Please. Your own oppinion is not relevant for this discussion. If you see them as gossip. Be it. But as far as we say who the writers are, we are inside WP:RS (and that is NOT as requirement to be mentioned on a talk page |
Undid revision 344582634 by Nsaa (talk) - Not aceptable use of pressmulti. |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
{{Controversial}} |
{{Controversial}} |
||
{{Calm talk}} |
{{Calm talk}} |
||
{{pressmulti |
|||
| collapsed=no |
|||
| author=[[Lawrence Solomon]] |
|||
| title=Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing |
|||
| org=[[National Post]] |
|||
| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/16/lawrence-solomon-better-off-with-bing.aspx |
|||
| date=2010-01-16 |
|||
| archiveurl = |
|||
| archivedate = |
|||
| quote = after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident” that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised release of thousands of emails |
|||
| title2=Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia |
|||
| author2=[[James Delingpole]] |
|||
| date2= 2009-12-22 |
|||
| url2= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ |
|||
| archiveurl2 = http://www.webcitation.org/5mEN1r8yk |
|||
| archivedate2 = 2009-12-23 |
|||
| org2= [[The Telegraph]] |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
||
{{tmbox |
{{tmbox |
Revision as of 09:25, 17 February 2010
Template:Community article probation
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 2 days |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 2 days |
A news item involving Climatic Research Unit email controversy was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 November 2009. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"?
A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Wikipedia articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent [needs update] Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails?
A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source?
A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain?
A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?
A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime.[1] Both the University [2] and a science blog, RealClimate [3] [4], have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".[5] Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person.
A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Wikipedia policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article?
A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do?
A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content?
A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that?
A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Wikipedia's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Wikipedia article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Wikipedia coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Wikipedia in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on
and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on
and at Requested moves on
|
Climategate disambiguation page needed?
People who come to Wikipedia searching "Climategate" are not exclusively looking for information on the e-mail scandal. Some are interested in one or more of the cascade of related scandals, revelations and events, such as the Himalaya glaciers, the WWF research, the dropping of northern weather stations, the Chinese data, the hockey stick graph, the Jones confession, the defections of Cristy and Watson, etc etc. It's getting hard to keep track of them all! Obviously the current title doesn't fit for all that. A disambiguation page might help. Any votes for or against? Plain jack (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC on article name change
Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change
I've moved that discussion to a separate page because, at nearly 50kb, it was dwarfing the rest of the page, and is heading in the opposite direction to consensus. --TS 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Heading in the opposite directing to consensus"? What do you mean? Consensus to change the title of the article has clearly emerged. I count 20 in favor of changing the title and only 13 opposed. Furthermore, the last 8 votes are all in favor. Are you seriously trying to hide the results by moving them? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Another panel member facing calls to resign
More news here A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation that Nigel Lawson set up a few days after the emails were made public, thinks mainstream scientist is biased. News at 10. . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Souza, sarcasm is not helpful. I looked at the Scotsman article. Is there a separate Wikipedia article on the investigation? If not, then a sentence saying that one of the investigators resigned after being accused of COI may be appropriate. If more sources pick up on the calls for this other guy to resign, then a sentence saying something like, "Allegations of COI have been raised against other members of the investigative team by critics." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sarcasm? It's obvious that a think tank set up on 23 November 2009 by a climate sceptic politician "concerned with the 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' put forward to deal with global warming" is likely to complain about a reputable mainstream scientist taking part in the enquiry. Thanks for the spelling correction, KimDabelsteinPetersen, I copied and pasted from the linked Scotsman article and it appears that they got that wrong. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Souza, sarcasm is not helpful. I looked at the Scotsman article. Is there a separate Wikipedia article on the investigation? If not, then a sentence saying that one of the investigators resigned after being accused of COI may be appropriate. If more sources pick up on the calls for this other guy to resign, then a sentence saying something like, "Allegations of COI have been raised against other members of the investigative team by critics." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to say this, I'm starting to think that Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ is deserving of its own article. If we don't already have enough content, we will by the time it releases its report. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how there could possibly be enough material for a separate article, even after the report has been released. I can see it eventually needing a paragraph in this article, and perhaps even its own section, but certainly not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have no plans to create one as this is the only article in this topic space I edit, but sure I think that there's enough for an entire article. Off the top of my head, here's a brief outline:
-
- Summary - Summarize article
- Background - Summarize Climategate controversy
- Mandate - Explain what specific allegations they're investigating.
- Makeup - List of panel members with brief explanations of each of their backgrounds
- History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign
- Conclusions - To be filled out later
- Reception - Reactions to the conclusions, to be filled out later A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be huge redundancy. I think you will find that the entire investigation and its conclusions will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph. I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton). Giving this its own article would be making an enormous mountain out of a tiny molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- It couldn't be redundant as this article is about the "hacking incident". Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- "That would be huge redundancy" It would only be a huge redundancy if the entire contents of the sub-article was included in the main article. Instead, the sub-article should include the important details while the main article only contains a summary.
