Talk:Keith Briffa

Info on the new page
My new page for Keith Briffa starts from scratch but of course, the basic data can't be quite different from what used to exist.

The previous page was deleted on March 10th, 2010 because a self-described prominent author of the entry, more precisely one of its many co-authors nicknamed Atmoz, a user who also started the page, requested the deletion of "his" work. [Outing redacted - WMC] Please try to understand the "notability" tag added by a bot and act so that the tag is consistently removed. Thanks, Lubos Motl --Lumidek (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've redacted your outing. Give this up Lubos, you should know better. Meanwhile, I've also taken out the climategate stuff - please don't deliberately stir up BLP problems William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting: I don't understand why you vandalized this page, how you exactly vandalized it, and where you vandalized it, but if you have vandalized it, as your comment indicates, could you please immediately revert the damages that you have done to this page? Your comments make no sense. Thank you very much, Lubos Motl --Lumidek (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed the climategate stuff on BLP grounds. Its pretty clear from Lumidek's stuff above that he has created this page for no other reason William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop creating these problems? Indeed, Keith Briffa is notable largely because of his role in the ClimateGate and related events that are important for the big picture of the climate science. This is just a fact. That's why it's absolutely unacceptable for you to try to vandalize our article again. You will do it again and I will try to look for methods how your account may be removed from Wikipedia because you're not adding anything positive to this constructive collective enterprise.--Lumidek (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keith Briffa is notable largely because of his role in the ClimateGate - no, this is incorrect, but does show rather clearly the BLP problems you are causing. As far as you're concerned, this wiki page is for trying to push "climategate" - that isn't an acceptable behaviour. And no, I didn't decimate the para, I removed it entirely. Plus the allegations of vandalism are not helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If Briffa is notable largely because of his role in the CRU events, this article probably should be deleted again under WP:BLP1E. If not, there should be a reasonable coverage of his scientific career, and not undue weight on some speculations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * William Connolley's repeated vandalizing of this page seems unacceptable to me. Lumidek's paragraph on Briffa's Climate Gate involvement is factual, written in neutral language, and sufficiently sourced. And it is highly relevant to Briffa's public persona. Sandert (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

briffa has been in many newspaper stories regarding climategate emails
no?

There is no harm in linking to either climategate or his principle antagonist, but it would be useful to document what Biffra has done from notable sources, rather than accusations hurled from rabid partisans about what he did not do. Stirling Newberry 15:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments Stirling Newberry 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Basics
Biffra's most widely cited work is on the Yamal tree rings, this is neutral information on an important data set. The only reason to delete it is if you think he has something to hide. I don't, since his work on it is in peer reviewed publications, and the raw data is available for inspection.

He is being attacked by McIntyre, again, verifiable and notable. He's responded to McIntyre in public, and hasn't completely dismissed the criticisms that were raised. That these criticisms have been used by raving loonies to make slanderous accusations doesn't change that he and McIntyre are engaged in a dispute over the interpretation of the data.

He's been mentioned in reference to Climategate. Again verifiable and notable. These are facts. People who revert notable and verifiable facts are vandalizing the page or edit warring. It is both against wiki rules, and common sense, to do this. It only adds to the seething screaming of climate denialists that there is some kind of "conspiracy." Biffra has responded to McIntyre's comments, and has not completely dismissed the possibility that he needs to investigate the question further.

Stirling Newberry 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's verifiable and notable, add reliable sources that allow us to verify those claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I've removed your edits. They don't address any of the previously raised concerns, and are unsourced . His most widely cited data set is his chronology based on trees from the Yamal Peninsula is just the beginning of the problems. Who says this? It also seems intrincically unlike to be true: people get their papers cited, not their datasets. Google scholar doesn't support your claim, so please tell us what the source of your claim is. Your other additions were equally problematic William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto writes Possibly adding a reference to: - Reassessing the evidence for tree-growth and inferred temperature change during the Common Era in Yamalia, northwest Siberia. Keith R. Briffa, Thomas M. Melvin, Timothy J. Osborn, Rashit M. Hantemirov, Alexander V. Kirdyanov, Valeriy S. Mazepa, Stepan G. Shiyatov and Jan Esper http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/papers/briffa2013qsr/ may add a little to this article. Auto wrote 1732 Z 29 June 2013. 86.166.172.20 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reminder
That this article is on probation, as can be seen at the top of the page. Discuss any potentially controversial edits before making them please. And please keep it civil and on point here on the talk page. Failure to abide by these simple requirements can and will result in user blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The content boxes
Please remove the two content-related boxes. Obviously the article cites multiple sources, and as a published climatologist cited by many independent sources Briffa passes any conceivable "notability" criteria. --TS 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that he is notable (though I'm not convinced the article establishes that). It doesn't have good sources though - there are links to papers, but no sources *about* him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

CRU hacking and whatnot
I've once again removed the section about the CRU hacking as it seems to rely on sensationalist and speculative reporting. This isn't how we write about living people (or for that matter about any people, living or dead).

