Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ice Man

[edit]

Thanks to CW for adding some history. I've cut this bit though:

He was then known as the "ice man" for his prediction of global cooling and a coming ice age but, following the UK's exceptionally hot summer of 1976, he switched to predicting a more imminent global warming.[citation needed]

Particularly at this delicate time I'd rather not have controversial unsourced assertions on here. Furthermore, I'm rather doubtful about it - Lamb doesn't figure in the global cooling saga to my knowledge. Perhaps that is a lack; but it definitely needs a source William M. Connolley (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly wrote quite extensively about global cooling, though his position on global cooling is less clear. Whither Climate Now? Nature 244, 395 - 397 (17 August 1973) is a good place to start. In any event I doubt this page would be the right place for it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation provided at the end of the paragraph supported the entire paragraph, not just the final sentence and this included the global cooling matter. We don't need to fork the reference to cite every sentence do we? As this seems to be a misunderstanding, I shall restore this sourced material. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the source looks good. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for this page. Thanks to CW William M. Connolley (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These details come from a general history of the unit. As related by this and other sources, the first director was significant in the establishment of the unit and he is still respected for this early work, as indicated by the naming of the unit's building in his honour. His professional work at the time was the work of the unit and was successful in attracting further sponsorship for the unit and suggesting a fruitful line of research. This history is naturally set in the context of the time and no suggestion of ineptitude is made. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It tends to make the man and the unit look ridiculous. It should be removed. It's not key to the history of the CRU and belongs, if anywhere, on Lamb's page. ► RATEL ◄ 12:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The detail comes from a history of the unit, not from a biography of Prof. Lamb. The source seems to be impartial, being written by a reputable historian of education, author of other works such as Education, economic change, and society in England, 1780-1870. Please explain the nature of the ridicule which you perceive and why it would be proper for us to ridicule Professor Lamb but not the CRU. Your suggestion seems to be that we would make the CRU look good by removing this account of their early history. Please explain how this is consistent with our policies of neutrality and abstention from advocacy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For comparison, please consider the other major source for this section, "The Climatic Research Unit at Twenty-five Years. That source was written by members of the unit, including Prof. Lamb himself, and so is unsatisfactory, as they are not sufficiently independent of the topic to be a good source for statements such as "win the argument decisively". We should prefer independent historians to first-hand accounts. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you guys know what you're referring to, but could someone quote here the reference for the disputed statement (which I assume is the one italicised at the top of this thread), so it's clearer what's being debated? --Nigelj (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference is Michael Sanderson (2002), The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 285, ISBN 9781852853365. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel, he's referring to an obscure reference to Hubert Lamb as the "ice man" in a book on East Anglia university. Interestingly, I did a google search on "hubert lamb" "ice man" "east anglia" -austria (I excluded Austria to stop getting hits on Ötzi, the Ice Man) and came up with only one hit, the one used by Col Warden. That's simply not good enough for a potentially pejorative reference to someone's past in an article about a section of a university. Give it up CW, this dog won't hunt. ► RATEL ◄ 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have yet to demonstrate how this is, in any way, perjorative. The interest of climate scientists in global cooling at that time is well known - that's why we have an article on this and similar topics like nuclear winter. Trying to present this topic purely in the context of current thinking is not the historic perspective which we aim for. And note that, in the 1970s, the internet did not exist and numerous contemporary sources are still not online. Please see WP:GOOGLE which explains the limits of such searches. