update on proposed name change |
|||
Line 339: | Line 339: | ||
==Update on name change proposal== |
==Update on name change proposal== |
||
It appears that that a clear consensus is emerging in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change RfC] to change the article's name. The voting is, as of this moment, 21-13 in support of changing the name. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoRight#Current_Proposal 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. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
It appears that that a clear consensus is emerging in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change RfC] to change the article's name. The voting is, as of this moment, 21-13 in support of changing the name. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoRight#Current_Proposal 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. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk: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:CANVASS]]ed, it's not only unrepresentative, it's tainted. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:11, 16 February 2010
Template:Community article probation
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)
An analysis of various potential titles by news hits
Please continue this discussion on the RFC at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change, where a full copy of the text of this section is available
|
---|
I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. UnitAnode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've gone back and forth on the "Climategate" name change issue. As a skeptic I would like to state for the record that it's just too soon to re-name this article "Climategate" even though many (every single) reliable source calls it that. For two very simple reasons: 1. It's a violation of WP guidelines (a word to avoid); and 2. We don't know yet whether or not this is a significant event. Someone once opined that everything since the Fall of Rome is current events. I don't take quite such a strict view, but there's no avoiding the fact that this is a developing story. Maybe the term "hack" should go. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to talk about it, especially since it rubs some folks raw (for one reason and another). You know what really would help, though? The whole "assume good faith" thing. The skeptics (and we know who we are) need to stop acting like this was something other than a minor issue of semantics and WP policy. The True Believers (and you know who you are) need to ease up on the stridency and condescension. (tongue-in-cheek) How's about htis for a compromise - if Al Gore calls it "Climategate", can we put it parenthetically in the title? Nightmote (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found: Climategate in quotes: 11 [6][7][8][9][10] [11][12] [13][14] [15][16] Climategate not in quotes: 2 [17][18] Climategate both with and without quotes: 7 [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you basing this on anything but your own point-of-view? Has any reliable source ever criticized Nature for being political? And since when are there "politics behind science"? Are you referring to the politicization of science, because if that's so then you've got your cause-and-effect mixed up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There would indeed appear to be sourcing that calls Nature's editorial independence into doubt. Key quote from Dr. Campbel: "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." Nature's editor forced to step down from climate review panel?? They are clearly an involved party here and should be treated as such. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia-type IPCC
I'm still reading this article from the CSM, but I ran across an interesting phrase worth sharing:
John Christy, a climate researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, suggests setting up a Wikipedia-type IPCC --SPhilbrickT 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- right....sure....like we don't have enough self-important unemployed computer programmer writing enough non-fact in wiki already.142.177.62.115 (talk) 23:45, 14 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.[28] 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)
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 [29] 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 [[30]] 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 [[30]] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)