Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 121: Line 121:


[[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
[[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:Done as requested, the old source didn't seem to be used for anything else so I've removed it. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:28, 18 June 2010

Template:Community article probation

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.


Phil Jones at work - Yes or No?

This seemingly minor point has irritated me for some time. Is Phil Jones currently at work or not? The current text: "The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews." strongly suggests so while in fact the third and final(?) review is still ongoing and will report in a few months/end of the year? The CRU website, which might not be accurate, indicates Prof Peter Liss[6] is in fact in charge[7].

I suggest the text be amended to say "has stood aside from his post for the duration of the reviews". The text should be edited both in this article and the article on Phil Jones.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue here is that the article must say what is reported by reliable sources, otherwise you are basically talking about synthesizing something from the information on the UEA website. While what you say might indeed be true, we must have a proper source that says so. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. The sources are not clear on the subject. In December there was only one inquiry and a statement given of stepping down for the duration... and then later we have a second inquiry announced but actually no new statement regarding Phil Jones. Has anyone else got better info?91.153.115.15 (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jones is "at work" insofar as he is still one of the principal scientists employed by this small unit. If he is re-appointed to his post as leader of the Unit no doubt the University will issue a press release. --TS 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is also how I interpreted the sources. The current text suggests he has been re-appointed but the last review is still ongoing. I would like to see the word "has" put in front of "stood aside". That's all. (AKA ip 91.53.x.x)130.232.214.10 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede still violates WP:NPOV

From Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_33#Lede_still_violates_WP:NPOV

Here is the 4th version of the proposed first paragraph of the lead, crafted to take into account feedback given over the course of the process.

(4): The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change skeptics argued that the emails cast doubt on global warming.[1][2][3] Reports in the media claimed the emails showed evidence of efforts to withhold scientific data and to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others,[4][5] of attempts to remove journal editors with whom the researchers disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked,[6][5] and of failures to appropriately fulfill requests under the Freedom of Information Act.[7] The BBC also raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of the CRU's coding methods as prompted by coding documentation released with the emails.[8] The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations[9][10] and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data.[9][3][11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitspeter (talkcontribs)
No, that's POV rubbish. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please refactor your comment and replace it with constructive commentary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead ok, as discussed

The current lead includes the statement "Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy." which is accurate and does not give undue weight to the relatively minor criticisms allegedly made by non-skeptics once the controversy began. The second paragraph of the lead covers the points "that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices", The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information", and "although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose." The balance is reasonable as an overview of the article and the "controversy". . dave souza, talk 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you refer to does not accurately summarize the information contained in the article. The media did not publicize skeptical allegations, they made independent allegations. And not allegedly. There are many RSs in the article that contain those allegations. Nor are these allegations minor. They include for example extremely well-publicized statements made by the british government.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? By the way, the ICO isn't the British Government. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have allayed the concerns raised here