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CW, this rare titbit of arcane data about Lamb has no place in a short article about a college unit. You know it. It doesn't belong. It doesn't even flow with the text; it stands out like a sore thumb. Deniers and sceptics are always saying how "warmists" used to be in panic about a new ice age, and now they're panicking about heat... you must think we were born yesterday. Your motives are transparent. Stop. ► RATEL ◄ 15:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF and WP:NPA still apply. We are here to see if the ref is RS by WP standards, not to call a cite "arcane" or "derogatory" and most specifically not to impugn "deniers and skeptics." And I find impugning motives of editors to be a tad improper, indeed. Collect (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading and taken out of context. If you check the source [1], you will see that the "cooling" prediction refers to the normal ice age/glaciation cycle, on the order of 10000 years. This is very different (and, BTW, not even incompatible with) AGW operating on a time scale of centuries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to use of the source, but it seems to give an inappropriate emphasis to what was probably only ever a journalistic conceit. This is an encyclopedia so use of terms like "ice man" in the context of scientists doing their job of studying the climate doesn't seem right. Or are we going to refer to entomologists by the journalistic name "bug man"? --TS 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that term is used to refer to us computer scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context here is the breaking of the then consensus about climate stability. That Professor Lamb was then known for his predictions regarding cooling is a fact reported by a work of academic history, not a piece of journalism. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are still confusing time scales. Milankovitch cycles were worked out during WW1. Another glaciation in 10000 years was not "a break of the consensus". There was no change of opinion here, only a change of focus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I think, will all due respect, that that is a dreadful misrepresentation of his scientific career. The source says, "Professor Lamb came to Norwich as "the ice man", attracting much attention for his prophesy of world cooling and a future ice age within 10,000 years. Within a few years in Norwich, in which the heat wave of 1975-76 had intervened, he had switched to warning of global warming...". You have changed that to "He was then known as the "ice man"", although we can't find a single other record of that name being applied to him, have left out the timescale of ice-ages, and have made it sound like he single-handedly reversed climate change science on the basis of one hot summer, rather than respecting the humorous 'college-rag' style of the original. Also, what is this 10-month interval doing in an edit war? It wasn't only Ratel, but WMC, Jonathan A Jones (above) and Atmoz as well who opposed your edit at the time. Now you have Tony, Stephan, and me saying it doesn't seem right in this context. So, 'no consensus for its removal' and 'restore iceman sentence per talk'[2] is stretching it a little. --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is not a "college rag" but a respectable work of history. WMC endorsed inclusion of the text, following clarification of the sourcing, by stating above "Agreed, for this page. Thanks to CW". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming hard work, but if you look just above that, he said "Thanks to CW for adding some history. I've cut this bit though:" and quoted the exact passage that you just re-added, on 3 December 2009, with reasons. What is your point? Do you believe that you have a consensus here for this edit at this time? --Nigelj (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both WMC and Jonathan A Jones stated that they were content with the sentence in question once we had a citation which directly supported it. The sentence seems to fairly summarise what the source says. Your objections seem weak as you do not seem to be understanding the discussion which took place. The editor who raised further objections previously was Ratel. I gather that he is now banned from Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current version has an error in this sentence: "He [Lamb] had led research into climatic variation at the Met Office and was chair of the UN's World Meteorological Organisation, which already studied climate trends and the effect of pollution upon them." The source cited (Sanderson, 2002, "The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich") says he was chair of WMO, but he wasn't. They don't even have a chair. List of former WMO presidents doesn't include Lamb: [3]. Lamb's page says that he was "a member of the WMO Working Group on Climate Fluctuations" which is correct but perhaps not sufficiently notable for a page about CRU? I'll edit the page to remove this error. TimOsborn (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"CRU email controversy better heading, partisan term covered in text"

