Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Phil Jones (climatologist). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

News about Phil Jones and the CRU

2004: Jones, to an Australian climate scientist: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." [1]

August 2009: "The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data." [2]

November 2009: "University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown" [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.110.130 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a highly notable and highly documented event. Please stop censoring it.Flegelpuss (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources are reliable, even for an ordinary article, let alone a biography William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The text you deleted sourced the BBC and the New York Times. Flegelpuss (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The alleged scandal is in the Daily Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal now.andycjp (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Links would help. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Reliable sources, but be aware of undue weight concerns about this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this to the article: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.199.212.146 (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

he's temporarily stepping down. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_dt9Bjj5yVV7k1PAyDnVHKvKtgAD9CAM0VG0 --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LDR citation style

I added references using the WP:LDR citation style. Any questions, please ask.--SPhilbrick T 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of Climatology prize

I add a citation for the International Journal of Climatology prize. Unfortunately, the best source I could find was a Word doc. I used the HTML conversion of the page; not sure which one is worse. I looked at RMETS but I didn't see a listing pf prizes prior to 2006. Maybe someone can find a better reference.--SPhilbrick T 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CV?

I would think that the concerns of undue weight would be alleviated if we could get a pointer to Jones' CV to find out when he joined CRU and has he been associated with other institutions and what role has he played in all his associations. His UEA page might be a good start. TMLutas (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit

Ideally we'd wait more than 5 seconds to ref [5] but I doubt there is any hope; at least it is now properly sourced William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of theft with respect to CRU hacking incident e-mail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ

You removed the word "alleged" with regard to the Climate Research Unit hacking incident. Since the article cites specified that CRU alleges theft, not that a court has found a theft occurred, this appears to the observer to be either your point of view, original research, or a reference by you to a source you have not cited. I'm sure this is a case of the latter, and simply a good-faith oversight on your part. What is your source for the statement "no alleged about it", and can you add it to the article, please Thanks!

Also, with regard to, "and we don't need hide the decline either," I'm not sure I follow you. Can you explain what you mean by this? Thanks again!

DGaw (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that this is contentious, please provide a reliable source which claims that they were distributed with the permission of either the authors of the emails, or the UEA. Taking property without permission is theft. So unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise, the tag is clearly unwarranted. On the other hand, if you have a reliable source that says that they were taken with permission, we clearly need to consider it. Guettarda (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Theft and stolen are loaded words. They are loaded with both emotional meaning and legal meaning. If you want to split hairs, theft in English law (according to wiki): "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". On many levels of this definition "theft" and "stolen" would not apply to what happened without further evidence that it did. It is questionable that an e-mail is "property", it is questionable that "dishonesty" was used and it is hard to understand how redistributing an e-mail would in anyway qualify for "permanently depriving the other of it". The e-mails still exist. Perhaps there's a cybercrime, perhaps not. If someone had access that shouldn't have, they may be guilty of a hacking crime. If someone had legal access but distributed without permission, they may be in violation of internal rules or privacy laws. Without further information, the use of the word "theft" suggests a determination by the police or the courts which has not yet been made. (The victim's word on what happened is relevant only in reporting that they believe something to be stolen.) Calling it theft or stolen other than when quoting the victim would constitute original research or synthesis. It can certainly be stated (if cited) that the CRU says they were "stolen" but that does not make it so and it should not be reported as such at this time. HarmonicSeries (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stolen, hacked, theft etc. are the words used in most of the reliable sources. Both the emails and the documents are the property of CRU. It is intellectual property for one. I'm sorry to say that your original research is not going to fly without some serious reliable sources to say so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the FAQ of the article on the incident, which outlines what all reliable sources on the incident have reported. --TS 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on some editor to find a RS claiming the emails were distributed with permission, the burden of proof is on the editor using the unqualified term "stolen" to provide a reliable source in support of the claim. There are two citations in that sentence, one of which is currently not found. The other uses the word "stolen" but the report carefully characterizes it as a statement by the purported victim. It isn't the conclusion of the reporter, it is just a paraphrase of a claim. I won't be surprised if there is a better source in existence, but until someone finds such a source, the term should be qualified with "alleged". I'm making the change, if someone wants to track down an acceptable reference, they can change it back.--SPhilbrick T 16:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the FAQ A5 doesn't help. Police investigate claims of crimes all the time. The investigation does not prove a crime occurred, much less which specific crime. RealClimate's claims are not relevant to the issue of whether CRU's data was stolen.--SPhilbrick T 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but when something is appropriated without permission it is theft. In this case data theft. Theft is neither alleged or in any other way controversial. Who the perpetrator is may be alleged or controversial, but the act in itself is not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is only one case in which the theft could be alleged - and that is if there is reason to doubt whether the CRU itself released them. No such doubt exists. But lets speculate: An insider released the information (the "whistleblower" hypothesis) - then it would still be theft, since he would have done it without permission. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I don't know whether you are a lawyer or not, but it doesn't matter. That statement (Sorry, but when something is appropriated without permission it is theft) is almost certainly wrong, but if correct, it is hardly obvious, so needs a reference. If I copy ~~someone~~something I write to a website, and fail to secure it, and then you copy it, I haven't given you permission to take it, but it isn't theft. While that may not be the situation in this case, the single reference attached to the sentence doesn't preclude that possibility. If there are reliable sources saying it is theft, then please find one and add it to the article.--SPhilbrick T 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)--SPhilbrick T 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IANAL but in the case you hypothesize it is indeed theft under most laws. You cannot appropriate other peoples intellectual property or copyright just because it isn't protected. Just as in the real live world, where it is still theft if you steal an item from a house where the door was open. If the data isn't yours, then you are doing data-theft by appropriating/copying it. You might be "legally excused" for not knowing that the data was under IP or copyright - but if you know - then its theft. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep emphasizing that CRU didn't "release" the information. You haven't cited a single reference stating that theft occurs if something is taken without an affirmative release. I doubt you will find one, as it isn't true. Look, if I were to bet, I'd bet that we will eventually find out that someone accessed the files illegally. But WP is not in the business of citing as fact things that are likely to be true. We are in the business of citing as fact information that can be backed up by a reliable source. People say they exist, so why not just find one and add it?