- "I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton)" I disagree. Jimbo has said that Wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge.[6] A bit grandiose if you ask me, but there's no reason why a reader who's interested in finding out more about the the Russell inquiry shouldn't be allowed to. We're not a paper encyclopedia. We're not limited by the number of pages that can be printed. As long as the Russell inquiry is notable (which clearly it is) and we cite reliable sources (which obviously we can), I don't see a problem at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussing a spinout article is fine per WP:Talk page guidelines, but please confine such a discussion to the merits of the proposed article. It may be better to work on a userspace draft. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- I did toy with the idea of separate coverage for the enquiries, but I quickly rejected the idea when we consider that there are at least seven enquiries in motion (see #Keeping up with the investigations/reviews/inquiries above. Anyway, as always, what we do is start the coverage here in an article section, then, if and when this article becomes too big, we look at which section(s) to spin off into sub-articles, leaving a summary and a {main} link here. No need to worry about it until then. --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree that the way news is developing, it seems worthwhile moving the various enquiries from the "responses" section into a new "reviews and enquiries" section. As you say, if that section becomes too large, it can be split off in summary style. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems premature to start an article about the COE. It's currently attracting news coverage, and if the denialists manage to gut it, then it might be worth a sentence somewhere in the politicisation of climate change, but beyond that its only notability lies with its findings and their consequences. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't use offensive terms like denialists; it really doesn't help. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- What do you suggest as an alternative? I find the nonsensical frame of "skeptic" far more offensive, all the more since it's regularly turned around into an attack. Guettarda (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I simply suggest that we be guided by Wikipedia:Civility. I hope this is not controversial. Personally I would suggest that addressing people by the term they use to describe themselves (which would, in this case, be "skeptics") is normally a good position to start from. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL doesn't require us refer to Fox News as "fair and balanced". Personally I prefer accuracy over framing. There are really only two defensible terms, "denialist" and "contrarian" (per sources supplied in the archives, somewhere). And I find "contrarian" to be both clumsy and too infrequently used. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer "anti-science activists". They are not "sceptics" any more than Marxists are sceptics of capitalism or creationists are sceptics of evolution. They are ideologically opposed to the science because it casts doubt on their ideological assumptions. They hold so strongly to their ideology that they hold an a priori belief that any contrary scientific conclusions are either invalid or the work of their political opponents. This belief is about as anti-science as you can get; it's no different to the Communists' embrace of Lysenkoism because they thought Darwinian evolution was ideological incompatible with Marxism. They're also not content just to stand on the sidelines - they actively seek to attack and undermine the scientific process itself. This incident shows that in practice - the long-term harassment of the scientists, the attack on a major scientific institution, the well-oiled propaganda machine, the death threats. So "anti-science activists", because they're actively hostile to science itself when it challenges their ideology. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous! Two scientist can look at the same data and draw different conclusions depending on the context. It is only in case of the really hard sciences any "truth" applies. Climate science is a cross-disciplinary science and a relatively soft science and as such is open to interpretation. Personally I do not find the available data convincing. Does this make me a "anti-science" scientist. Of course not. I am simply skeptical of your conclusions based on the available data.85.77.244.145 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As a working scientist I do find the parodies of science being tossed around above faintly hilarious. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer "anti-science activists". They are not "sceptics" any more than Marxists are sceptics of capitalism or creationists are sceptics of evolution. They are ideologically opposed to the science because it casts doubt on their ideological assumptions. They hold so strongly to their ideology that they hold an a priori belief that any contrary scientific conclusions are either invalid or the work of their political opponents. This belief is about as anti-science as you can get; it's no different to the Communists' embrace of Lysenkoism because they thought Darwinian evolution was ideological incompatible with Marxism. They're also not content just to stand on the sidelines - they actively seek to attack and undermine the scientific process itself. This incident shows that in practice - the long-term harassment of the scientists, the attack on a major scientific institution, the well-oiled propaganda machine, the death threats. So "anti-science activists", because they're actively hostile to science itself when it challenges their ideology. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL doesn't require us refer to Fox News as "fair and balanced". Personally I prefer accuracy over framing. There are really only two defensible terms, "denialist" and "contrarian" (per sources supplied in the archives, somewhere). And I find "contrarian" to be both clumsy and too infrequently used. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hacked document made public, and other news
Document revealed, and comment on disagreements. . dave souza, talk 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- That commentary article is well-written and informative. I liked how he explained the nature of "research science." Is that photomontage a public image? If so, it could be added to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed Stainforth's column is excellent, an accurate portrayal of the status of the science and what the real uncertainties are (as opposed to what journalists, politicians, and scientists in unrelated fields think the uncertainties are). It's nice to hear from someone who is an ordinary scientist in the trenches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Canadian Blog, Small Dead Animals, contains articles and comments from a Canadian perspective under the heading "Hide the Decline" http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012714.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by On2u2 (talk • contribs)
- Rajendra K. Pachauri quote... a must read!!
Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC? R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?