[edit]

Dave, on what grounds is that a better heading? Not on the grounds of common usage or any WP policy!

Climategate is no longer a partisan term. Time and again a number of us have shown that virtually every source uses the term.
Again, Scientific American routinely uses the term, sometimes in scare quotes and sometimes not, sometimes as "so-called":

Nature went so far as to explain the usage of the term in a piece highly applicable to your edit: ". . . and the affair will be forever known as Climategate." And, "At the height of the controversy, senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims [. . .] One lesson that must be taken from Climategate is that scientists do not get to define the terms by which others see them and their place in society."
You know that all the major newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters use climategate. It's not jargon--it's common usage.

It's really time for WP to accept the term. YoPienso (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop picking at the scabs William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this is the right venue to attempt to re-open the argument about the best heading for this topic in Wikipedia. This specific article is about CRU, not about the manufactured scandal, and in my view highlighting the controversial label gives undue weight to attempts to smear the reputation of the unit. It's quite sufficient to mention, as the body text does, that this controversy was dubbed "Climategate". . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, Dave. Here's mine, with some background, fwiw:
  • First, I brought the issue to talk as the golden mean between edit-warring and being silenced. I won't edit war, but I'm done with meek silence when I perceive misguided edits. This is the only appropriate venue for discussing the recent edits and reversions of the subtitle.
  • This article is on my watchlist and I saw what appeared to be 3 editors trying to update the terminology. It's chagrining to find one is a confirmed and another an alleged sockpuppet of Scibaby and the third a s.p. of one Tafortos. Nonetheless, I perceived a new consensus forming and wished to lend my weight to it. Hence, my good-faith revert.
  • I follow your argument about the topic of the article, but its weakness is that you won't allow the common term to be used in the article about the manufactured scandal, either. Therefore, I can't help but conclude your real reason is that you're simply determined to suppress the term across all articles.
  • Bottom line: I find the refusal to follow the sources a breach of WP policy and a POV attempt to right the great wrong of the media coverage of the hack and of the scientists who were its victims. YoPienso (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave souza: Please explain why we should not follow the sources. YoPienso (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "virtually every source" that's the same as "not really every source" – the first few sources cited in this article don't use the contrarian framing, its use appears in some news articles but the Muir Russell report only quotes it once in the body text, where it's the title of contrarian book. That book title is repeated once as a footnote, and another footnote quotes the similar title of a contrarian opinion piece. The most recent source uses quotes as a distancing device;

The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.