I'm just giving a courtesy 24 hour 'warning' indicating that I will add this text by then if I don't hear any further response from people. Consider this encouragement to raise concerns if you have any.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What text is that? Sorry but I'm a bit unclear on that. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! A lot of this discussion was left in the archive by request to avoid cluttering the page. Maybe we should have brought more out.
I'm referring to (4) in this section, which would replace the first paragraph you see on the main page.
Let me know if you have any other questions or comments. I don't mean this subsection as a threat or anything, I'm honestly looking for feedback and won't post the text if approximately serious concerns are raised.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Must say I'm totally lost as to what the fighting is over. Sometimes these discussions are like the old soap operas. If you miss an episode it's hard to catch up. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current edition of the lead describes the controversy as restricted to: allegations from skeptics that the case against climate change is weakened by the leaks. (4) would bring the lead in line with WP:UNDUE (WP:NPOV) and WP:LEAD by summarizing the controversy as it has been treated in the main stream media.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link or diff (as if I know how to find a diff!) to that archived material? Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diff of the archive is at the top of the section Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_33#Lede_still_violates_WP:NPOV. As for the substance of this change, I can see what you're trying to do here, which is to make a more informative lead, which is objected to as being POV. What I don't understand is why you feel that the milder wording is POV. It conveys the same information, but in less explicit detail. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The milder wording? Can you explain what you're referring to? (It may be worth reading comment directly below in case I've inadvertently answered your question).--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your version (No. 4) is more explicit in describing the emails, hence is milder than the more restrained language there now. The discussion below is helpful in clarifying the issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens to the lead, it has be noted that sentiment that these documents reveal misconduct is held primarily by climate change skeptics. The "Reports in the media claimed" wording is doesn't make this clear. Suggesting it is a non-partisan POV fails WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that that is not correct, NickCT. The view that these documents reveal misconduct on the part of the researchers is certainly held by climate change skeptics, and notably, as is displayed in (4). However, there have also been well publicized reports by reliable sources that the documents reveal misconduct ([4] includes reports from the Wall Street Journal and the BBC). And there have been extraordinarily well-publicized statements made by the British government that the documents reveal misconduct as well. These latter two categories are notable, are not skeptical, and are not covered by the current lead in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (4) fixes that. I hope I'm making myself clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still trying to give relatively obscure issues undue prominence in the lead. To make your case, you need to show the sources here for discussion, and not just have the tags hidden as inline cites. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are not relatively obscure issues, they define the controversy. To describe only assertions made by skeptics, when numerous main stream media reports and government organizations are also making these assertions (occasionally identical ones), violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That's the last thing I'll say about that to you as per WP:HEAR.
To be honest, I'm not quite sure how to insert the sources here. But all of them are included in the main article under the same refnames. If you want to look through them one by one you can check there. Or look at the archived part of the discussion which includes versions of the proposed text that go into more detail about which newspapers and govt orgs we're dealing with here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide links to them for discussion. However, this really looks like original research on your part – there were clearly many news reports of "skeptic's claims", and some that looked into issues without making it explicit, but you really need a secondary source assessing the proportionate importance rather than doing it yourself. There's also the problem of making claims in one paragraph of the lead, only to show them being dismissed by the reports of independent inquiries in the second. So, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to these baseless claims by showing them out of the context of more up to date reports. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As sources have shown, the controversy was initiated by skeptics and most of the allegations were directly attributed to skeptics. It's unclear what news sources Heyitspeter's using to try to support your the assertion that these were general, but for one example the WSJ is notoriously skeptical and not that typical of mainstream media on the issue. The proposal gives undue weight to detailed issues, which as stated are dealt with in the second paragraph, and misleadingly attributes skeptical claims to the mainstream. Not acceptable. . dave souza, talk 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV of the article has to move with the times too. At some points in the the history of this 'controversy' some media reports may have said this or that, but then the enquiries and the reviews started to appear, and it was found that a lot of the sceptic hoo-har was in fact baseless. That has to be taken account in the lede. There is no point in trying to turn the clock back to December 2009 and present in the lede what people didn't know then. The present wording summarises the current situation well. --Nigelj (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Nigel in general terms. Dave, can you articulate please the problem with No. 4? You have to admit that it is more informative. What's the problem with it? What am I missing here?ScottyBerg (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues. Firstly, going into detail of accusations without the context of the findings gives them inflated weight, and attributing the accusations to media rather than to skeptics reported in the media is, in general, inaccurate. There are some cases of issues being raised or discussed without explicit reference to "skeptics", but essentially the media were responding to a "skeptic" agenda. Similarly, the deputy commissioner making an improper and unofficial statement got blown out of proportion, and the more measured language of the finding gives better concise coverage of the issue. Presenting ill founded accusations out of context gives undue weight to them. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes; peer-reviewed journals

I've changed footnotes #8 and #87. They directed to this page instead of this one. I also added a quote that the scientists seemed to be trying to keep skeptics' articles out of peer-reviewed journals. (It would be SYN for me to try to reconcile that statement with the one that said they weren't perverting the peer-review process. The two statements seem contradictory to me, so we need to put both in, imo.) --Yopienso (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to syn, the report is explicit. On pages 21–23 he MPs noted the various claims, and the responses by Jones which in part stated that he just did not think the papers were very good. The MPs concluded that "73. The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email Review should look in detail at all of these claims." The sentence you were quoting was an editorial view by the AP reporter, not something said by the MPs. In science there is this process of discussion and peer review, where scientists are allowed to say that papers are rubbish, and that E&E publishes rubbish. . . dave souza, talk 10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, I have it sorted out now. Satter was harking back to initial suspicions after, in proper "inverted triangle" journalistic fashion, giving the results first. Sorry for the trouble. And thanks to NuclearWarfare for fixing my footnote. I did at least replace a dead one! :P --Yopienso (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive duplication of prior discussion

In a single edit this page was increased in size sixfold by the reposting of material from an archive page. The archives exist for a reason, and the repost is likely to make any new discussion difficult to find. Would somebody please kindly replace this massive word-dump with an internal link to the archived material? Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted. I agree the current version is better.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Russell to report July 7

The Muir Russell website now says the report is to be published on July 7. The article still says it's due out the end of May.

http://www.cce-review.org/News.php

Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested, the old source didn't seem to be used for anything else so I've removed it. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYTimes 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference fc_2009-12-10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Johnson_2009-11-23_WSJ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ST was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reason_12/2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Randerson_2010-01-27_Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsnight-code was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Moore 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference 2010-04-06_CRU_statements was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference ap_2009-12-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).