Exactly! 142.177.60.141 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unsourced, and seems to have lost something in translation. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
BBC Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
The recent BBC Q&A withe Phil Jones [7] is a useful source: much of it is off-topic for this article but some sections are quite relevant, and it seems one of the better Reliable Sources we have got for his opinion of the incident. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I read this article in The Mail first, which contained this inexplicable sentence: He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.. Then I read the BBC interview, where Jones discusses the same periods, with different answers, so now I'm convinced the Mail reporter just mangled the answers. The BBC interview is quite interesting.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the first time -- or the second, or the third -- that the Mail has screwed things up badly. It simply isn't a reliable source on anything related to this topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I thought his answers were probably nonsense, but it is still better to work from the BBC's fairly original version answers than from a mangled version of them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- @jonathanJones - I think his answers [[8]] were uncommonly straightforward, and to some extent quite accurate, but neither of our opinions matters a whit as to whether this is a WP:RS for the opinions of Phil Jones. Unclear if it needs to be here only, or also in Global Warming. Speculation on his motives, if that's what you were doing, is unnecessary. Oiler99 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I found his answers generally interesting, humble and carefully constructed. Not enough to stop misleading spin by tabloids. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Mail is just as reliable as any other newspaper trying to hype headlines to sell papers. So what now, can't reference newspapers now? pullleeeze142.68.220.68 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Reliable sources policy. That tabloid does not have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the archives on WP:RSN there have been discussions of the Mail. Can be reliable for some topics. Their science coverage has received a great deal of criticism. "Hype headlines" doesn't come into it - headlines are written by subeditors and should not be use as sources. Of course newspapers want to sell copies, like writers want to sell books. If we take any notice of that then we will have no sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any record of The Mail making up quotes in an interview? If not, it would seem ok as a source for the Jones quotes. JPatterson (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ever heard of quote mining? As it happens, the quotes it uses are from the BBC interview, transcript link at the top of this section. A much better source. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Reliable sources policy. That tabloid does not have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- @jonathanJones - I think his answers [[8]] were uncommonly straightforward, and to some extent quite accurate, but neither of our opinions matters a whit as to whether this is a WP:RS for the opinions of Phil Jones. Unclear if it needs to be here only, or also in Global Warming. Speculation on his motives, if that's what you were doing, is unnecessary. Oiler99 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Press coverage
It's time for this issue to be decided. This page can optionally include a template that lists any interesting press coverage the article receives. For some weeks now, certain editors (notably Nsaa) have been trying to get anti-Wikipedia/anti-article press coverage included in this talk page, presumably to make some sort of point. Examples include:
- Lawrence Solomon - laying out his conspiracy theory that Google and Wikipedia have colluded to offer only a censored, sanitized version of the CRU story.
- James Delingpole - complains about sanitized version of "the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age." (Hidden in the template by Nsaa by using HTML comments)
There is no policy or guideline that requires this template; furthermore, WP:PRESS appears to encourage positive press coverage, rather than negative. Likewise, there is no policy or guideline that prohibits this template either. Its inclusion or exclusion is determined by consensus. So let's have at it. Do we support or oppose this inclusion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Scjessey does not phrase his question fairly. The inclusion of the press template is not equivalent to the inclusion of links to Delingpole and Solomon. The press template would contain links to all relevant press coverage. We must, surely, be in favour of that? What are you opposers afraid of? That the newspapers of the world disagree with WP? Surely that cannot be the case as we are not arbiters of the truth. We merely reflect the WP:RSs, we are not in the business of hiding them from our readers. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Paul on this. He also forgot to mention this Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia. And why the BLP issue is just raised again and again is beound my understanding. Please first read this Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident where Delingspoles article was raised at WP:BLPN. Nsaa (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Whitewashing what commentators have to say about the state of play on Wikipedia with regards to climate change is not a good idea. And to quote from WP:PRESS, "The template {{press}} may also be used to document mention of specific articles on their talk page." The real "support/oppose" should be held with consensus necessary to NOT include it on the talkpage. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is, of course, nonsense. The default position is exclusion (otherwise it would be built in to ALL article talk pages); therefore, you must seek consensus before inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not, of course, nonsense. There is no "default position" regarding this template. It's my understanding that if WP articles receive media coverage, this template can be placed to note that coverage. Without strong reasons for exclusion, there shouldn't be any problem with including it. And there are not strong reasons for excluding it in this case. Scottaka UnitAnode 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is, of course, nonsense. The default position is exclusion (otherwise it would be built in to ALL article talk pages); therefore, you must seek consensus before inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose presenting as press coverage an incidental mention in a blog on Google, and another blog post with blp issues. . