship of views and opinions you don't approve of. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's the minimum requirement for representation of verifiable facts.


 * Books by cranks can be cited to represent the views of the cranks, where it is appropriate to do so, and with consideration to due weight. So for instance we wouldn't want to give anything like as much space in this article to a book on the subject by a blogger without any qualifications as to a report by a committee of experts who have interviewed the principals and deliberated on the charges.


 * Note my correct distinction here and in my previous comment on how we source facts on Wikipedia. --TS 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is not censorship of disapproved views and opinions; it's a necessary focus on mainstream reliable sources. The situation might be different if the book had been written by an established scientist with a publication history in this field, or perhaps even if it had been written by a mainstream journalist. But a debut book by a blogger with no relevant qualifications is a very different kettle of fish, particularly when the view it presents is decisively rejected by the experts and when the book itself has been ignored in print outside a very small circle of like-minded individuals. This is a simple issue of basic quality control. We wouldn't use a book by a creationist blogger in an article about evolution, nor one by a moon landing conspiracy theorist in an article about the Apollo programme. The fact that fellow creationists or moon landing conspiracy theorists make favourable comments about such books would not by itself make such a book a reliable source, nor one worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are you are at odds with our RS guideline, which is why your views amount to censorship, IMO. The question is not if to use sources like those, if published by independent publishing houses, but how. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Don't forget that WP:RS requires sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:FRINGE/PS also applies in this situation, since Montford argues a pseudoscientific POV: "editors should be careful not to present [pseudoscientific] views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please name the book we're discussing here? I know I'm a bit behind in my talk page reading, but I read through the conversation here and I found no previous reference to a book. Perhaps I missed it. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford ("Bishop Hill"). Currently under discussion at Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion and WP:RSN. Basically, Cla68 and Marknutley are pushing for it to be used as a source, while lots of other editors disagree. This has prompted a very lengthy discussion of the book's reliability and suitability as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla68 if you think either of us is at odds with the reliable sources guideline, I suggest you read it again. It is a question of if as much as how we use a source.  Firstly we don't ever use unreliable sources for factual statements, least of all where factual claims are contradicted by more reliable sources.  Secondly we don't give undue weight to sources that represent a fringe point of view.  This includes but is not limited to those that allege a conspiracy in the face of the evidence as judged by the preponderance of reliable sources on the facts.


 * So the fact that a minority view exists should certainly be mentioned, but that should not be given undue weight, and detail may be inappropriate. Where a factual claim (rather than an opinion) is asserted by a source such as a blogger with no competence on the facts, particularly where that factual claim is contradicted by more competent, reliable sources, the factual claim cannot be asserted as a fact on Wikipedia.  Finally, where the only source for an opinion or factual claim is crank books and blogs, we may not source some crank sources at all (and I suggest that this will often be the case here, where a very, very conclusive result had been found).  But we'd have to have a specific source and a specific citation form to discuss before we can be sure.


 * In reply to Scotty, I have no specific example in mind and I don't think Cla68 has one as yet. Cla68 seems to be thinking of future books that support his unorthodox take on the facts. We've had problems in the past with editors including Cla68 trying to cite unreliable sources, I think on one of the articles about the IPCC. --TS 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, you might have missed the discussions elsewhere on using The Hockey Stick Illusion as a source. Cla68 is specifically pushing to use it as a source in a range of articles. See my comment to Scotty above for links. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Chris, I needed a laugh. From a glance, Cla68 appears to be advocating exactly what I feared he planned to do: that we cite a book written by a non-expert to support a factual statement.  Is that correct, Cla68?  --TS 01:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention Talk:Hockey stick controversy, where Cla68 makes his view pretty clear at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, looking at the discussion I see that I did comment. Cla68 unashamedly states his opinion that by virtue of being a book the Montford work is a more reliable source on the hockey stick than blog postings written by climate scientists including Zorita and von Storch who have written peer reviewed papers on the subject.  Honestly I'd forgotten all about it.  --TS 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I've said elsewhere, it's fundamentally unnecessary to cite the book for the "dry historical facts" that Cla68 wants to document - they're documented elsewhere by indisputably reliable sources. This is like using a book by William A. Dembski to cite facts about evolution that are recorded by Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins, or using the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorist Bill Kaysing to provide "balance" to an article citing Gene Kranz's history of the US space programme. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, blog posts are self-published sources. Please review our guideline on reliable sources.  ChrisO, strawmen aren't helpful.  Rest assured, the both of you, that any books I or anyone else use in this article in the future will, like Illusion, meet our RS guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony's point is that Illusion is a fringe source - it's directly comparable to the fringe sources on other topics that I just mentioned. As for blog posts, please note that there are a few very limited circumstances in which those are acceptable as sources, as WP:SPS states. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Opinion piece by Patrick Michaels: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a point to this, other than pushing your own agenda? OpEds are not reliable sources, as you should know by now. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are a reliable source for the opinion of the source, in this case the Patrick Michaels, who is notable. If this is not the case, then material sourced to Revkin, Monbiot and other commentators have to go as well. WVBluefield (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the others specifically from the Opinion section, as this one is? Revkin and Monibot's do not appear to be so, but if there are problems with using them as sources, the solutino is not to pile on worse ones.  What I object to here is this sort of simplistic link-dropping, a "look at me, I found someone out there who supports my point-of-view!" thing.  That's all that this is here, soapboxing, with no suggestion for how, why, or, where it would be included in the article.  That is what his page here is for, discussing article inclusion, not link-bombing the OpEd du jour.  That's the kind of stuff we used to have to deal with the dearly-departed  in the Obama-related articles. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with including a mention of this article somewhere. It seems to be a comprehensive enunciation of that point of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that as one of the few actual climate scientists with such extreme views Patrick Michaels' combination of qualifications, experience and willingness to go on the record with those views combine to make a good case for mentioning that article. --TS 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added this in a new subsection called reception of reports mark nutley (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. I can see no reason to bother including PM's opinion. Also that piece, toegther with the Economist, gives a badly unbalanced view of the reception William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PM's opinion is relevant because it is a notable voice in the Climategate scandal. In fact, I'm a bit shocked how little we have of him in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is i am sure easy enough to balance out the new subsection wit hequal positive reviews of the reports mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily. PM's piece is buried deep in the article.  OTOH, Newsweek's blog and NYT's editorial are featured prominently in the lede.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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


 * To be honest, I've never been a fan of citing opinion pieces for contentious material. Especially when there are plenty of secondary reliable sources to cite.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, and I've rarely (if ever) seen an opinion piece used as a source. In fact, I'm convinced that it was POV pushers who have encouraged the use of op/ed's on Wikipedia over the years; It's rare to find a FA that even uses them.  Let's put your money where your mouth is, AQFK, and agree (by consensus) to remove all opinion pieces from this article and only use reliable books and news sources written by authors in their respective fields and journalists who we can all consider neutral in their approach and presentation as well as scholarly, peer-reviewed sources.  Deal? Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: I'd go a step further and rip out all the primary sources out of the article. Primary sources are a POV-warrior's wet dream because they often spin things in manner that is preferable to their particular POV.  In fact, I'd like to see our sourcing rules tightened to discourage their use for contentious material or controversial articles.  I don't recall if you were around in the early days of the article, but I argued that we should only be citing secondary reliable sources.  Unfortunately, I lost that debate.  So right now, the consensus of the editors at this article is that primary sources (including opinion pieces) are acceptable.  If you can get everyone to change their minds, be my guest.  But me, I've given up that argument.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are used often in both secondary and tertiary sources, and they have a long history of use in encyclopedias. The problem you are describing is misuse.  Primary sources can be used constructively, accurately, and are of great benefit to the reader.  Perhaps you could help draft an essay that helps editors use primary sources effectively? Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: Yes, I agree with your point about misuse. There's nothing wrong with citing primary sources per se.  In fact, I did three times yesterday for the oh so beautiful Jennie Finch but this was for non-contentious material in a non-controversial article.  Sure, I can help you write a user essay about this.  Can you start it in your user space and post a link to it in my talk page?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an interesting idea. If I have time tomorrow, I'll see what I can do.  Although I don't know what the status of the article is at the moment, I recall that there was a misuse of primary sources in the Terri Schiavo case article at one point, and I might have unknowingly contributed to the problem, so I may be able to draw up some examples from that topic. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

(Edit conflict)
 * First, I apologize for not noticing the section directly above this one in which you are grasping at straws to defend your deletion. Having now read it, I ask you to stop this wiki-lawyering that damages the integrity of our article.
 * Are you saying the CRU scientists did not adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity? Are you suggesting this statement applies to them?