The need to get this right is underlined by the decision arising from the recent arbitration. There's a link to the sanctions applying to this article and I urge all editors to read it before editing this article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Locked
for 3 days due to edit warring to insert questionable material in a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And again. Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WSJ editorial
A editorial in the Wall Street Journal is not an op-ed. Nor is it random: the WSJ is the most widely-read and arguably the most respected daily newspaper in the world (in English). Someone getting their name in a place like that is significant. The stated reasons for removing the quote are not valid. AlfBit (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An editorial is by definition an Op-Ed piece, that's what the 'ed' is short for. It is not appropriate to pick out one piece from the enormous amount written on this subject and stick it in a BLP like this, particularly since it is re-hashing matters about which several inquiries have exonerated the CRU scientists - which is not mentioned in the edit you've just re-inserted. Please revert yourself - I'm holding myself to 1RR on CC pages. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  10:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. An op-ed is opposite the editorial page, and is for members of the public to state their opinions, which might disagree with those of the newspaper; an editorial, in contrast, represents the official position of the newspaper's editors, and it is far more significant than an op-ed.  What portion of the "enormous amount written on this subject" specifically names Keith Briffa?  And how much of that portion is in publications nearly as prestigious as the WSJ?  Regarding the editorial seeming to criticize acts by Briffa even though there has been exoneration by several inquiries, this is specifically addressed in the editorial.    AlfBit (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not know that about op-ed. Live and learn.
 * But it doesn't change my view that this is a hopelessly biased edit which should be removed from the article per BLP. I'm not going to debate the reliability and prestige of the WSJ - we clearly have opposite opinions. Its coverage of CC has been piss-poor, IMHO. But you tacitly admit that the edit you just restored doesn't even achieve the level of balance of the editorial - there is no mention of the exonerations in the part of the editorial you selected for the article. This is cherry-picking, and I don't see any reasonable defence of it. Please revert yourself. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The WSJ is the most widely-read newspaper in the English world. Whatever opinion you or I might have of it, it tends to be very highly regarded.  When the WSJ takes an official editorial position to comment on some action by Keith Briffa, then that merits citation in the Wikipedia bio, IMO.  Your objection seems to be about the way in which the citation is worded.  What wording would you recommend?  (Add or subtract something?)  AlfBit (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces are not appropriate sources for a biography of a living person. Arbcom made this explicitly clear in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. -Atmoz (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding: I didn't know this was being discussed when I removed it the first time. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote what you believe to be the basis of your reverts. I do not see such basis in the link you provide. AlfBit (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK are the problems I was trying to suggest to you above. Note also WP:3RR. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read those policies, and I do not see that the edit was a violation. Please specify the parts of the policies that apply and why you think there was a violation? AlfBit (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires that a subject is treated "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias", so highlighting allegations against someone and omitting the fact that they were exonerated violates this, obviously. When we've only got a short para on his whole life, adding an equal amount on a single op-ed piece is not proportional, either. BLP policy requires that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The source is a problem, because despite your assertion, the web page cited is clearly marked 'opinion' - and therefore isn't usable as a source for a BLP. The whole addition merely coatracks the CRU hack onto a BLP - which is specifically forbidden in the CC case ruling here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Briffa was exonerated of dishonesty; he was not exonerated of the criticisms in the WSJ review. Briffa is most famous, in the world at large, for his role in Climategate.  The word "opinion" is how WSJ, and many other newspapers, mark their editorials; I have explained that this is an editorial before.  Your claim about a coatrack is unfounded and clearly incorrect.  AlfBit (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed your very one-sided edit again. Briffa was exonerated of any kind of malpractice, and the other criticisms in the WSJ piece are directed at the inquiries, not Briffa. It is a breach of BLP policy to add this kind of allegation to biog articles, which is why several different editors have removed it. Stop re-adding it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the WSJ is out of context. If you read the full email, it's clear that Briffa is talking about the difference between science and process, not science and non-science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, while I still think this is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy, I regret the second revert. The atmosphere on this article, as evidenced on this talk page, is too much of a battleground and I'll be withdrawing. Carry on. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information about computer code
I am the Tim Osborn who is from the Climatic Research Unit. Hence please bear in mind possible conflicts of interest that I may have with respect to this article. I have removed factually incorrect statement from the end of this article. The sentence referred to computer code and drew inferences from that. However the computer code was not Briffa's and hence the statement should not be on this Wikipedia page. No source was given for the claim that it was his computer code either. TimOsborn (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Obituary
There's a new obituary in the Guardian which should be useful for filling in a few details. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)