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not "incidental mention" at all. Why would you characterize it as such? Scottaka UnitAnode 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I don't think there is any question that including this material would violate WP:BLP#External_links. That being said, I will reiterate that we should redouble efforts to write a dispassionate, scrupulously NPOV article that would not present such low hanging fruit to those seeking to discredit WP. JPatterson (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per a question raised by Sphilbrick on my user talk page, it sould be noted that WP:BLP applies to all pages including article talk pages which are explicitly mentioned. JPatterson (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I don't see anything in WP:PRESS suggesting a preference for positive coverage. If there is, I'll lobby to change the policy. While we ought to include coverage both positive and negative, we ought to be scrupulous about including negative, to mitigate any perception we are slanted. SPhilbrickT 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification - I hadn't recently read the Delipole rant at the time of my !vote. It doesn't change my answer in general, but I'm fine with not including that one.SPhilbrickT 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously we should not permanently link to articles that are poorly written and poorly researched, even on a talk page. Especially we should not abuse this talk page to publicise fringe opinions such as those of Solomon, Delingpole and the like. --TS 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support none of us work for the Ministry of Truth so why should we work to promote WP. It is article like these that keep WP objective. Arzel (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. (ec) This is another poorly-researched blog by Lawrence Solomon which betrays his continued lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia functions. (He confuses a redirect from the term Climategate to this article with a censorship campaign, and suggests that this article represents some sort of official "Wikipedia-approved version".) As well, the Wikipedia-related 'coverage' in Solomon's blog post is largely confined to a single paragraph near the bottom. This talk page is not an appropriate place to provide a soapbox for someone with a history of posting non-factual anti-Wikipedia blog rants and conspiracy theories. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support per what Arzel said mark nutley (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support ditto 130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support per what Arzel said. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose These are opinion articles with agendas, and while i agree that we should mention both positive and negative reviews, we shouldn't use references that would normally be sub-par, and not merit inclusion in general articles. Literary reviews: Great, General articles: Great, Op-eds by political partisans (no matter what side): No. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I read through WP:PRESS and can find nothing to support a preference for positive coverage. Indeed, if Wikipedia's articles on global warming are biased, then the correct course of action is to fix them, not deny the problem exists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is the second comment of this nature. In my original comment, I noted that Wikipedia appears to encourage positive coverage. This was my interpretation of:
- Great quotes from articles that enhance the reputation of Wikipedia should be included in our Trophy box.
- I did not use the word "preference". Needless to say, it is clear that we have no reason to voluntarily include anti-Wikipedia propaganda, especially when it is based on fantasy and/or wrongheadedness. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- That sentence is about Trophy box which is completely different than this article's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. It's about press coverage (which is what we are talking about). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's about the Trophy box. Obviously wrong arguments aren't helping things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. It's about press coverage (which is what we are talking about). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- That sentence is about Trophy box which is completely different than this article's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is the second comment of this nature. In my original comment, I noted that Wikipedia appears to encourage positive coverage. This was my interpretation of:
- Strong oppose, primarily per WP:BLP#External_links, as JPatterson has rightly noted. Additionally, I don't see what value could possibly be provided by linking to two pieces which make claims that we all know, or should know, are blatantly false. Nothing could be achieved by adding those links other than confusing and misinforming visitors to this page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- uuuhhh it's easy to forgot... please reread this issue at WP:BLPN where it has been raised. Nsaa (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, per my past comments on the matter. We're under no obligation to promote error-ridden blog posts and opinion pieces. If they can't bother to check their facts, we shouldn't bother to link to them. Guettarda (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support-It will go to show that certain news organizations are watching what we are doing here...I don't see any reason to not recognize the press...they're recognizing us, why not return the favor?Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not "the press". This is opinion pieces by climate skeptics pushing an anti-Wikipedia agenda. World of difference. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia attempts to provide a neutral/balanced point of view. Its only fair if we link to those who oppose us as well as to those who support us. On a side note, I only support linking to sources that would qualify under WP:RS...and not all opinion pieces do.Smallman12q (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not "the press". This is opinion pieces by climate skeptics pushing an anti-Wikipedia agenda. World of difference. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just for info, these are blogs which fail WP:RS and more specifically WP:SPS as they're blatantly not expert opinion about Wikipedia, as well as them promoting fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support, mainly because, from what I have seen on the AGW pages, I believe Solomon is right.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have you read the piece? He is obviously very uninformed about WP. Anyone who has edited here could spot any number of errors in his analysis. Also his google analysis is well off the mark I'm afraid. There is no collusion, only a different algorithm for counting and google's is better IMHO. JPatterson (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support, but not because I think the criticism is wrong or right. There must not be the perception that we are hiding criticism of WP. It is shameful that we seem determined to ignore criticism. If you really believe this article truly reflects Climategate then you would not be shy of criticism. The problem is that WP is not just opinion-reflecting it is opinion forming. We know this, and this is why some allow the distortions of this article to continue, and why they shield them from criticism. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support, primarily because one of the AGW goaltenders decided to "administratively chastise" me on my talk page for some comments that are much more innocuous than those posted above by said defenders of the faith...ipso facto. --Textmatters (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Despite the rather bizarre representation given by Scjessey of WP:Press and of the contents of the articles. Would the OP mind revising the description of the two articles so as to represent them more fairly?