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


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


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


 * Here you go: "lectr then reader Sch of Environmental Science UEA 1968-86" http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/b/8047/Geoffrey%20Stewart+BOULTON.aspx  And here's the html of a download from Channel 14.
 * Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, Yopienso, this material was cunningly hidden by being announced in full by Boulton at the inquiry's first press conference on 11 February, and allegations of bias raised the following day were dismissed in a statement. As the article now notes. Michaels is dragging up an old story, is this really news or does it say more about Michaels than about Boulton? . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, removed as dubious BLP material with little or no notability. We've been reminded recently not to give undue weight to isolated complaints about people. . dave souza, talk 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you all please try harder to compromise on the suggested text? In my opinion it can be shortened in length and reworded in a way that makes it sound less partisan. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The fact that Michaels includes "the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia" among the "many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity" does not disqualify him as a RS. The Times article on the signing of the petition defending the science of climate change states, "Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,..."
 * @Cla68 and all editors: As the "Media reception" section currently stands, there are brief examples from strictly RSs that run the gamut from "Yay!  All cleared!" to "Cleared, but..." to "Unsatisfactorily reviewed...."  All that's missing is any mention of the word "whitewash," which is the cry being taken up by some reliable conservative sources.  And it may be premature to insert that now, since WP is not a newspaper.  --Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Yopienso, good point about the "whitewash" responses, but of course we mustn't exaggerate their significance. What's needed is a good quality meta-analysis commenting on media coverage rather than trying to pick out primary source examples such as the article by Michaels. . . dave souza, talk 04:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reception to CRU outside exams
A proposed addition:


 * Harsher criticism came from senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic, who wrote that "The climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."
 * Source: Climategate and the Big Green Lie, The Atlantic, Jul 14 2010. Crook's CV

I think this is a noteworthy criticism, as Crook, a veteran journalist, takes pains to note that he is not a climate-change skeptic. Rather, he believes the CRU inquiries have further damaged the public confidence in climate science. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's beyond silly. What has damaged public confidence in understanding the science behind climate change (the primary issue that nobody addresses) is the fact that the media outlets, which were used to attack scientists in round one, failed to follow up on those attacks in round two.  Since retractions, corrections, reports and apologies don't bleed, they just don't lead.  So, the complete and abject failure of journalists and the editors who control them, to accurately report this story is the problem.  Stop blaming scientists and the ignorant and gullible public.  Until journalism improves across the board and begins reporting according to the most basic standards and ethics of that profession, nothing will change.  Sensationalism and misinformation is not news, it's poor reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think with understanding your are really meaning belief of faith. The public rarely understands issues based on knowledge gained by personal in-depth study. The faith in the authority or projected truth of climate science has been damaged. Unfortunately this is bad for any branch of science.91.153.115.15 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Understanding means just that, and it's the responsibility of the media to promote it.  They have failed to uphold this role, and instead, have promoted a campaign of personal attacks against climate scientists and the science in particular, at the behest of special interests.  The public understands a great deal when they are given accurate information.  Basic critical thinking skills help, but these are discouraged of course, since they totally undermine the control mechanism.  When people learn to think for themselves, they no longer require others to do their thinking for them.  It's therefore incredibly ironic that the very charlatans who claim to preach the gospel of libertarian values, rugged individualism, limited government, and free markets, are the exact same groups behind the manufactured "climategate" farce which seeks to manipulate the discourse, confuse the public, and limit the freedom of the press and democracy as a whole.  The public can understand the issues when they are presented with correct information.  The role of the media is to inform society, so that citizens have the necessary information to make good choices.  It is obvious that the media has failed and journalism reform is desperately needed. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are telling a correct functioning media should promote the truth? How do the media determine the truth? By putting blind faith into authorities? I think not. That sounds disturbingly like a socialist utopia. I agree with you that the media is the problem but my conclusions differ. The problem is that looking at the climategate affair I can not draw the conclusion that everything is fine.91.153.115.15 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop distorting every word I write. I've said nothing about politics, political systems, or forms of government.  And, I've said nothing about faith or beliefs, which are just more of your previous distortions.  The only thing I've said, and what I'm continuing to say, is that in a democracy, the media has a specific role.  Their job is to inform and educate, so that the citizen, the electorate, and society as a whole, can make good choices and decisions.  In other words, the media is expected to function in the public interest, not out of loyalty to special interests. Others will go further, and say that the media should also act as a watchdog against abuses by government and business. Now, some people will twist and distort this and argue that the media is doing their job, and here, we see them protecting the public from the "lies" of the scientists and those who would claim that the Earth is warming due to human influence.  But, we've already been down this road, and we know that this is another distortion.  We know, that in this case, the media is representing special interests (coal, oil), and it is not a coincidence that the key people and groups involved are directly connected with these interests.  Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete, I'll add to that an article I read some days ago--can't remember if it was mentioned at some WP page or if I just came across it on the net--by Janet Daley in the Telegraph and quoted in the CS Monitor. Then there's the Pat Michaels opinion in the WSJ that caused such a ruckus here today.

What we want to avoid, though, is cramming a bunch of quotes into the present article. It's not an index and requires only a representative sampling, which it currently has. Perhaps later some brave soul will undertake a new article on the alleged whitewash. (Btw, what do you mean by "outside exams"?) --Yopienso (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no comment. But since we're sort-of sticking to editorials by national newspapers, we should add something from this WSJ Europe editorial -- perhaps the bit that the Muir Russell report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." But it's too late here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a copy of that article here in case anyone wants to read it without paying Murdoch and his band of science deniers any money. Clearly it's a biased opinion piece with not even a cursory nod toward science and/or reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A slightly-different version ran in the US ed. today. Here's a free copy. It is striking how much criticism the UEA reports are getting in the MSM. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, secondary analysis of news coverage is needed as a basis of the section rather than picking out examples that we ourselves see as significant. The NYT editorial is unusual in that it comments on press coverage rather than expressing its own views, we really need more reliable analysis rather than opinions for and against the outcome. . . dave souza, talk 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Impact of the controversy
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/08/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change How has 'Climategate' affected the battle against climate change? | David Adam | Environment | The Guardian] presents various views on the impact. Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause | Full Comment | National Post by Jonathan Kay gives a conservative opinion on conservative perceptions, making specific reference to this controversy. . . dave souza, talk 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