"The burden of proof is not on some editor to find a RS claiming the emails were distributed with permission" - totally false. When no source disputes the fact, then we can't dispute the fact. We cannot introduce our own analysis into articles. Guettarda (talk)

You are missing the fact that there is no source in the article making the assertion. Find such a source, and problem solved. When Kim argues (incorrectly, BTW) that we can synthesize theft from facts that the material was distributed, and lack of facts that permission was granted, Kim is attempting to introduce analysis into the article. As you point out, we cannot do that.--SPhilbrick T 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that missing the fact? If you agree that there's no source that makes that assertion, then I think we're done here. Analyses by editors are irrelevant. If there's no source for your version, there's no way we put it in the article. There's no way we imply it in the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Find such a source, and problem solved"? My point exactly. Then why were you saying the opposite, above? Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is NO source backing up the claim that the files were stolen, other than the COI paraphrase from the CRU, which is not reliable. WP is not supposed to be making assertions that cannot be backed up by reliable sources--SPhilbrick T 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A victim doesn't have a COI when stating that a crime has happened. Especially not if no one disputes that the crime hasn't happened. But just to placate your concerns - i've referenced the BBC for the single word "stolen". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No sources? WTF? Now you're just making shit up. That's clearly tendentious editing. If you're going to make nonsense up, please stop wasting people's time. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here I was happy that we finally reached agreement, and you post something like that. Please take a short break, then explain yourself. --SPhilbrick T 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Kim, I see that you reverted my edit without proving a source for the claim. That's very inappropriate. Please immediately find a source to back up the claim, or undo your reversion. Your analysis is flawed, and even if sound, is Synthesis. Everyone keeps saying there are reliable sources stating it was theft. Why the reluctance to providing such a source? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)