So, why the push to highlight this framing in a subtitle here, when it's not agreed as the title of the main article on the manufactured controversy? There's nothing wrong with showing the usage in context in the body text, as this article already does.. . . dave souza, talk 06:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source has to use the term, just the great preponderance, which they do. As you know. (There's your double standard again--not really every source calls ID or IC pseudoscience.)
The first several sources in the CRU-ec section of this article were written within a week of the term's coinage; quite logically they don't employ it.
Why do you call a 2011 article "the most recent source"? I don't object to using quotes as a distancing device. Here's from an actual recent article by a Pulitzer Prize-winning paper: "What we've previously learned from episodes such as Climategate is that scientists' emails can be cherry-picked and used out of context to confuse the public about issues around which there is solid scientific consensus."
Considering his place in the controversy, Mann's abundant usage of the term throughout his 2012 book is sufficient by itself to establish Climategate as the common name.
The only reason it's not agreed to on the main article is because you and your buddies won't allow it.
The CRU is the very seat of Climategate! That's why the term should be in a subtitle. Most of the public had never heard of the CRU until Climategate broke.
You didn't answer why we shouldn't follow the sources; rather, you equivocated on the word "virtually." You have a broad intellect and are widely informed; of course you know the majority of RSs call it Climategate. So, why shouldn't we follow them? YoPienso (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In both instances the coined word is shown in context, a passing mention in Jack Payne's viewpoint, and in Mann's case it's set in the context of The Climate Wars The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. That phrase may become commonplace, but I'd remain doubtful about using it as a Wikipedia heading in place of global warming controversy. Most of the public are still unaware of "climategate", and it's political framing which is inappropriate when introducing the topic to someone who's come to the article to learn about CRU without already being aware of code words. In the same way that we're conversant with the topic and know that "skeptic" commonly means "climate change denialist", so too "climategate" takes some decoding. For many, it still suggests international climate science hoax. As for which sources, they all have to be evaluated as to whether it's a passing mention, or distanced in quote marks, or generally avoided when the aim is to write a dispassionate account. From our perspective, weight has to be given to mainstream scientific views. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC) edit: fix red link dave souza, talk 13:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we wouldn't put it in context? Clearly, we would. As you know, it's long been commonplace, Dave. So you're saying we shouldn't follow the reliable sources--Mann, Grandia, SciAm, Nature, every print and broadcast news source I'm aware of--because they could confuse the public? YoPienso (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that this article comes under BLP, as it says at the top. As far as I'm concerned it's ok to use the contentious label in the body text where it's shown in context, but not a good idea in a [sub]section heading where it's not shown in context; it creates an instant impression that isn't dispelled by subsequently reading the body text. Even following the lead of several of the sources and 'framing' it with inverted commas isn't good practice for a Wikipedia heading. As a much cited blog noted in December 2009, "The now commonly used term 'ClimateGate' to refer to the case of the East Anglia stolen emails is an extremely effective frame device that instantly–if not falsely–conveys that there is wrongdoing, politicization, and a cover-up on the part of mainstream scientists." We don't need that as a heading on a BLP article. . dave souza, talk 13:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that blog was written almost six years ago! For this issue, you can't get a more mainstream scientific view than Mann's. Please give Nature's editorial, "Closing the Climategate," a thoughtful read. Written almost five years ago, it already embraced "Climategate"* as the common term. Nature is accepted at WP as a reliable voice of the mainstream scientific view; I find the tone of this neutral, balanced essay quite different from the defensive one here at WP. As you insist elsewhere, we're obligated to follow the sources, regardless of the consequences. YoPienso (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*(Those are not scare quotes, but quotation marks used as a specifier. Many instances in which scare quotes are allegedly used around the term are in fact just such usage. See here. That's not to say scare quotes are never used with the term; they are.)
Disagree, we're obliged to take account of the BLP aspects of negative framing aimed at damaging the reputation of CRU scientists and don't have to use it as a heading . . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, the reason we should not follow the sources is to protect the scientists involved in Climategate?
Alternate wording: So, the reason we should not follow the sources is to protect the scientists who work at/with the CRU?
Would either of those accurately express your rationale? YoPienso (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not proposing simply "following the sources", you're selectively proposing that a misleading term commonly isolated by "quotation marks" be elevated to the section heading in an article which is about the CRU faculty, not about the climate wars. The WP:STRUCTUREsection of NPOV policy requires "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view," which the proposed heading does in contravention of weight policy.
You've cited Mann, his recent comment discusses the context, and also quotes a sentence from his book; Perhaps "climategate" was the moment when the climate change denial movement conceded the legitimate debate, choosing instead to double down on smear and disinformation, a tacit acceptance that an honest, science-based case for denying the reality of human-caused climate change and the threat it presents could no longer be made. . . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. (Whatever "selectively proposing" means.) The point of view that must be favored is the mainstream scientific one, which has adopted the term climategate. That section in the article is entirely about an incident in the climate wars. And it must be included as it was a major event for the CRU.
The paragraph Mann quoted from begins, "The legacy of the manufactured climategate scandal . . ." No quotation marks. Near the end of the paragraph he wrote, "Finally, I believe that the climategate attacks represented . . ." (p. 252) No quotation marks. It's just the standard usage since, as Nature explained, "the affair will be forever known as Climategate."
Do you agree that the RSs overwhelmingly use the term climategate? YoPienso (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Saving a place here for Dave's reply.]
Most of the people who wrote anything about this were very partisan on the denial side, with a few trying to respond to them at the time. The reason not to link this incident with Watergate is because they are so different. In one, an array of clandestine and illegal activities were discovered and exposed by investigators, the exposure of which brought down a US government and destroyed the careers of those exposed. In the other, an illegal attack on a computer system showed that the scientists were doing nothing wrong, apart from fending off what was effectively a DDoS attack of FOI requests organised against them. Adopting this attempt at framing in Wikipedia's voice would be completely unencyclopedic. --Nigelj (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the term was coined and first proliferated among partisans, within weeks it became the common term. Please see my references above to Mann, Grandia, Chameides, SciAm, and Nature. Please check the reliable news media.
  • WP wouldn't link it to Watergate; that was done years ago by reliable primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. We cannot undo it or throw it down the memory hole.
  • WP merely follows the RSs. What WP shouldn't do in its own voice is invent euphemisms like CRU email controversy. YoPienso (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one's offered a cogent argument against following the reliable sources per WP:V.

Furthermore, advocacy for the partisan term, "CRU email controversy," breaches WP:NPOV:

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. [Bolding in original.]
Also: Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

As noted above, some editors seem to have become part of this controversy, defending the scientists instead of describing what befell them. These editors believe it is disparaging to the scientists to use the common term Climategate even though that's what the reliable sources, including at least one aggrieved party (Mann), have adopted. Policy forbids us to write about the event in a tone sympathetic to the CRU.