Do not use opinion pieces by partisans to source factual information about people those partisans see benefit in making look foolish by misrepresenting their actions. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That petition was created due to climategate and for that purpose only. Your BLP claim is obviously flawed mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And you might want to remove your accusation of slander against Michael`s as it is a blp breach mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal beliefs about why a petition was created and what it says are not verifiable, and not relevent for inclusion in articlespace. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It`s not my opinion and it is easily verified And this is something you already knew. I shall ask you again to remove your attack on an identifiable living person mark nutley (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your new link doesn't say what you say it says. Michael's says the petition was about the UEA, and you apparently agree. The petition, and the article you've now linked, say otherwise. In fact, the article you quote makes it clear that "Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach." Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions" The petition was a direct response to climategate, try again mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, it being a response to "Climategate" doesn't mean that it declares that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your splitting hairs, not surprising. I shall revert your removal of well sourced content tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, I am not splitting hairs. Your opinion piece says something demonstrably false, and you are pledging to edit war the false statements about a living person back into the article. Are you being serious? Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are splitting hairs, the petition is exactly what Michaels says it is. Which is what i posted above. I am not edit warring, i am intending to reinsert reliably sourced information which has been removed on spurious grounds, Thank you for removing the attack btw mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You alledge that the petition mentions the CRU or the UEA? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m not alleging anything, i am using my common sense. You know that petition was created due to climategate, this has already been shown to you. I have no intention of going in circles here. The facts are the facts. mark nutley (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Commonsense is not verifiable. Reliable sources make it quite clear that the petition he signed did not state anything about the UEA scientists. That michaels makes a false statement about living persons designed to damage said persons credibility is problematic. We must not repeat his error. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe what you are doing here is termed "wikilawyering" we are meant to use our common sense. I`m done discussing this with you as you are obviously wrong but are unable to admit it mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he's quite right. If a statement about living persons is indisputably false, then we have a responsibility not to repeat the falsehood. That really is BLP 101. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As has now been clearly deonstrated, it was a BLP concern and MN should not have reverted it back it with his simple assertion that it wasn't. Verbal chat  18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It`s not a blp issue, he signed the petition as shown above. There is no falsehood in the statement by Michaels is correct, what we have here is hair splitting to keep a critique out mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, he clearly signed the statement, but it says nothing about either the CRU or the UEA. The key line in it is the statement that the data "come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity." "Scientists across the world" is a loose, non-specific category that does not identify any specific institution. Michaels appears to be under the mistaken impression that the statement was specifically circulated to support the CRU. In fact, as the statement makes clear, it is about having confidence in climate science in general and specifically in the "observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the only reason that petition was started was because of climategate, it was done with the direct purpose to support cru. You guys know this, I have pointed it out above, but quite simply you do not want the criticism in mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO: IIRC, that petition was a direct response to the Climategate scandal. Just because the statement itself doesn't mention the CRU specifically, doesn't negate this connection.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but irrelevent. That the petition was a response to the "Climategate" scandal doesn't mean the petition says what it dosen't say. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Michaels states as a fact that the petition referred to "that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia". But a simple read of the text shows that it identifies no institutions or individuals. It's a generic vote of confidence in climate scientists as a generic group, not a statement in favour of any specific institution or individual. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But as I understand the value of the Michaels article, it is not as a source on BLPs but solely to depict the view of a leading adherent of the skeptical POV. The inaccuracy cited strikes me as insufficient to justify exclusion of the article for that limited purpose. Obviously it can't be used as a BLP source, but that's not its purpose here. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Apologies. I made my comment before reading the latest version of the article, and seeing that Michaels is indeed used as a BLP source. I had advocated his article be used as a source for his opinion, not as a source on a BLP. I agree that he should not be used as a source on a person, and that the current usage is unacceptable. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These are good points, while the worst of the paragraph had been removed, the remainder is little more than ill-informed grumbling from Patrick Michaels and not very notable. If the best the skeptics can manage is a claim of "bias" repeated from 12 February, it's not much to go on. On that basis I've removed the paragraph, please discuss this BLP issue before restoring it in whole or in part. The WSJ spreading skeptic misinformation is, sadly, unsurprising. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

New books
The following two books on this controversy were published in April and may be of some use. I myself would rather wait a few more months and use books which have more of the full story, including an assessment of the three investigations.
 * Sussman, Brian, Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, WorldNetDaily, April 22, 2010, ISBN-10: 1935071831. This book appears to be about as partisan as it can get, but it's author is notable enough to have a Wikipedia BLP.
 * Spencer, Roy, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists, Encounter Books, April 13, 2010, ISBN-10: 1594033730. This guy has more credibility, as he is a climatologist. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, an intelligent design advocate and a talk show host are obviously going to be reliable sources for climate science... And by the way, you can definitely cross Sussman off your list; anything that comes out of WorldNetDaily is automatically unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, I don't think Spencer's views on ID have any relevency here. I think you may be taking this topic a little too seriously and personally.  Remember, we don't care who is right or wrong, we just report what the sources are saying.  I don't think these two books have the full story on this particular topic, as not all the investigations were completed when these books were published.  So, while they may have some limited use, I recommend that we wait a little longer for more books to come out. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, when you seem to be on a mission to promote the most fringe sources possible there's reason to be concerned. It doesn't say much for your judgement of sources that you think a book published by WorldNetDaily and written by a talk show host could be "of some use" as a source on a science issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate that remark, ChrisO, and don't find it to be very helpful for us to collaborate and cooperate on this article. My point is, that you have to, and this goes for me too, try to leave personal feelings and biases "at the door" when editing a Wikipedia article.  You have to examine each source by the information it brings towards improving the article.  I have said that these two books probably don't bring very much, although they might provide more background on how the Hockey stick controversy is related to what is contained in the emails.  This would be useful, as the mainstream press hasn't really explored this much although the Guardian article did to some extent.  We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking for is that you show a little bit of common sense with bringing sources to the discussion. There's no point even mentioning Sussman's book, given its complete unusability as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that dismissing a source without even looking at it is unhelpful. I have used sources in other articles which were written by authors with which I didn't agree with everything they had to say on that or other topics.  That's what I mean by leaving our personal biases at the door.  Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, excuse me for butting it, but as I'm viewing this dialog from the outside, it seems you are pushing. You suggested the Sussman book knowing full well it would not be considered WP:RS, as well as the other which, although from a more credible author, would not readily find acceptance at WP. This follows on the heels of your promoting the Montford book about the CRU emails. Please hold up your end of the collaboration and cooperation you want to enjoy. I suggest you step back from bringing up material that would not be found helpful by many Wikipedians.  Respectfully, --Yopienso (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Cla68 on this. Good or bad, dismissing a source without looking at it and understanding why we shouldn't use it isn't helpful.  Yeah, Chris0's impatience is understandable considering what gets brought up around here, but I for one appreciate Cla68's open mind on the subject.  Remember, it's the smell of garbage that reminds us to throw it out.  I think it's necessary to get a whiff of it every now and then to keep us on our toes. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Viriditas. The more books we have on the subject, the better.  It will be very helpful if, in the future, there are books written which take the CRU's side on this controversy.  Hopefully, one or more will be forthcoming in a few months' time.  Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understood the point of Viriditas's comment. Re-read the last two sentences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SBHB, the discussion threads above have shown that there have been widely divergent opinions on the nature and significance of the email controversy in the mass media. The books that will be written on it I imagine will also contain many different opinions on the topic.  One approach we could take to addressing this is to label any book written which criticizes the CRU and the hockey stick research as "trash" written by "cranks" and refuse to acknowledge it.  Or, we could work together to use all the independently published sources to come up with a fair and balanced article which reflects what the sources in todo are saying.  I think the latter will produce a better and more informative article. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fair and balanced"? I think I've heard that somewhere before... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the most exasperating things about you, Cla68, is the way you constantly twist and misrepresent what others have said (Tony's complaint below deals with the same issue). Nobody is "labeling any book written which criticizes the CRU and the hockey stick research as "trash" written by "cranks" and refusing to acknowledge it." That is a complete strawman. Criticising the CRU and the hockey stick research is not an indicator of cranky trash. Authorship by fringe figures with no expertise in the field and publication by junk sources like WorldNetDaily is such an indicator. When I object to Sussman, I don't do so on the basis of his views of the CRU and the hockey stick (I don't know what they are, though I can guess from the title). I do so because the book raises every red flag possible - authorship by a non-expert (a talk show host, for goodness' sake!), a fringe POV apparent in the title, and publication by a source - WorldNetDaily - that numerous RSN discussions have found to be unusable. These days anyone can publish a book, but the mere fact that something appears in print does not make it reliable or worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * That's what worries me: that you often argue that we adopt an idiosyncratic definition of reliability that would, if we followed it, result in our citing terribly unreliable sources on factual matters where in fact we, as an encyclopedia, demand the most reliable sourcing available. --TS 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the evaluation of sources rests on what I consider the worst guideline we have, Identifying reliable sources. IRS does nothing to help editors evaluate and identify reliable sources, and intentionally talks around the subject by introducing ambiguity.  So, rather than blaming Cla68, why not help rewrite the guideline? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Easier said than done. There's a troika who make a concerted effort to control the sourcing policies. They make it so difficult to change them that it's hardly worth the bother. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have support for a major change; I've been testing the waters for some time. The major objection is any change must be compatible with WP:NPOV and WP:V, and any other relevant policy.  But, I think the timing is right. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys still seem to be missing the central issue here, which is the way Wikipedia is structured. This is a project built by amateurs, if it wasn't, we would be required to identify ourselves and our qualifications, like Citizendium.  For that reason, it is acknowledged that we are in no position to decide what can and can't be used as a source, besides the obvious ones, like self-published sources (blogs, self-published books, tracts, etc).  Thus, our emphasis on verifiability, not truth.  We report what the sources say and leave it up to the reader to decide on the credibility and truthfulness of it.  Yes, that requires us to cooperate and compromise in contentious topic areas.  I have faith that we can do so. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can evaluate a source based on criteria for reliability. You don't need to be an expert to do that.  The emphasis on verifiability does not mean we can use creationist sources to write about evolutionary biology.  One problem with the "questionable source" provision is that it is too weak and ambiguous.  Same is true with the use of opinion and editorial pieces.  Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we automatically use or include it. The fact remains, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline confuses new editors, discourages the use of expert sources, and attempts to muddy the issue.  It's almost as if it was created to keep people busy arguing about sources and distracted from writing and improving articles.  It doesn't work, it doesn't reflect the actual problems we face on this site, and it needs to be changed. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) It would be helpful for all to read WP:V and WP:NPOV in their entirety. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we have to decide what can and can't be used as a source. That is the whole point of WP:V and WP:NPOV - to provide criteria for deciding which sources can be used. You seem to be arguing that if something appears in print then it is a viable source, no matter how extreme, inaccurate or unrepresentative it is, or how unqualified the author is in that particular field. If that is your approach then I think there is a real problem with your editing, since that approach is totally incompatible with Wikipedia's most basic sourcing policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to argue this ChrisO, but I disagree with you. In most cases, we don't have a remit to decide on our own what is and what isn't reliable.  If a source is inaccurate, we have to use other sources which tell us that.  For example, when I write WWII articles, I find that the massive history that Samuel Eliot Morison wrote on the naval campaign is inaccurate in some cases.  I still use Morison, but where he is contradicted by more modern sources, I use those instead, and if I think someone may question it, I either explain the discrepancy in the text or in a footnote.  I don't throw Morison out completely, however, because he still has some good information.  That's what we do here.  The Hockey Stick Illusion, for example, has an excellent chapter on how climatic research uses proxies for determining historical temperatures.  Unless another source tells us that the book doesn't explain it right, we assume it is reliable because it meets our V and RS rules.  This is how Wikipedia works and why it works well when editors work on cooperating with each other. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're comparing apples with oranges. Samuel Eliot Morison was an expert in the field, with a lengthy publication record and widespread recognition of his expertise and scholarship. He is not remotely comparable in standing to someone like Montford or Sussman, both non-experts with no previous publication record and no recognition of any competence in the field. The correct analogy would be using some random conspiracy nut who believes FDR conspired to allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to provide "balance" to Morison's account of the Pearl Harbor attack. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have an example showing that you are incorrect in that analogy. One of the best books on the Guadalcanal Campaign is this one.  The book's author was an attorney, with no experience as an historian.  This was his first book.  According to your criteria, we wouldn't have been able to use his book as a source in Wikipedia, even though it's probably the best book on the battle.  That is why we can't do like you're suggesting. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a middle way where you are both right depending on the circumstances. Cla68, clearly the history book is considered authoritative by RS, and the author probably isn't making many novel observations or conclusions, but is relying on the evidence of others, historical evidence not in dispute or controversial.  OTOH, Chris makes a good point that not all sources are equal, and we must carefully evaluate for criteria such as expertise and authoritativeness when it's needed.  In other words, a source being used simply to cite standard dates and other facts not in dispute, isn't going to be as closely evaluated as a source making claims about living people or suggesting novel theories or conclusions. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * Whether or not the Sussman book is a reliable source as to Global Warming or Climate Change is one thing, but it is clearly a reliable source as to the opinion that the Climategate scandal as to the covering up scientific data and/or skewing the data for a preferred result. WP:IRS clearly states that these sources "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution."  The book, in the short time it is out, has already been discussed by Fox News, the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the Canada Free Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Coast to Coast AM (a nationally syndicated radio show), among others.  Clearly appropriate for the reaction to Climategate, if appropriately annotated.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an example of the reaction to the email hack, and as such is a primary source. It's also part of the partisan campaigning without good academic credentials. On that basis it's reliable as a source of what its author says, but the significance and assessment of that needs to be established by better sources, and it's very questionable as analysis of the issues. Which is why we have to base the article on reliable third party sources independent of the "controversy". Similarly, an article by Michaels in the WSJ, both of them active skeptical propagandists with financial ties to energy industries, has to be treated with caution and not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