OK, I think we're done here. When editors step over the line and start making prima facie false claims, I think that's stepping over the line into disruption. Guettarda (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd best be careful in your accusations. I'm happy to have another disinterested party look at this. It is not proper to accuse other editors of bad faith. The source that KDP has provided is not proper either, a paraphrased headline of a comment from CRU is not reliable in ascertaining that the e-mails were "stolen". There is a duty of care in editing this properly however little you may think it is necessary to be precise. If someone is killed, it may or may not be murder. You can say police are investigating a possible murder, you can say someone is charged with murder, you can quote people's opinions that the victim was murdered. The words "theft" and "stolen" have precise legal meanings and I see no reason to avoid precision in this case. Accusing others of bad faith and disruption is entirely inappropriate. HarmonicSeries (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Two editors made a good point in this thread. Specifially, DGaw pointed out that the existing source did not support the use of the unqualified phrasing, and HarmonicSeries made an excellent argument why it cannot simply be assumed that a theft occurred. I agreed, and added the word alleged. Kim reverted, but without a solid basis, just a vague reference to a FAQ. which doesn't contain any reliable sources, and a synthesized analysis which I believe is flawed. What is so hard about adding a reference to support the claim?--SPhilbrick T 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion re reversion

I removed "stolen". A theft has been alleged by the alleged victim, so hardly a reliable source. The alleged theft is being investigated. The investigation may be conclusive and then we'll know. But we may never know for sure. The "theft" may have been an internal leak, and, in either case, may not be a theft under fair usage and/or public interest provisions. My edit was reverted.

   * (cur) (prev) 02:38, 28 December 2009 Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) (8,428 bytes) (We report the fact from reliable sources. Not speculation. Undid revision 334428578 by Psb777 (talk)) (undo)

The point is that the UEA is not a reliable source as it is the victim. Others report the theft is reported, not proven. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones and the ICO

The relevant part of the Information Commissioner's statement is this:

"The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."

The full text of the statement can be found here, though not on the ICO's website for some reason. Oddly enough, the ICO does not appear to have contacted the UEA either. The UEA's vice-chancellor has issued a statement in reply saying:

"The university learnt the ICO had made a statement to the media regarding the university's handling of requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. We have not received any further information from the ICO although we are urgently trying to contact them. The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information."

Note that the ICO's statement does not attribute blame to any individual, nor does the UEA VC's statement. Therefore it is original research and a clear BLP violation to attribute blame to any individual in this or any other article. The ongoing review by Sir Muir Russell will probably make findings about individuals, but until then we should steer clear of speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --DGaw (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid speculation, but the findings of the ICO would be relevant to this biography I would have thought? Phil Jones is a climate scientist closely associated with a University climate department that has been found to breach the law. Thepm (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The ICO's statement has blamed the university, not the individual. Therefore using the statement to cast blame on an individual not mentioned in it would be original research, as it could not be supported by the source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. We should be careful not to cast blame, but as I said, Phil Jones is a climate scientist closely associated with a University climate department that has been found to breach the law. I think that this fact is, at the very least, noteworthy within the guy's bio. Thepm (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Your argument would suggest that the ICO's statement should be reported in any biography of anyone associated with the CRU. But we come back to the original research problem - since the ICO has not mentioned any individual, linking the ICO's statement with a specific individual can't be justified. It would introduce an unacceptable element of innuendo by implying a link where none exists in the source. In any case, we only need to wait another three or four weeks until the independent inquiry reports - then we can reliably document who is being assigned the responsibility/blame. There's no need to rush to judgment before then. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones was not just any employee. He was the director. Not mentioning this just enhances Wikipedia's reputation for bias on climate change. Richard Tol (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making your biases clear. However, you want to read WP:BLP. Accusing someone of criminal activity based on a source that doesn't mention him is clearly unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, in good faith and trying to maintain a balanced discussion, perhaps I misunderstand Jones' role at the CRU. Please correct my understanding if it's wrong. I had assumed that he held a role equivalent to a General Manager (or something like that) of the CRU. Was he "a director" or "the director"? It seems the latter.