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I just made the inclusion. I don't see the harm in mentioning the existence of these articles on the talkpage, and I don't see any way in which a link to these articles can be spun as a WP:BLP violation. However I do think KDP makes a good argument for their exclusion above. I'm down to talk about this. In the meantime, the vote currently reads 11 in favor, 7 against, which suggests we should include them while we do so.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support.. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Oiler99 (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support. For the alleged BLP Problem, please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident Nsaa (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Since Wikipedia is about verifiability it should be up to the reader to glean what truth they can from all relevant sources. Weakopedia (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The news media are currently flooded with misinformation on this subject and there is no good reason to provide links to ludicrously wrong articles which if wanted could be found in five seconds with any search engine. Xanthoxyl < 14:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. As per the arguments in favor above. HideTheDecline (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Bing versus Google
Off-topic discussion about search engines |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since this has been brought up above as being part of the reason that the Solomon piece can't be linked on this talkpage, I -- gasp! -- actually tested the theory, and searched both for "Climategate." Result: Bing ~51.8 million; Google ~3.7 million. That's far too large a gap to be coincidental. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
←Oooh! Ask.com has only 339,000 hits for "Climategate", with Wikipedia being the first. Their collusion with Wikipedia must be even worse! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I just read the Solomon article and it should be noted that this discussion is about a distorted view of Solomon's argument. His thesis was NOT that Google returns few hits than Bing and therefore is suppressing Climategate news. Rather, Solomon says that at one point Google returned X number of hits and is now returning Y number of hits where Y is substantially smaller than X. He also says Google's autocomplete feature has changed during this time frame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Further discussion
Also, unless I missed something, Solomon's article alleges no conspiracy between Google and Wikipedia. Where Scjessey got that idea from, I have no idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed this from before my first comment but admit didn't comment on it since Scott didn't seem to either. Solomon's article is really concentrating on the 'Google is evil' idea and only mentioned the wikipedia as an aside. He appears to be suggesting that Google is evil and linking to the wikipedia article as part of their campaign to downplay the significance of the controversy. So no, not active collusion rather we're both part of the widespread worldwide group who for whatever reason (money is suggested for Google, none is offered for us) wants to promote global warming and censor any negative information so linking to this evil article benefits the evil Google. However the fact that Google links to the wikipedia first whatever our ultimate name for the article should surprise no one who knows how Google operates and is hardly uncommon (and in fact one of the key concerns for many LPs is our BLPs is the first link for them and in fact it's true for Lawrence Solomon himself). In terms of his actual criticism of our article (whatever you may think of it) while parts of it may be relevant (for the time), other parts show a distinct lack of understanding of wikipedia (like the idea that there's some secret hidden climategate article, there have been forks some of which may still exist but that's different and hardly uncommon as I guess you know). Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another article from Solomon we may wish to add to the press section: Climategate rages on at Wikipedi. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to discuss this article in any way, but rather Wikipedia in general. Maybe we should add it to Talk:Main Page :) Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll get right on it! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to discuss this article in any way, but rather Wikipedia in general. Maybe we should add it to Talk:Main Page :) Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another article from Solomon we may wish to add to the press section: Climategate rages on at Wikipedi. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What about the BLP issue
Could those who expressed support above please comment here on why they think inclusion would not violate WP:BLP?JPatterson (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Could you explain how it might? That's not clear to me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here's a couple of on point excerpts from the policy. Bolding for the most part mine.
- This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.
- So that says the BLP rules apply to the inclusion you support, including this one
- External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[4]
- I think the articles in question fail the above
- Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; ...
- ..and I know the information re edit counts is not true so it fails this as well.
- and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.
- I don't see the relevance of this on the talk page. As you know, I am no fan of the high handedness of certain editors in this debate but policy is policy. I try and apply it evenly knowing that hypocrisy always comes back to bite you in the ass. JPatterson (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure these quotes clearly apply, but I found the explicitly relevant section: WP:ELBLP. It's still sketchy for me, but you may be right, and have my blessing to remove it if you feel (more or less strongly) inclined. I haven't looked at the above vote in awhile though so I suppose check for consensus.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. It's incredible that this issue again is raised... Nsaa (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I've read it. I don't see how it makes your case. It ends with a request for specific provisions of policy it would violate which I've provided above. HiP in addition points to WP:ELBLP. Please respond to those specific elements rather than pointing to an inconclusive RfC. Remember, per BLP, the onus for proving the inclusion does not violate policy rests with you. JPatterson (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. It's incredible that this issue again is raised... Nsaa (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure these quotes clearly apply, but I found the explicitly relevant section: WP:ELBLP. It's still sketchy for me, but you may be right, and have my blessing to remove it if you feel (more or less strongly) inclined. I haven't looked at the above vote in awhile though so I suppose check for consensus.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here's a couple of on point excerpts from the policy. Bolding for the most part mine.
Now adding to "see also" is subject to summary removal?