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

With respect to the Sussman book - WND is not considered a reliable source for factual information. So I'm curious as to why a book they published should be considered a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Sussman is saying things that certain editors agree with. Do keep up, Guettarda. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Been away from the pedia for a the better part of a week. Must catch up before I can keep up. :) Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * The sources cited in the book and his background as a meteorologist and science reporter, etc.  I don't really want to get into it with y'all.   Take a look at the book and the information and sources cited and see if you find it unreliable.   This is why I suggested a proposal for the material that is to be included and the purpose of citing Sussman's book.   Talking about it in the abstract is not very useful. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

Well, rather than talking about it in the abstract why don't we have a proposal about how to use this source and what material it will be cited for. Cla68? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like recentism to me. The article has so far relied mainly on press reports. Now the affair is over bar the shouting, books will be published about it. The best books will be great sources for the article. The first books published aren't guaranteed to be the best, probably the other way round. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The existence of this article is recentism. While press reports suffer from a number of problems, we should only replace them with more thoughtful sources when the quality of the sources exceeds the existing ones. Not to mention that, given the lag time involved in writing, editing and publishing a book, any book on this topic is certain to be out of date. Since it has been established that the early reporting was seriously off, when it comes to facts, anything based on the early reporting is likely to suffer from the same problems. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the Muir Russell inquiry
This section is to collect links and info for a future subsection on this topic.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * It belongs in the media reception section. Michaels' op-ed is noted there, but I think that is the wrong place. Michaels is not a media person. Another question: I've been away for a few days. What is the point of the neutrality tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, come to think of it, if the WSJ editorial is just added on, w/o moving Michaels, it would be a neutrality issue in its own right, as perhaps being overweighted toward criticism. The Col. Journalism Review article belongs there too. There should be a reasonable balance in the media section. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * McIntyre continues his analysis & criticism of the Muir Russell report here, concluding that Muir Russell "blatantly misrepresented the facts surrounding Jones’ notorious request to “delete all emails”, a misrepresentation that, in my opinion, was done, at a minimum, either recklessly or out of gross negligence." This is unusually strong language from McI, and it looks like he has good cause.
 * I agree, it's premature to post primary, blog-based material to the article -- though McIntyre is a recognized expert on the topic. But this should be picked up by a secondary RS soon. It's really quite shocking how shoddily this "independent study" was conducted. Consider this another "heads-up." Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * McIntyre is an active party to the dispute, so he's certainly not a secondary source. I've seen no evidence that he's a recognised expert on inquiries or independent studies, or indeed much else outside the mining business, though he's been described as a mathematician, apparently without qualifications in the field. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you're trying it on again, having conceded already that McIntyre is a perfectly reasonable source - have you an agenda to push or something? Once more: McIntyre is an expert on Climategate because it is his allegations that are central to it. A statement about what he has said he thinks can be referenced by reference to his blog. Anything else is ludicrous. Please stop trying to be a gatekeeper here. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Dave


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

Media reception
I have boldly trimmed and rearranged this section. Rationale:
 * There was redundant reference to The Economist.
 * I judged the funding aspect of Michaels' report unworthy of inclusion. If others disagree, here's my suggested wording:  He further suggested that since both the UEA and PSU are partially funded by the US government they would stand to lose those grants if found guilty of substantial scientific misbehavior. 
 * I like to present in this order:
 * 1. a positive review, (position)
 * 2. a negative one, (rebuttal) and
 * 3. a "you-be-the-judge" one. (conclusion) I think the final sentence as I've left it is a good conclusion at this point.


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


 * I really wish you hadn't. ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles.  Can you please revert and wait until the proposed decision?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where have they asked that? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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