As a person in a leadership position of an organisation, I would have expected that his biography would mention that the organisation he led had been found to have broken the law. Naturally any comment should be careful not to implicate Jones directly, but there should be a comment on the fact that he the organisation that he led had been found to breach the law. Thepm (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Handled incorrectly"/"not dealt with as they should" is not the same as "breaching the law" - and since the ICO isn't going to rule on the issue, we will (probably) never know whether it was a "slip in bureaucracy" (paper handled incorrectly) or "fineable offence" (criminal). Under all circumstances while Jones was/is the director of the CRU, a mention of such, since it is a minor issue, is WP:UNDUE. Now you could argue that the issue currently is so "hot", in conflation with the emails, that it may warrent a mention - but then that would be merited by a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The IOC Statement as reported here seems to indicate that the law was broken although prosecution was not possible due to the period that had elapsed since the incident. It says that "FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8 [and] they were not dealt with in accordance with the act." So I don't think the distinction between "Handled incorrectly"/"not dealt with as they should" and "breaching the law" is very relevant. The law, being Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act was breached.

I also think that it's a bit of a stretch to call this a "minor" issue. It has certainly attracted a lot of press and I suspect, whatever the outcome, it will be more than just a footnote in the story of the CRU. Dr Jones was the director of the CRU at the time of this breach, so I think it entirely relevant that his bio at least mentions the occurrence. Whether that mention becomes a larger portion or not will depend on events over the next weeks and months. Thepm (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made several changes to the article, including some structural changes. I have included a short statement to the effect that the ICO made finding regarding the CRU. I have made this as a separate sentence so that it can easily be deleted, if that is the consensus, without affecting the other changes that I've made. Thepm (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"...prominent advocate of the view that recent Global Warming has anthropogenic origins"

significant POV. Who says? Jones was rarely in the media. What makes him an "advocate"? His research?

"A hacking incident during Jones' period as director of the Climate Research Unit, led to the release of a number of emails and other documents in an incident that came to be known as Climategate."

Is redundant (it is described later) and it displays a couple of POV problems that have been dealt with on talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident - specifically the "climategate" name, the "release" wording.

"The University of East Anglia initially ..." combined with "However on 1 December..."

Classic synthesis and a rewrite of what happened. UEA said he didn't have to resign. Jones temporarily resigned of own will.

"Subsequent investigations into..."

Has the problems that i mentioned above. WP:NOTNEWS,WP:WEIGHT and tangentially related.

All in all not a good edit imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from misusing NOTNEWS to keep recent information out of the article. Unit Anode 05:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Enduring notability/content-value, as well as ensuring (as well as we can) that we do not carry information that, within a short period of time, might be shown as incorrect, is, and should be the guiding principles of an encylopedia. These points are summarized in WP:NOTNEWS, and derived from our content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT and in this case also WP:BLP). If we sink to a level where we change our (long-term) content based upon the latest and greatest (based on POV) newspaper article, then (imho) Wikipedia has lost, and become WikiNews with just a tiny bit more context and background. There has been a (imho) terrible tendency lately to assume that just because something can be referenced to a reliable source, then it must be given room in articles. Weight and NPOV in general isn't an easy concept, but that doesn't mean that one can ignore it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones story in The Guardian

[6] Before people start linking NOTNEWS at me, I feel we need to remember that NOTNEWS isn't a prohibition on including recent happenings. It's meant to keep every single news story from turning into a stand-alone article. So how about let's not start linking that improperly. Unit Anode 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar article in The Independent. Personally I think it should be mentioned in the article, along with the fact that he was head of the CRU at the time the CRU breached FOI laws. I'll bet that's not the consensus view though. Thepm (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's no way that "scientific consensus" can be invoked regarding this. Unit Anode 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Using recent stories in BLP is a bad idea; saying "don't use NOTNEWs" doesn't help, because NOTNEWs still applies. So: no, don't include this, at the very least yet William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is NOT meant for that use. It's wildly misused on these pages, simply to keep out any negative information. Unit Anode 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A press release?!?!? You cite a PRESS RELEASE, as your rebuttal?!?!? Unit Anode 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rebuttal"? And here i thought we had to ensure NPOV by addressing all reliable source? See also the above comment on attempting to ensure that content doesn't get invalidated within a short time period, and has an enduring notability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the article, it does seems a bit newsy but because so there's so little actually content in the article. It should be balanced out with more biographical information including more on his career. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On my reading, The Guardian and The Independent essentially are claiming that the 1990 paper was at best sloppy, but perhaps fraudulent. On the other hand, UEA's media relations have issued a press release of the sort that is not unexpected from a media relations department. Are there any other sources that discuss this specific issue? Thepm (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't actually address the issue at hand. The Guardian article and a similar piece in The Independent discuss the 1990 paper specifically. They appear to claim that the 1990 paper published by Jones and Wang is, as I say above, at best sloppy, but perhaps fraudulent. The Guardian article in particular has been reprinted and/or rehashed a few times [7] [8] [9]. I was looking for a response to these. The article that you've linked to is a more general apologia, commenting on climategate emails being taken out of context. Thepm (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So, are you going to respond to his real question, or just leave this non sequitur as your only response? Unit Anode 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