We have pretty liberal "see also" guidelines here. It should be patently obvious that there is some overlap between the article on the Criticism of the IPCC AR4, and this article. Yet, we have Haeb, whose only edits to this article in his last 500 are simple reversions, removing it, claiming my detailed edit summary just wasn't quite enough. Yet, Scjessey reverts the initial addition with nothing more than a "not related" edit summary, and that's acceptable? Good grief, people! It's also more than a bit, well, "interesting" that an editor who hadn't touched this article, or participated in any discussions surrounding it, in quite some time randomly shows up at a 1RR article once the wikilink was readded. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- You should consider refactoring your bad faith assertion above. You have to have a proper reason for adding something to a "see also", and that does not include "making sure as many people see it as possible." Also, you aren't supposed to be reverting things that have just been reverted, according to recent comments by 2/0. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- You reverted with an edit summary of "not related", which is categorically untrue. I restored the "see also" wikilink with a detailed edit summary. Then, mysteriously, Haeb drops by and reverts again to remove it, claiming my edit summary was somehow inadequate, while not commenting on your two word edit summary at all. Have I missed anything? Scottaka UnitAnode 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of the IPCC AR4 contains a huge amount of scientific info that's related to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Both are about scientific errors by the IPCC that have received widespread coverage in the media. The two are very much related to each other. In fact, I think the two articles should be merged, because all the scientific errors covered in both articles are all closely related to each other. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The CRU and the IPCC are two completely distinct organizations. One is part of the University of East Anglia and the other is an intergovernmental panel set up by the UN. --TS 04:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes they are, but they're closely related in the Climategate controversy, see for example An Overview of IPCC/Climategate Criticism. Nsaa (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This science article from the science website sciencemag.org shows that there is a very strong scientific connection. While I understand why the two articles shouldn't be merged, I do think the inclusion of the "see also" is well justified. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- See my answer below. Please stick one comment in on place to safe some bits ("Will nobody think of the bits? Please!") and avoid splintering the discussion. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
←The only way in which these two articles are related is that they are "causes" championed by deniers of anthropogenic climate change. The only legitimate unifying article is Global warming controversy, although really its about Climate change denial. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As a person who loves science, and who got A's in physics and chemistry, I know that if you have two sealed glass containers of air sitting in sunlight, and the only difference is that one has a higher level of carbon dioxide, then the one with the higher level of carbon dioxide will have a higher temperature. This is a scientific fact. Therefore, I do not see this as being about Climate change denial. Instead, I see it as being about Climate change exaggeration. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference to support that? My understanding is that thermal conduction through the container wall will determine the temperature since glass is opaque in the IR frequencies. Q Science (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I saw it on a special episode of Mythbusters where they had some science students as guests. But maybe it wasn't glass. The point was that a higher level of carbon dioxide caused the temperature to be higher. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference to support that? My understanding is that thermal conduction through the container wall will determine the temperature since glass is opaque in the IR frequencies. Q Science (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Propose merge with Criticism of the IPCC AR4
I propose that this article be merged with Criticism of the IPCC AR4 because both articles are about scientific errors by the IPCC. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. Criticism of the IPCC AR4 goes (or least should go) beyond the Climategate controversy. The error on the Pakistani glaciers, for example, has no direct relationship on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Total non-starter. Hipocrite (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, not even close --SPhilbrickT 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are obviously trying to conflate gross scientific fraud driven by an overt political-economic agenda with honest scientific mistakes. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This article relates to the CRU, not the IPCC. --TS 04:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK. You people have made your point very well, and I concede to your consensus. Thank you for explaining it. Long live honest science! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Update on name change proposal
It appears that that a clear consensus is emerging in the RfC to change the article's name. The voting is, as of this moment, 21-13 in support of changing the name. This list plus the comments in the RfC, appear to support "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" as the compromise title with the most support. If anyone hasn't commented yet on the RfC or on GoRight's proposal, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. To begin with, what's it doing on a user talkpage? But more to the point, the discussion was entirely WP:CANVASSed, it's not only unrepresentative, it's tainted. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The count is inaccurate. Many people voting "support" are actually voting for something else. There are several votes from anonymous IPs, SPAs and one from an IP evading a block (which I just removed). No consensus for change. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are you saying that my vote does not count? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Normally, the !vote of an anonymous IP editor will count less. Doubly-so if that IP has very little editing history, and triply-so if that IP's history appears to be largely pursuing a single-purpose agenda. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Register an account, make thousands of edits in lots of different topics and then you'll find your !vote will mean much more. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are you saying that my vote does not count? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The count is inaccurate. Many people voting "support" are actually voting for something else. There are several votes from anonymous IPs, SPAs and one from an IP evading a block (which I just removed). No consensus for change. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