 * When you get back, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why he should. He's not a party to the case - nor am I for that matter - and he's not posted on any of the arbitration pages, so he's not covered by Risker's suggestion. Risker hasn't pursued it or tried to enforce it as far as I can see and nobody seems to have taken any notice of it. I wasn't even aware of it until you pointed it out. It's not binding and it doesn't cover Yopienso anyway. If you want to follow Risker's suggestion then please go and do so, and leave the editing to others without badgering them about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker posted that request at 04:51, 19 July 2010, this disputed edit was made at 11:33, 19 July 2010. A Quest For Knowledge,  for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? dave souza, talk 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well spotted. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice ArbCom's request until after I made that edit. Since then, I have not edited a single CC article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Yopienso hadn't noticed it. Same principle applies. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "ArbCom's request." It's Risker expressing a personal "hope" (his words). If the ArbCom wants us to do something, it will tell us, but don't put words in its collective mouth. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yopienso wrote "I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page." Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Risker's request. He wants everyone who has participated in the Arbcom to stop editing CC articles? That presupposes, if so, that everyone who participated is an active editor. I've almost exclusively participated in talk page discussions, with only rare edits in these articles. So am I covered by this request? I agree that there needs to be notice in the articles as practicable.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a request. You don't have to abide by it if you don't want, but I am asking Yopienso to self-revert in the meantime.  I'm not sure how closely you are following the case, but yesterday, several editors were edit-warring over contentious meterial in a BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge, I'm asking you to self revert material that's, in my view, contentious. Neither you nor Yopienso has to abide by these respective requests. . . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the Michaels stuff deserves a brief mention, but absolutely not in the media reaction section. He's not in the media. To call that media reaction is not accurate. Also I'd like to see a broader array of notable reaction from columnists, etc. Quest, thanks for clarifying, but I'm still not clear on whether I'm covered by the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The question is where. The Journal editorial seems to say the same thing, and is a media reaction. Would anyone object to the editorial substituting for Michaels? 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I've restored the older version of the article in the spirit of the comments made by Risker at 04:51, 19 July 2010. For some reason, A Quest For Knowledge felt the need to cross this boundary, and then had the nerve to come here and insist that everyone abide by it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[Yet another edit conflict!][Edit conflict] Wow. First, I apologize for inadvertently failing to note either above or on the edit summary that besides trimming and rearranging I added Michaels' claim of a whitewash, which, in fact, was the main thrust of the article. I'm not seeing a consensus or direction to self-revert so will wait a bit more on that. --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed there was again an edit conflict! I'll add that a Wall St. Journal opinion is certainly a media response!  --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite secondary (or tertiary) sources describing the media response. Please do not cherry pick media responses.  We have been over this several times.  Find an article that talks about the media response. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely over-hasty and ill-advised, Viriditas. We were working on this. Wrt your edit summary, "Restore previous version per talk," it is neither the previous version nor "per talk."  Please self-revert.
 * I'm taking a 24-hour break from this article. Anyone may stop by my talk page.
 * Oh, a new post--I am not cherry-picking: read my rationale above.  We have no rule that a WSJ opinion piece cannot be used.  Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird stuff
We seem to have ended up with


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

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


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


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


 * Here is the original which I paraphrased:

"The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored." The part I originally added noted that only a small portion of the emails (0.3%) were explored. The remit portion is in regards to why they didn't check all the emails not the hacker.91.153.115.15 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a mystery at all. Any reasonable person can look at the timeline and see that the only reason the e-mails were released and the media outlets covered it in the way that they did, was to derail the climate talks at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which is what happened.  If you recall, not only did the CRU allegations take away media coverage from the event, but climate scientists were attacked at the event using these allegations as ammo, and some countries began questioning the accuracy of the "evidence" for climate change at the conference using the just published e-mails as justification. There is no other logical conclusion for "why" the e-mails were strategically released at that time, and various sources have said just that.  In fact, I would challenge you to find a better explanation; There isn't one. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears the most likely explanation based on the timing but others can not be ruled out. The Why can be deduced but the Who is not yet known. My comment was that the inquiry did not read all the emails.91.153.115.15 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll list the sources which state that, this can be added to the article. There have been several speculated ideas on the motiviation of the person(s) who stole the emails (even if it was an insider, "stolen" is still an accurate description because he/she almost certainly did not have authorization to take the data) and to derail Copenhagen is one of them. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the mystery is that this is just a bad paraphrase. I'll remove it, is omseone lese hasn't already William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC, I thought us ArbCom parties had accepted a voluntary topic ban on contentious edits until the case was decided. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What made you think that? If you believe it, I invite you to discuss with MN (no, I'm not holding my breath). Anyway, I've corrected that error, which hopefully even Cla won't think a bad think. I've also removed the bit about no science checks, which is wrong: Muir-Russell repliced the temperature curve, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if ArbCom could clarify who falls under the aegis of that request. I'd step in and edit the media reactions section myself, but I don't want to disregard the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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

--Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks fine. Educational, as I didn't know you could change font color. Where would "whitewash" go? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would tack "Assessing reaction to the Russell report, Andrew Revkin noted "many shouts of 'whitewash' by critics of climate science." onto the second paragraph.
 * I had intended to include The Economist in the third paragraph, for a total of only three. --Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "whitewash": do you think the Clive Crook quote from the Atlantic fills that need? He doesn't use the word, but it's substantial, thoughtful criticism. Plus he's not a climate-change skeptic, and I don't think he's particularly partisan. Interesting piece.


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


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

Climategate image
File added on 18:37, 23 July 2010 deleted on 18:50, 23 July 2010  Lasted a whole 13 minutes? Apparently some folks around here don't like this image. If some one would like to help me with the copyright page to satisfy everyone, I'd be pleased to add it again.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No chance, clearly fails WP:NFCC#1+8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance  Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been explained to you on your talk page, at User talk:Duchamps_comb. Please take the time to read it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only was it explained, but the image was deleted when he tried it the first time in November 2009.. He was then blocked for a week, then indefinitely blocked, unblocked, blocked for a week, and now this crap again.  Any reason why we are still dealing with this?  Hasn't this guy had enough chances? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't around here in November 2009, not to mention several other editors. Let us have some time to examine the issue and figure out how best to handle this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas please refrain from personal attacks as you did above, keep on point here. I will not add the image again until there is some sort of consensus and a proper fair use. However the original image only lasted 2 hrs and 11 min, it was railroaded by speedy deletion and improperly handled.

,, , Why were these diffs erased from the main page archive? Seems like someone may have been covering something up?--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has covered anything up - those diffs are reversions of your original addition of this copyright violation. There's also no issue to examine here. It's been examined by experienced admins doing copyright enforcement, and the image has twice been speedily deleted as an indisputable copyvio. There is no valid criterion under which it could possibly be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, why then can those diffs not be seen in the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" history, their is a gap in the edits from 19:55, 30 November 2009 to 21:52, 30 November 2009, those diffs are from my personal history? Just a question.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Probably just a glitch in the software. Wikipedia is remarkably stable considering the amount of use it gets, but it still suffers glitches of various kinds. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiki-gate :) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't here either - I think the use of the term is appropriate, many scandals on Wikipedia go by their actual common name, for example Watergate scandal, Betsygate, Bingogate and Bloodgate, just to cover through the "B"s. By the same token, the use of a fair-use image would also be appropriate.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Coingate scandal, Corngate, Debategate, Fallagate, Fajitagate, and Grannygate, thru the "G"s.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m actually afraid to click on grannygate. what the hell is that :) mark nutley (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the name of the article, this is about the use of a copyrighted image under a claim of fair use. The problem with that is that the image does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Not only that, because of the nature of the image and the attempted usage, it cannot ever meet the NFCC. There is no point in even discussing this further, since the image has already twice been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. Please accept that it has been reviewed by people who are experts at this sort of thing and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Since we can't view the media now, there's no way to say for certain but a screen cap is not necessarily a copyright violation. It would depend on the intensity of the graphics, whether other text or media is represented, etc.   It is a derivative work, but it is largely dependent on the content of the screen cap.  In any event, even if it would fall within the copyright gambit, there is a fair use rationale for its use on Wikipedia in the context of this article.   It is not accurate to say that this is a clear cut issue and proper speedy delete material without discussing these aspects.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The image was a picture of a couple of newsreaders with a prominent chyron below showing the word "Climategate" and some other text. I just posted the following explanation to my user talk page for another editor's benefit:


 * First, the usage has to be directly related to the source. Suppose that screenshot was from Glenn Beck's show (I don't know that it is, I'm just using that as an example). It could then be used to illustrate critical commentary about Glenn Beck's view of the controversy. However, that would only be viable if Glenn Beck's view of the controversy was notable in itself (i.e. that it had been the subject of third-party commentary). There's a good example of this kind of usage at Truthiness, where a screenshot of Stephen Colbert is shown alongside commentary about a famous segment of his show.


 * Secondly, any fair use image can only be used if there is no free alternative. Since the informational content of the image [in this case] is the text on the chyron, the obvious free alternative is to add text to the article instead of using the image. That in itself means that this image can never meet the non-free content criteria, since it will always have a free alternative.


 * I know this may sound rather abstruse and technical but for those of us who've administered copyright issues on Wikipedia, this really is an open-and-shut case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And for the record, the relevant policy pages are Non-free content and Non-free content criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

Just wondering -- I have no comment on using the image in the article beyond wondering why it's important to Duchamps. Anybody who would come to this article would presumably already know the event and its aftermath are most widely known as "Climategate." One might reasonably scratch his chin and wonder where WP came up with such a strange title, but since "Climategate" at present count is contained 5 times in the article, 19 times in the footnotes, and once in the external links, there can be no confusion or doubt as to the use of the term. So, why is this even an issue? And if I'm cluttering up this page for no good reason, please answer on my talk page and I will remove this after a decent interval.