First sentence includes "this work figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM." I know the initialisms are wikilinked, but this is not exactly reader-friendly. Rd232 ^talk 10:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the lead is rather unclear about his status as director - when did his tenure begin? When will it end, if it hasn't already? Has he actually resigned, or temporarily stood aside? Is he merely stepping down as CRU director, or leaving the university? None of this is clear enough. Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with rd232. The average reader probably doesn't know what the IPCC TAR SPM is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the claim that his work featured "prominently" in the IPCC TAR SPM is sourced to this: [10]. It's not obvious to me how the source backs up the claim. It appears to be one figure in the SPM; the source itself doesn't link that to Jones. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert edits based on Timesonline article

Reverted edit that refers to article in Times. There is a similar article in Daily Mail. Both these articles say little more than that Jones had "suicidal thoughts" but has "got past that stage now". I think this is entirely unremarkable for a man under that degree of pressure. Comments of this nature should be discussed before they are made to the article. Personally I would have to see a very strong justification for any comments on this in the article itself before I would be agreeable to them. Thepm (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, CoM restored the text, with no attempt at discussion. I agree with you, and have re-removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The reader comments on that Times story are deplorable. It goes to show the depth of hatred the far right feels for this man. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert the content. I read the source and edited it so it accurately reflected the cited article's contents. The claims of a BLP violation are ~~laughable~~ misguided. Two reliable independent media sources have reported on the personal toll the scandal has taken on Phil with entire articles on that subject. If editors want to censor that information the same way they've excluded any notation of the official findings concluding that Phil engaged in illegal misconduct, then so be it.

In my experience, "I don't like it" is the siren call of POV pushers distorting Wikipedia's content for personal whims and propaganda purposes, but until admins step up to enforce our core NPOV policy and to rein in the abuses we'll have misleading, incomplete, and innaccurate information like we do in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't say "laughable", you will make Lar sad William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I revised it to "misguided". I don't want to make Lar sad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that item when it was added to this article. It struck me as singularly inappropriate. Thank you for removing it. It added nothing and, if it had remained, could only have succeeded in dragging Wikipedia down to the level of The Times. --TS 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably Cla68 has added another version of the same material despite the reservations that have been expressed here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a revert was altogether in order there. There are three points that Cla68 made that I think should go back. 1. The finding of the FOI breach. 2. Jones' statement of regret ("should have treated the requests for information more seriously") and 3. His statement of support for the work that was done. I'd like to put those points back, but will await others comments given that they have just been reverted.

As for the suicide business, I say again that I find it entirely unremarkable. Thepm (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To claim that The Times is unreliable because it has some kind of political bias is OR and inappropriate. The information I added was NPOV, giving Jones' side, including his claims of receiving death threats, as well as those who have criticized him or his team's actions. Is there more going on here or in the background that I'm not aware of? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A better source

The article proposed as a source (from The Sunday Times rather than its sister paper The Times) was essentially a condensed version of a larger and more detailed article in the same day's paper. From a similar recent example, it's likely that the shorter story appeared on the front page with a "see more on page x" reference to the detailed article inside. That gives details of the pressures that led Jones to make unlawful proposals to resist what he saw as deliberate misuse of the FOI process, though also emphasising that they don't have data to destroy, the effect on him of the emails being published, and particularly what he agreed was "a David Kelly moment". Note the "agreed", the implication is that the reporter put the issue of thoughts of suicide to Jones. The fact that he thought of it a few times but was now over it may be worth noting, more significant is the parallel with Kelly. That has a lot of resonance in the UK, where a scientist was under pressure about an information leak under investigation and was hounded by the press, until he committed suicide and the press then turned on the government for not giving the scientist adequate support. It's also worth considering his emphasis that the CRU work is validated by comparisons with independent studies. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That article has some good information. Please add something from it to this article. I'm sure that you can do so in a NPOV manner, and I mean that. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just added the substance of the information to the article in a way that gives heavy weight to Jones' side, while still conveying the substance of the criticisms. Why couldn't any of you guys above have done this instead of just reverting? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me, your condensation of the article did reflect its main points, but in shrinking it undue weight was given to criticisms that have been answered, while presenting Jones's arguments as "denial". This was obviously done in good faith. I've modified it to show the points Jones makes more clearly, while leaving the context clear. 'The Telegraph isn't a terribly good source on this issue, its reporting has been inaccurate and loaded. I've cited The Times on the Data Commissioner's opinion, which makes it clear that the opinion related to the way requests by one individual were dealt with by the university. . dave souza, talk 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP vio