So I'm changing the partisan, almost-never-used term to the one most frequently used by the media, Scientific American, Nature, scientist/victim/activist Michael E. Mann, scientist/"outspoken global warming activist" William L. Chameides, blogger/activist Kevin Grandia, and many more. YoPienso (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you decide to resurrect an old, discredited and much debated idea for article text, and three people come back to say they think you're still wrong, and then get bored with telling you you're wrong, and no one comes up saying they agree with you, it's not right just to make the change anyway. You know that. --Nigelj (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dave deflected each of my questions and never gave a straight answer to why we shouldn't follow the sources or if he agrees that the RSs overwhelmingly use the term climategate. You explained why you don't like what the sources say. At Wikipedia we go with the sources, not individuals' opinions.
Regarding consensus, freezing out a discussion is not consensus. Even if a consensus of silence were valid, WP:NPOV overrides consensus: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
  • WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." You and Dave want to ignore the sources, favoring your beliefs. Giving due weight in this case requires using the term climategate.
  • WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." Selecting a rarely-used term over the broadly-used term fails this policy.
  • WP:BLP specifies that we should simply document what the RSs say. Dave argues that using the term climategate gives undue weight to attempts to smear the reputation of the unit. In fact, the RSs use the term so broadly that the failure to use it constitutes undue weight in trying to protect its reputation.
So, instead of being bored with me, please answer this question: Do the RSs use the term climategate consistently and more abundantly than any other term? Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan Schulz: Thanks for you edit summary: "Not an improvement. Break PLS. Stick to the established names." What is PLS? Please note that by policy we must stick to the names established by RSs, not by long-term usage in WP articles. Please read the above discussion and engage here. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yopienso, you say above that, "failure to use [the term climategate] constitutes undue weight in trying to protect its reputation." I think this is where you're going wrong. It seems you're trying to provide some kind of due-weight balance between the amount of rightful criticism we direct at the CRU, and the amount we allow it to get away with its wrongdoing. The problem is that after 8 or 9 top level reviews, it was concluded that there was no wrongdoing (absolutely none, zero*) uncovered at the CRU by the theft and exposure of these emails. In other words, there is no balance to strike. The science was found to be unimpeachable, and the scientific findings of the unit all still stood. It was a monumental waste of time. Of course, climate denialists never want the facts to get in the way of a good bit of doubt, and so they do keep on about it - in print, online, and elsewhere, as you have shown. There is no need for us to accommodate their machinations here in article text, Wikipedia's voice, or in our headings.
* The IT department at CRU could be criticised in that they allowed hackers to access the files. Also there was some criticism in the reports about data openness and response times to FOI requests. These had nothing to do with the e-mail hacking incident, or the contents of the emails, but they were criticisms. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Nigel. I'm not trying to provide due-weight balance wrt criticism; I'm demonstrating that failure to follow the sources in the usage of the common term, climategate, reflects an editorial choice to deny due weight to the majority of RSs.
From WP:BLP (specifically,WP:PUBLICFIGURE): "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Multiple reliable third-party sources document that the common name of the so-called "CRU email controversy" is climategate. In this case, the incident is duly covered in the article, but behind a defensive euphemism.
We could argue forever about what I said/what the policies say/how to interpret all that/etc. Let's not. I invite you to answer the question: Do the RSs use the term climategate consistently and more abundantly than any other term? Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to that, as I have not seen all the relevant RSs. Actually, trying to find them all, and totalling them up seems like WP:OR to me. To validate that statement what we'd need is an RS that explicitly says what the majority of sources call it, by someone else's counting. But that is not my point. My main point, as I said in my first post in this thread, is that the only reason the construction -gate exists is in reference to Watergate where scandalous wrongdoings were uncovered to the extent that a corrupt superpower government was brought down due to its illegal and immoral activities. Trying linguistically to link the complete lack of wrongdoing uncovered at the CRU with the extraordinary wrongdoing uncovered by the watergate scandal is an example of Framing (social sciences), which is widely used by political activists. This is why it is listed in WP:LABEL, saying, "The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal." To me it makes no difference how many people you find who are involved in this attempt at framing the email theft as having uncovered some unexplained but implied scandal, or how many people you find discussing this framing. The overriding fact still remains that there was no scandal - no wrongdoing was discovered and no illegality or lies were being covered up. That's all that counts: the reliably sourced bundle of reports that say over and over again that the emails showed no scientific misconduct whatsoever. No scandal: no -gate. --Nigelj (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the relevant RSs to which I have linked and referred on this page before continuing to assert your opinion on whether the incident should be called climategate. The issue is that it is called that by RSs. YoPienso (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have looked at those. What I said that I have not seen all the relevant RSs: Google tells me that 558,000 results mention the term, I have no idea how to search for those that don't. As I said, evaluating these millions would be OR. I also said that that was not my point. Finally, my point was not based upon my 'opinion', but upon the nine top level reports on the incident - do you want me to list their URLs here? --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we follow the preferences of a few WP users instead of the usage by Mann, Chameides, Grandia, and the editors of major scientific publications? YoPienso (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the cryptic abbreviation. I'm talking about the "principle of least surprise" - unless there are very good reasons, a Wikilink should go to an article with the same name as the link text - indeed, many of the original Wikis did not even have a syntax for piping. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a short break..