OK, so now I have a comment, or a quote, actually: If the reader would get the same or similar information without the image, then the image is inappropriate.  --Yopienso (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The informational content of the image is that Fox News called the affair "Climategate". We already know this. The image is redundant from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see. Should I believe what a practicing attorney says on fair use, or someone that has read some guidelines on Wiki?  I think I'll take door #1 and the practicing attorney, since he actually knows the law on copyrights. Since Minor4th is an attorney, I'll go with his view.  Or the most recent Federal court case on the issue, which states that use of a screenshot is fair-use.  See Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, et al., 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Penn, 2007).  Of course, if you don't have a law degree, are you actually qualified to comment on this (to paraphrase an argument that was made to me about editing GW/CC articles without being a scientist)?  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies are often more restrictive than some national and state laws. This is because of Wikipedia's history as a free encyclopedia. Encumbering the free content unnecessarily with non-free material is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's policies. --TS 01:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true but Wikipedia also recognizes various instances in which it's acceptable, even desirable, to so encumber the free content.  This is one such instance.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you and GregJackP are so sure about Wikipedia's copyright policies, why not re-upload the image? The penalty for repeatedly violating copyright is a summary block but since you're so sure, this won't deter you. If you're so sure, why not put your accounts on the line to find out? After all, what's the worst that can happen, beyond being kicked off Wikipedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, Chris, since I don't have the image (it was deleted, remember?), how am I going to upload it. Plus, I never play against a stacked kangaroo court, where the rules are different from one side than the other.  Since I'm already sure that CC has its own version of BLP rules that are different dependent on which side one is on, I'll pass on letting you tattle me off to a CC-sympathetic admin.  I'll be happy with knowing what the "rather abstruse [sic] and technical" laws actually say and mean, rather than let you "experts" inform me.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris -- There's no need for temper tantrums or angry outbursts. At this point, I'm not arguing for its inclusion and it doesnt appear that Greg is either. I said it's worthy of discussion and not so black and white as you suggest. Why is discussion a problem for you? In any event, how could I re-upload the image after it has been deleted? Further, I'm not concerned about being kicked off Wikipedia for a single good faith upload of an image worthy of discussion. I've never violated copyright and can't imagine that any admin would see fit to "kick me off Wikipedia" -- that's rather a hysterical response, don't you think? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you've never patrolled speedy deletion; deleted files and images on Wikipedia; identified and removed copyright violations. Perhaps you should consider that those of us who've administered copyright issues on Wikipedia do know what we're talking about, hmm? If you don't believe me you can go and ask any admin who deals with copyright issues. User:Stifle and User:Fastily would be good places to start. But they won't tell you any differently to what I'm telling you now. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, you should check your facts before you make statements like that. You have made some wrong assumptions there.  Come back after you review my edit history.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare and contrast:  But this has gone off-topic enough, so I suggest calling a halt here - this discussion is pointless anyway, since the image in question isn't going to be re-uploaded. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you need me to explain what the definition of "never" is, as in "you've never patrolled..."? I just am curious, since it is different than "compare and contrast."  Words have meaning Chris.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally thought the image was useful and was sorry to see it go. But since it's obviously prohibited by policy, why are we even discussing this? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please post a link to the image so we can see it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Open a paint or slideshow program, select a large font text and type the word "Climategate". That's what it was, basically. --TS 17:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, not quite. It was a screenshot of a news program, showing a talking head and some insets with captions on the screen, one of them being something like "'Climategate': E-mails suggest scientists are fudging data". I'm not aware of any online copies of the same screenshot elsewhere to link to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing else on the screen was informative. The only significant informational content was the word.  The rest was a precis and quotes made by somebody who knew, and probably to this day knows, less about climate science than my daughter's pet snakes. This is the kind of rubbish that should not be in any encyclopedia. It was the word "Climategate" on a television screen. --TS 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these images the one we're talking about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate image part II
I don't know why an active discussion was closed without resolution, so I'll open a second discussion. ChrisO: Is the only problem with this image a copyright one? IOW, if it turns out the image is not in violation of copyright issues, do you also have a POV issue with it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, it seems that the discussion was closed by ChrisO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why was it closed? It doesn't seem ChrisO should close and hat off a discussion when he was the main dissenter and the issue wasn't resolved.  I don't know how we can really discuss the picture if he deleted though before we could even view it.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That discussion is really over a moot point. The image is a screencap of a Fox News reporter giving a report, with the headline: "Climategate emails putting global warming stats in doubt" below him. Not only would using that image here fail NFCC, it would also most likely be an invalid claim of fair use, and illegal. It isn't going to happen. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be against Wikipedia policy, but it is clearly within fair use and legal, based on case law. This was discussed above, with the most recent court case on point, and an attorney weighing in on the discussion.   Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your analysis assumes the conclusion. I think those issues are all up for discussion, and indeed they were being discussed.  It is likely not a copyright violation at all, and if so it is almost surely within fair use.   I have no idea about the actual value of the image in the article and it's my understanding that it was a poor quality image, although I did not see it.   I am not advocating for its inclusion -- I just question the advisability of prematurely closing and hatting off the discussion before it concluded and by the primary dissenter in the discussion.  Can you speak to that?<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As Prodego has said, the matter is moot. The image has been reviewed by four admins (Black Kite, NuclearWarfare, Future Perfect and Prodego). Two of them speedily deleted the image twice as a blatant copyright violation. All four of them have stated unequivocally that the claim of fair use is invalid. The reasons why it can't be used on Wikipedia have been explained in detail by several people, including myself. There is nothing more to add and no point discussing it further, because it isn't going to be undeleted and it can't be used - nothing that is said here is going to change either of those facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Greg and Minor4th above seem to grant that the image described by Prodego is not appropriate for inclusion; the only remaining issues then are procedural/user conduct. If you really feel strongly about them, there are venues to take them up, but I suggest focusing on actually improving the article instead. Yours uninvolvedly,  Skomorokh   03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not granting that the image is inappropriate for inclusion -- I'm saying it's impossible to tell, but the cited reasons do not seem to apply.  It could well be that the article would be improved with the addition of the photo.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pretty simple - NFCC requires that non-free images be discussed in the text. What source do you propose to use that discusses this Fox news screencap? Guettarda (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I explained the copyright issue in detail at Media copyright questions. There really isn't anything more to add on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This debate is a pointless red herring. The image was deleted because it failed WP:NFC. Whether it was legally a "copyright violation" makes no difference whatsoever. (Incidentally, I personally agree it probably wasn't, and people who described it as such were speaking a bit rashly.) The contention that it isn't possible to judge the case without seeing the image oneself is also a red herring. Anybody familiar with NFC knows that contention is simply false, because nothing in the relevant criteria depends on visual detail that isn't covered by the verbal descriptions of the image that everybody has been given. There is no point in debating either point further, since it cannot possibly change the outcome. The only possible reason for reopening the discussion would be if somebody were to bring a fresh rationale of how this image does not fail the non-free content criteria. I see nobody in this thread doing this, so why are we still here? If anybody should wish to actually make such an argument, they are strongly advised to take a good read of prior cases of TV screenshots at WP:FFD, plus of course make themselves thoroughly familiar with WP:NFC. For people to drag on this debate with no sign of having informed themselves of the policy basics is bordering on disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO: Can you please clarify something for me? Is the only problem with this image a copyright one? IOW, if it turns out the image is not in violation of copyright issues, do you also have a POV issue with it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "If it turns out..."? How many experienced editors have already explained to you that it does? The fact that it is copyright is indisputable. So the only question is whether we can justify the infringement of copyright. And the rules about that are governed by NFCC. Our rules are more strict than the simple legal requirements of fair use. Unless you can show that this specific usage is in keeping with that policy, it cannot be used. Guettarda (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Guettarda: That's not the question that was asked nor are you the person who was asked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But your question is predicated on a false assumption and unnecessarily personalises an issue of policy. You're up against a Foundation policy. You can't simply ignore it. So just stop. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you want to have a one-on-one conversation with another editor, use their talk page. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will confess I don't see a lot of value in including the image myself, and wonder how much of the debate over its inclusion is related to the debate over whether to rename the article. However, just to clarify the basis of discussion...  I agree with those editors that observe the image is infringing as is, and has been properly removed as such.  Suppose however--just hypothetically--that someone had written to News Corporation (the copyright holder) and received a written release to use this image on Wikipedia for non-profit use.  The image would then no longer be a copy vio.  Would anyone then object to its inclusion?  DGaw (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. Yes, it would still not be allowed. If it was released "for non-profit use", it would still be technically non-free, and as such subject to WP:NFCC. It would still fail criteria #1 and #8. A "for non-profit use" release only helps it pass criterion #2, which, however, isn't really the crucial issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If, somehow, you could get them to release it under a free licence (either seems vanishingly likely) the answer would still be "it depends". And image is like a piece of text - its impact relative to NPOV depends on the context in which it is used. It seems like AQFK wanted to use it in connection with the etymology of the term "climategate". In a context like that, I could see potential for OR problems more than NPOV problems, but you never know. One could also use it to illustrate the whole "manufactured controversy" element. There you'd have to tread a narrow line, and again, there could be OR problems ("see how Fox news helped spread the meme" kinda things). Finally, any use would need to be very careful to address the BLP issues, since the image raises accusations of wrongdoing. It all comes down to where you use an image (where in the article, alongside what text), how the adjacent text related to the image, and what you say in the caption and alt text (if any). Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AQFK, you are disrupting this talk page. Either you have a case to make that the image passes WP:NFC, then make it, or you haven't, then take the bickering off this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a radical suggestion (I think its time to IAR)
I've not been involved in the debate, but I've been aware of it. Its kind of hard to miss because its splattered (deliberate choice of words there) onto just about every administrative area on the site.