"Normally, the !vote of an anonymous IP editor will count less." I strongly disagree with this on principle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I have have seen no policies or guidelines that implicitly or explicitly state that those choosing not to register for an account should be treated as 2nd class editors will less representation that those who have registered. Savlonn (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that, but I'm afraid that is simply the case. The opinions and !votes of editors in good standing will always carry more weight. This is absolutely necessary, otherwise the consensus approach to building this project wouldn't work. How would you deal with !votes/opinions from unregistered editors that come to Wikipedia after a "call to arms" by agenda-driven activists if you give them the same "weight" as longterm project contributors? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Registered. HideTheDecline (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- True, I counted 19-14, if you count 3 IPs. And you don't just arbitrarily close an RFC when your side's ahead, they're closed by an uninvolved party. And if there's no consensus, they run a month. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Make that 2 IPs. HideTheDecline (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, the current RfC will end in about 2 1/2 weeks or so. If the current consensus stays the same, but more than a few people still disagree with "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" as the new title, we'll just have to run either a straw poll or another RfC with the question being, "Should the article's new title be 'Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy'"? Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There's obviously no consensus on an alternative name at that RfC. It's a bit naughty to suggest that there is, or that one is likely to emerge. Put quite simply, there is no consensus on a name for this article. --TS 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I guess we disagree on that, and I think that's fine, not naughty. There is currently a clear consensus to change the name, and that appears to be the compromise name with the most support so far. We'll see how it goes (see below). Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's obviously no consensus on the status quo, that should go without saying. I don't think it's a bad thing to seek consensus on a name, but it's actively naughty to seek to emphasize the lack of consensus on whatever name the article happens to have at present. Where there is no clear alternative, such a strategy only builds on that division without providing a solution. Why do we know there's no consensus on the current name? The endless attempts to change it, of course. There's no need to rub it in. --TS 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy
This is a petition signed by (currently) 20 editors with highly varied points of view on this article. All support, specifically, a name change to the following:
- Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy
If anyone has any objections, feel free to list yourself below. If opposition isn't very strong we should recognize this as consensus and make the change. Note that you don't have to believe that this is the best title for you to be of the opinion that it is better than the current, so please let that temper your decision. Thanks, and happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The petition is signed by: GoRight, Cla68, ATren, JPatterson, ChrisO, Hipocrite, Arzel, Mark nutley, ChildofMidnight, A Quest For Knowledge, Heyitspeter, Wikispan, SPhilbrickT, JohnWBarber, Oren0, Nsaa, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Moogwrench, Paul Beardsell and HideTheDecline.
- I also support this. I hope others will, too. --TS 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, yes, I strongly object to conducting canvassed discussions on user pages. I can't imagine how anyone can think this is an acceptable way to carry out a legitimate discussion. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing isn't categorically discouraged. WP:CANVASS advises against "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion". I don't see these in this case. Do you have an objection to the renaming? If you in fact support it, consider yourself appropriately canvassed by me, here, and add your name to the petition?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you look at the pattern of the canvass? Was the basis of his canvass neutral? It doesn't look so, not if you look at the edit history. And I have no intention of participating in a discussion on GoRight's user page. Not after the barrage of insults I got the last time I tried to constructively engage him. Guettarda (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As to Oren0's collapse of this section as being under discussion on the RFC page, this is a separate discussion of a proposal that's not included on that page at all. Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing isn't categorically discouraged. WP:CANVASS advises against "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion". I don't see these in this case. Do you have an objection to the renaming? If you in fact support it, consider yourself appropriately canvassed by me, here, and add your name to the petition?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, yes, I strongly object to conducting canvassed discussions on user pages. I can't imagine how anyone can think this is an acceptable way to carry out a legitimate discussion. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how this name change is an improvement, so I oppose this change. Additionally, the place for a discusssion to happen should be here or on the RFC page, rather than the talk page of a user, so as far as I am concerned this hasn't really been discussed yet. Cardamon (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is a small step towards a NPOV article. I support it too and have added my name to the list. HideTheDecline (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how this name change is an improvement, so I oppose this change. Additionally, the place for a discusssion to happen should be here or on the RFC page, rather than the talk page of a user, so as far as I am concerned this hasn't really been discussed yet. Cardamon (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This petition was a very bad idea. Regardless of one's opinions on the proposed title itself - personally, I don't think it's that bad - we should all be able to agree that collecting a list of signatures on someone's talk page is not how to get an article renamed. Rename proposals should be made on the talk page of the article itself, and made known to all involved - indeed, this article already has one at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change. I would advise everyone involved with that petition to read the essay Wikipedia:Petitions are considered harmful for why we should generally avoid petitions on Wikipedia - they're a means of circumventing consensus rather than forming it. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Rename discussion on RfC subpage
Based on the initial RfC, I have opened a proposal to rename the article on the RfC subpage. Specifically, it proposes two options: leaving the article name as is or changing it to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no other names are proposed. Please comment here. Oren0 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to have jumped the gun. Per discussion, just above the RFC is at "no consensus" and should not be closed as having reached consensus, especially by an involved editor. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since RFC asked the question "should be move the page". If it gets consensus, the next stage is to ask "what should be move it to?" Since we haven't gotten consensus on the first part, it's inappropriate to move on to the second part. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- See various responses at the section linked to originally.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since RFC asked the question "should be move the page". If it gets consensus, the next stage is to ask "what should be move it to?" Since we haven't gotten consensus on the first part, it's inappropriate to move on to the second part. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Rv: why