[edit]
  • Hi, take a few days break from the internet and.... YoPienso, you seem to be making this argument on the wrong page. We do cover the incident here, but it's not the main page for it. We rightly show the -gate name in the body text in context. What you're disputing here is the topic heading; WP:STRUCTURE policy requires care over a header "that might unduly favor one point of view" where it should not be made "difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints".
    Fairness here requires due weight to mainstream science, but "As climategate' crystallized as the incident’s defining signifier, global warming skeptics had succeeded at narrowly crafting the terms and scope of rhetorical engagement; lexically, the proactive adoption of 'climategate' as a referable, salient moniker framed the data leak as a necessarily scandalous — and therefore newsworthy — event."[4] We shouldn't go with that framing in heading a section of an article about the university department, and we should be clear in the text about the falsity of that framing.
    Though "climategate" often (but not always) appears in discussion of this incident, it's not that widely known about in the general English speaking public, and the implied smear should not set the context for discussion of this incident in an article about the CRU.
    Usage of the term is common, but inconsistent: sometimes "so-called", sometimes with quote marks attempting to distance the frame, sometimes in partisan sources with clear intent to smear scientists.
    Don't know where you got the idea that "WP:BLP specifies that we should simply document what the RSs say", WP:BLP#Balance specifically requires that "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association," which is clearly the case with -gate monikers. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Straight from WP:BLP; I pasted it in above, with links. YoPienso (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting only part of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and that refers to body text, WP:BLP#Balance applies specifically to headers. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP#Balance: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. I assume you're focusing on taking care that section headings are broadly neutral. If so, please see my comment immediately below. The RSs call it climategate, so that's the neutral term. Your preferred term is defensively partisan. YoPienso (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide what's neutral; what's neutral is whatever the RSs say. YoPienso (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What RSs consistently say is that this is a fake scandal, and that -gate gives a false impression. You may titter about it, but Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy does suggest a precedent. Sadly, it's not a reference to Ken Cuccinelli#Virginia seal. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for injecting some humor into the discussion. I did titter. :) I agree that the RSs call it a fake or manufactured scandal or some such. Yet, they still use the term! In headlines, even, and chapter titles. Ergo, so do we. YoPienso (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Nigel: I'll continue here below the convenient break Dave punningly made. Please note that none of the RSs to which I refer and cite on this page are attempting to frame the incident as a scandal. Prime among them is Michael E. Mann, a distinguished scientist, a victim of the smear, and an activist. Grandia and Chameides are on his side in the "climate wars." The others are mainstream scientific publications that 100% support the scientific consensus on climate change. Besides these sources, major reliable broadcast, print, and internet sources consistently refer to the incident as climategate, "climategate", or so-called climategate. In other words, they use the term instead of avoiding it. It's contrary to policy (and common sense!) for us to avoid using it. YoPienso (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The contentious term is often used by those trying to respond to the framing as an alleged scandal, but we don't have to use it as a word taken out of context. The word can be, and is, used with appropriate clarification in the body text.. . . dave souza, talk 21:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! But it's like the label "Methodist." I come from a long line of 'em, and know it was originally a pejorative but was quickly adopted by the Wesleys as their own. I won't speculate on Mann's opinion of the label "climategate," but I can attest to his usage of it. We don't take it out of context! We set it plop into context.
This is no longer a contentious term. Please re-read The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. I am right now. On p. 208, Mann wrote, : . . Saudi Arabia was the first country to call for an investigation of climate scientist in what came to be known as climategate . . ." Why won't you accept that?YoPienso (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climatic Research Unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit&oldid=1258013068"