There are going to be times when a consensus is unobtainable. This appears to be one of those times. My suggestion is this: Screw NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Instead of having one article that attempts to present the issue in a neutral manner, have two articles, one for each point of view. Five years from now, after things have cooled down some, maybe then the two articles can be merged into one. --*Kat* (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Sorry, no chance. That's what they do over at Wikinfo. The demand to have a single NPOV article is non-negotiable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would actually happen, if that scenario ever came to pass, which it won't, would be that this article would continue to be NPOV but the POV fork article would turn into a clone of the equivalent Conservapedia article. That is what the editors complaining about this article would like to see for this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about three articles then? This one, an neutral one and a conservative one?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about three dozen? Every editor engaged in this dispute gets to write two articles: one representing their own viewpoint and one representing what they think their opponents' viewpoint is. Then a bot comes and jumbles the articles together at random, sentence by sentence. ;P Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. I love it! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Encourage POVFORKs, now? IAR applies when the encyclopedia is improved, not merely to satisfy the partisan quibbling of determined POV warriors. BigK HeX (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a course of action would be the absolute end of Wikipedia. And I am not exaggerating. Kansan (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll write what you're told! Wonder if that'd be a fair use image? :-/ dave souza, talk 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a The End is Near kind-of guy, but I absolutely agree with you. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, as we knew it is already gone. It ended when editors started treating the rules like commandments that had been carved into stone.  We can bring it back though.  Show a little flexibility, be willing to think and act outside of the box.  Do a POVFORK on this one article, this one time.  The world will not end.  But this argument just might.---*Kat* (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think you can make a case for how the encyclopedia will be improved by encouraging POVFORKs (even for "just this one article *nod*nod*wink*wink* ") then go for it. BigK HeX (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the point of POV forking this article? The POV fork already exists. It's called Conservapedia. Let the complainers edit there if they don't like NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO: But this article isn't written to follow NPOV. Both articles read like they were written by extremists from both sides of the global warming divide.  What we need and what we don't have is a NPOV article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not very good at subtlety. Please explain what you meant by " *nod*nod*wink*wink* "--*Kat* (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't ask questions when you know the answers will get you in trouble. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors creating a POVFORK for this article (in blatant disregard of the NPOV pillar and without any persuasive argument at all that the project is improved) is not a singular solution. It will almost certainly set a precedent that POV warriors of all stripes (but especially politically motivated ones) will use as justification as they go throughout the project to establish POVFORKs "like that Climate Wiki article".   BigK HeX (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly find this a fascinating exercise...not for the final article, but as a tool for discussion, for progress. What would your ideal article look like? don't tell me, show me. No more arguing allowed - any substantial changes need to come in the form of proposals. Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this shows why the tag is going to stay indefinitely. Those pushing for a tag will not be satisfied until neutrality has been gutted from the article, which is obviously not going to happen. We don't need two articles, we can ensure this one satisfies NPOV, and anyone looking for the one in the parallel universe where all climate scientists were burned at the stake because they're communist frauds can go to Conservapedia or WattsUpWithThat. StuartH (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, try to address what people are saying, not what you imagine that they are saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuart, I disagree with you. I believe the vast majority of the editors active here are willing to compromise and cooperate to produce an article that everyone can accept.  There just has to be an effort made to reach a middle ground. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm sounding like a broken record, but I think we should sit tight until ArbCom announces its proposed decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree we should wait with ArbCom proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alorolfo (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