Crit-of-AR4 doesn't belong [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This science article from the science website sciencemag.org shows that there is a very strong scientific connection. While I understand why the two articles shouldn't be merged, I do think the inclusion of the "see also" is well justified. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm blind, but, your article does not seem to mention CRU or the hacked emails. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Whats up with all of this? No connection? What world are you living in? See this Scandinavia-gate?. Read also this Scandinavian temperatures, IPCC´s "Scandinavia-gate" More evidence that IPCC's claim of global warming in the Scandinavian area is yet another home-made "fact" from IPCC.. All the request from professor Karlen has been revealed in the Climategate emails, see One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.” I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. Here’s the story, complete with pictures. I have labeled the text to make it clear who is speaking, including my comments.. Nsaa (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm blind, but, your article does not seem to mention CRU or the hacked emails. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Less of the soapboxing please. hidethedecline.eu isn't a RS for anything. Please bear in mind that this isn't usenet William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't say anything? No it says nothing about what you care about (the misleading hacking), but says a lot about Climategate. Should we create another article then? And iff you both care to read the actual emails you clearly sees what these blogs pinpoints. Nsaa (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, you sees, and while you're welcome to put your conspiracy theories on your blog you keep linking, that's not an adequate source for putting your original research on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't say anything? No it says nothing about what you care about (the misleading hacking), but says a lot about Climategate. Should we create another article then? And iff you both care to read the actual emails you clearly sees what these blogs pinpoints. Nsaa (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't see anything in Kintisch's blog post that can be tied to the hacked emails. He appears to be using "Climategate" to refer to the entire issue surrounding the IPCC, which appears to be novel usage. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've noticed a number of reporters starting to use the term "climategate" in a sense far broader than simply the CRU incident. (As an aside, if this becomes commonplace, we'll have even more titling issues to address). ::::::::I agree that none of the items mentioned in this article relate to the CRU article, but they do relate to the article currently titled Criticism of IPCC AR4. Perhaps that is a better place to discuss whether this cite belongs in "see also"? (Although as a blog, it probably doesn't meet RS)--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Crossposted with Guettarda - no it's not novel usage, I've seen it many places, but it is not yet the prevailing usage. --SPhilbrickT 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Interesting. If that catches on, we might have to switch the redirect on 'Climategate', or turn it into a dab, pending reliable sources. Great - that'll one more thing to watch people fight over. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Crossposted with Guettarda - no it's not novel usage, I've seen it many places, but it is not yet the prevailing usage. --SPhilbrickT 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've noticed a number of reporters starting to use the term "climategate" in a sense far broader than simply the CRU incident. (As an aside, if this becomes commonplace, we'll have even more titling issues to address). ::::::::I agree that none of the items mentioned in this article relate to the CRU article, but they do relate to the article currently titled Criticism of IPCC AR4. Perhaps that is a better place to discuss whether this cite belongs in "see also"? (Although as a blog, it probably doesn't meet RS)--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't see anything in Kintisch's blog post that can be tied to the hacked emails. He appears to be using "Climategate" to refer to the entire issue surrounding the IPCC, which appears to be novel usage. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, the climategate issue is connected to a general criticism of the IPCC and the AR4 by extension. This is the only article that could be named climategate (for various reasons), and that word is linked to this article. It is logical to assume that anyone searching on Climategate is also looking for a broad view of the controversy surounding the CRU breach and the subsequent fallout from the release of data and emails. I cannot see any logical reason to suggest that they are not at all related. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to see that the CRU controversy has resulted in a deeper look into the AR4 resulting the retraction of a number of claims from the AR4 (namely the end of the Himilayian Glaciers, the amount of Denmark under sea-level, ect.) I see no reason why it cannot be linked, and I fail to see why it is a problem, unless people just don't want the Crit of AR4 article to be highly visable. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is an excellent argument. I agree with you that people who do a search for the term "Climategate" will be likely to be interested in all of that scientific information. It does seem that this is a debate of inclusionists vs exclusionists. I am an inclusionist, and I want the readers of the encyclopedia to have easy access to all of the information. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. There's nothing to suggest that people searching for "Climategate" are looking for anything other than the CRU hacking story. It's pure speculation without factual support. No need for Wikipedia to act as an enabler for science skeptics looking to promote their cause. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am a believer, not a skeptic, of science, and I believe in manmade global warming. I also believe that it appears that some scientists may have exaggerated the effects of manmade global warming, and that readers who are interested in reading about such exaggerations will use the term "Climategate" when they do a search for such information. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. There's nothing to suggest that people searching for "Climategate" are looking for anything other than the CRU hacking story. It's pure speculation without factual support. No need for Wikipedia to act as an enabler for science skeptics looking to promote their cause. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Umm...when I said "that'll one more thing to watch people fight over", I wasn't saying that the fight should start now. Wait a bit. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
Non-starter |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The only major POV issue I see remaining here is that, as Scjessey originally pointed out, Climategate now refers to the document controversy and not so much the subject of this article (the hacking (for lack of a better term) itself). I propose we redirect Climategate to the fork and remove the POV tag from this article. This would also I think end the food fight over the naming since the fork name is close to the compromise position already. Any takers? JPatterson (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
|