I concur that the tag is warranted, the article clearly is biased and presents the information from the CRU/CC POV. Any attempt to balance that information is resisted and delayed. The tag should stay. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's nonsense. The CRU "POV", as you call it, is the established POV.  No amount of birthers screaming "drill, baby, drill" is going to change that.  Climate change is happening, and humanity is responsible.  Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You make my point for me, although I'm not sure why you feel the need to add an irrelevant "birther" comment, unless you are just trying to shut down conversation. That is typical of this area, and is part of the problem with the "established POV" - Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, not an established POV, and is supposed to show what is being reported, not just the spin from one side.  The point that CC "is" happening is likewise not relevant to a POV discussion here.  There are many reports and sources that are being dismissed solely to control the spin on Climategate.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you or other editors feel there is an NPOV issue, you should cite passages in the article that present a problem. The point of the tag is to allow specific issues to be addressed, and there's been no attempt of which I am aware to do so. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, it's entirely relevant that climate change is happening, and climate science isn't "spin". If you have children or plan on having them, you may want to pay closer attention to articles like ocean acidification.  As for the established view, you may want to pay closer attention to WP:UNDUE.  This entire article is a non-topic, and is taking time and energy away from serious articles that need work. I suspect that is the sole reason for its existence.  Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair comments, so I'll address your relevant points. This article is not about CC, it is about a lack of transparency, a violation of the FOIA, alleged scientific and academic misconduct and related matters that cast doubt on the veracity of CC scientists.  It has been widely reported in the media, both pro and con.  Actual disagreements on CC should be in that article, not this one, so WP:UNDUE as to that is not relevant here.  Second, if you feel this article is a time sink and not important, go edit another article that is important.  No one is forcing you to be here - so that is really your choice.  Finally, of course I'm concerned about the environment for my children and grandchildren.  My people have been treating the land in a sustainable manner for centuries, and have fought Anglo-Europeans (litterally at times) over the issue.  As recently as my youth, these same forces disagreed with our sustainable lumber industry and attempted to terminate our people's way of life so they could clear-cut our land.  I don't need a lecture from you on how to treat our planet - and you might want to consider that if you don't know anything about a person, you might want to hold off on offering advice.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this comment is not helpful in identifying specific supposed problems in the article. If they're not identified, they can't be addressed. What specific parts of the article are problematic? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm seeing here are vague expressions of dissatisfaction from both sides, and no specific NPOV concerns. Unless there is a bona fide dispute that is explicitly detailed (with more than just conclusory statements), and I'm not seeing one at this point, the tag is not warranted and should go. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Was the comment I was responding to helpful? As to specific issues, the article spends most of its space saying "nothing to see here, move on" without explanation of specific allegations, nor does it have any of the published criticisms of the investigation(s) or reports.  The phrasing at one point that items were taken out of context does not identify that one of the subjects of the investigation is the one that alleges the statement - and in the reference it does not specifically state that either politicians statement was out of context.  I'll look at and address similar issues when I get a chance.  Additionally, the source is of questionable reliability, since it is reporting the immediate comments of selected individuals to the report - close to being an op-ed piece from the CC scientists.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you need to cite specific passages in the article, and explain why they violate WP:NPOV. It's your responsibility to make your criticisms understandable. It's not the obligation of other editors to take your vague comments and figure out which specific passages you're referring to, and then guess what your objection is. I've read through this entire article and find no conceivable POV problem. I see nothing saying or implying "nothing to see here, move on." If you just don't like an article, that's not sufficient to place an ugly and disruptive POV tag at the top of the article. See comment by SCJessy below. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It will take me some time, but I'll be happy to do so. As for putting the POV tag on the article, you would have to ask the editor who originally placed it on the article. As to the comment by SCJessy, it incorrectly identifies the issue as CC instead of the actual issue, which was the leak of the e-mail, the allegations made therein, and the various responses, including that of the media. Instead, SCJessy attempts to shift the issue to CC/denial, which is assuredly not the issue for this article. I note that you declined to make a comment about the post I was responding to also. I would ask in the future if you intend to call my responses unhelpful, that you be fair and address any comments that the response was directed towards. Otherwise it appears that you support those comments. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be greatly helpful if you or someone would specify what specific passages are problematic and why, for otherwise there's no basis and the tag should be removed. You have a point: the tag was placed there by Hipocrite and he should explain what he feel is wrong, if he hasn't done so. As for my "decling to make a comment about the post you were responding to," there have been several posts and replies, and I have no idea what you're talking about. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Huh? Who are you accusing of "holding this article hostage"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be obvious that there are a number of editors here who are actively promoting a fringe POV. Not naming names, but you know who I mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't go quite that far, but I believe that the presence of an NPOV banner is disruptive and unwarranted, and needs to go. The editor who put it there, Hipocrite, has never provided specifics and has not participated in this discussion. Other editors (from the opposing POV!) support the banner but likewise haven't provided specifics. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suspect the removal of the image might be a POV issue, but I'm not getting much help yet in finding a copy of image. Also, since ArbCom has suggested not working on these articles, so I'm focusing my attention on just one POV issue.  But the entire article reads like an UAE talking points memo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed you a link to it. It really has nothing to do with any POV issue. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * What does the United Arab Emirates have to do with anything? And I have to say that your whole approach to this is symptomatic of the problems with this topic area (and with your own battlefield attitude). The image was speedily deleted twice because it was a copyright violation. You've been told repeatedly why it was deleted and that it had nothing to do with POV. You've had confirmation from a completely uninvolved admin, Fut. Perf. And yet you still pursue this. All along the way, you seem to have assumed bad faith of everyone who has explained to you why it was deleted. Rather than accept explanations in good faith, you've pursued it obsessively, clogging up talk pages and wasting time all round. It's exactly this kind of unproductive behaviour that led to the current arbitration case in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Hipocrite, who placed the tag here on 7/16, to either explain the reason for the tag or remove it. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Please don't count me among those questioning the article's neutrality. POV is glaringly evident on the talk page, but little or none of that is reflected in the article.  Any such reflections would be errors of omission, not inclusion, and I haven't taken the time to scrutinize it to see what may be missing.  Obviously, facts distasteful to both the alarmist- and denialist-leaning camps are included, an evidence of upholding neutrality against personal opinions or preferences. The lede seems to be rigorously neutral. I'm fine with removing the tag.  In fact, I request it be removed and not restored without a list of specific POV statements or omissions.  --Yopienso (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Oh, duh--the title is certainly POV. But that's not reason to tag it, imo.  --Yopienso (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm working on a list of specific items, including the page title that are POV and can retag the article when I post those. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you're "working on a list of specific items", I've removed the tag for now. Maybe we can retag it when you (or anyone) posts them, but not before. StuartH (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the NPOV badge to be anything other than a disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT badge of shame, there needs to be a prospect that it will change the article for the better, or that the minority of editors who consider it POV will be happy with anything less than a Conservapedia mirror. I'm not remotely optimistic, but I'm prepared to be surprised. At the very least, though, articulate what the problem/s is/are. StuartH (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People always tell us that the reasons for the POV banner were given earlier, or will be provided in the near future, but very rarely actually articulate them, with quotes and diffs, now. Until this happens, and then the discussion stalls regarding the issues brought up, the banner should not be added. --Nigelj (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Which is why I removed it. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the banner as a result of inapropriate weighting of Patrick Michael's minority opinion that the funders of a review makes the review biased over the opinions of major editorial boards that the scientists at the center of the scandal were largely vindicated. It appears that weighting no longer exists (though I wonder why a summary of the media reactions still hasn't made it to the lede - perhaps because some editors here don't like a summary of the media reactions?) and so I have no problem with the tag being removed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. That makes sense. So why was it just re-added? I don't see which discussion here on Talk User:Tillman referred to in that edit. --Nigelj (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the article is a lightning rod for disruptive edits. I'd revert it myself if it wasn't for the 1RR. Adding the POV badge, but refusing to discuss what the POV issue is should be a big no-no. StuartH (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, since WMC did the right thing and requested the POV concern, the badge has been repeatedly added back in with "see talk", but without actually adding the concerns to the talk page. How can we resolve a POV dispute that doesn't exist? The only issues raised in response have been a copyvio and something about "CC" being a POV. What are the issues, how can we solve them to the satisfaction of the badge-of-shamers? StuartH (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the title POV?
I would change the word controversy to incident. Any other issues? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it was "hacking incident" until a name change to reflect the focus on the content of the emails rather than the hacking incident itself. "Email incident" makes a little less sense, and "controversy" doesn't imply guilt the way other titles might. The current title to me seems to satisfy the neutrality requirements for a "descriptive title". The problem to many is that we're not using their POV term for the article (i.e. Climategate). There are claims that there are grounds for changing the title to such a non-neutral term, but that doesn't make the current title POV. StuartH (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think Climategate is hugely POV. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are other issues; do a word search for "title" in Archive 35, especially on July 12-13, when we discussed it at length. In brief: Since critics quickly slapped "Climategate" on the incident, it was understood by supporters to be a pejorative, and almost certainly it was, and was therefore to be avoided. As time passed, however, usage widened--it is a catchy, brief term that rolls off one's tongue, unlike the present WP-invented title no one else uses.  At least two of us googled for any RS that had not used "Climategate" and were unable to find one.  It seems likely this incident, if it is remembered 20 years from now, will be called "Climategate."  In other words, the word is losing its sting because of broader use and repetition and so is more acceptable.
 * Some editors are reluctant to use it because, apparently, they feel it will signal a "victory" for editors who are critical of the CRU. If this is true, if some editors want to "win" or see the incident called what they consider a justly-deserved ugly name, it's too soon to change it. I've laid out my reasons for changing it in Archive 35.  It would be a pity if childish name-calling attitudes increase the length of time we must display this contrived title.  --Yopienso (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather avoid having a re-run of the article title wars. Nothing useful came of it then and I doubt it will now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a few useful things came of it: it was discovered and admitted that the term is more widely used than it was previously, lists of its wide usage were compiled, the background as to why some find it POV and others find it common-sense was discussed.
 * It would be as wrong for you, William, to refuse ever to reconsider as it would for me to start an edit war. The fact that there have been "article title wars," or at least article title discussions, shows there is not an overwhelming consensus for the present title.  --Yopienso (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite true. But it would be entirely correct of me to say that it is very unlikely to be worth the time and effort required (which is what I actually said, making your edit comment unintentionally self-ironic), which could more usefully go into actually improving articles William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the hell should they do that? It's so much easier to spend month after month arguing about a POV article title pushed by none other than Faux News itself.  Don't you dare claim that editors should actually be writing articles and using reliable, authoritative sources to do it.  Faux News said it, that settles it! Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kittybrewster: Proper names for events which incorporate POV terms (such as Tea Pot Dome scandal, Corrupt bargain, Great Leap Forward, etc.) are legitimate article titles if these are the most common names used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not do an RFC and let the community decide mark nutley (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The community already decided, and you didn't like the decision, so you're back here asking the community to decide again until you get the decision you like. Since the article is being held hostage, I propose that we capitulate and cater to the demands of our dear captors with the one provision that every new account created since the last decision took place is automatically excluded from any new discussion, thereby preventing the usual suspects from engaging in the predicted shenanigans. Deal? Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Climategate" redirects here. There have been umpteen battles over it, and we don't need another. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Consensus can change". There's nothing wrong with taking a quick straw poll.  If the need arises for an extended discussion on the topic, I would welcome it once again, provided any new accounts, IP's, and socks are excluded. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be against policy, you know were anyone can edit wikipedia? mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks excluded, to be sure, but not IPs or new accounts.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My questions are few. Is the title agreed? Yes, but it could yet change. Is Climategate a preferable name? No; already determined; but that could be changed. Is controversy POV? Would incident be preferable? I think so. Should the word email be included in the title? I simply don't have a view on that. But they are different issues. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)