I have removed this section since the first sentence fails BLP - it's negative info that's not supported by a citation. (It's not in the Times article). The rest of the para just doesn't make sense without the first sentence. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically: Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests. The source says The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests. "Apparently encouraging [people]" is clearly not the same as "direct[ing people]". In addition, "direct[ing] his team" implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first sentence in question: "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data to Freedom of information (FOI) requests."

Here's the line from the source: "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." and "Jones insists that is not the way it was, but concedes it was the way it may have looked. He now accepts that he did not treat the FoI requests as seriously as he should have done."

I'm having a hard time seeing how that first line doesn't match what the source says. Moreover, I don't understand why you didn't simply rephrase the first line to match what you feel the source says instead of simply reverting the whole thing. Please explain. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it per your suggestion above. Again, I have to ask, why didn't you just do it yourself instead of reverting the lot? Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're still misrepresenting the source. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, we don't write about amorphous "critics" - it's horrible form. Who are these critics? Secondly, Girling isn't talking about critics. He's talking about thieves. So changing "thieves" into "critics" is a misrepresentation of the source. Probably could find another source that says "critics", though, of course, unless we're talking about film critics, it's a very poor choice of words. Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to settle this I went to Proquest NewsStand and found this: "The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act -- an offence punishable by an unlimited fine. But it said it was unable to prosecute because the complaint was made too late. The ICO wants the law changed so that complaints made more than six months after a breach of the act can still result in prosecutions, it was reported. Stolen emails disclosed the university's Climatic Research Unit tried to block requests for raw data and other figures, and implied senior university staff had played a role in the refusal of the requests. Prof Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit, stood down while official inquiries were made. In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics."^[1]

Okay, I'll make it say exactly what it says here. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Accurately representing sources is not some sort of a concession. It's the bare minimum. Guettarda (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First, there was never any "BLP vio" as the heading of this sub-section states. Second, why all the resistance to inclusion of something we know to be objectively true? Unit Anode 00:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"[W]hy all the resistance to inclusion of something we know to be objectively true?" Well, (a) I don't know that it's objectively true that Jones directed his team to do anything of the sort, and more importantly (b) we can't claim sources say things that they don't say. We can't just take anything we know to be True, find a source that says something vaguely similar, and claim the source says what we know to be True. It's dishonest, and it will earn you an zero on your paper. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a personal problem with the way you handled this, which I expressed on your talk page, which is the appropriate place for discussing personal issues with other editors. Otherwise, I think the substance of the controversy surrounding Jone's involvement in Climategate is now included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources to insert negative material into an article about a living person is a major offense. Guettarda (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who did that? If you're accusing someone of doing that, please make it clear. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Make it clear? I did make it clear (note the title of this section). I documented above how you misrepresented sources, and used that misrepresentation to insert negative material into the article. In response to that you first removed the unsourced smear, but replaced it with text that still misrepresented the source. Which I removed again. And then you replaced it with material from another source. Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely used synthesis and I think the give and take improved what it said, but to accuse me of editing with the purpose of smearing the subject is a serious allegation, and you haven't provided any evidence for that charge. Why do you feel that my motive was to "smear" the article's subject, as opposed to an honest attempt to represent the source accurately? Can you back that up? Cla68 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your motive was. I have no opinion on your motivation. I'm only commenting on your actions. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You did comment on my motivation by saying that I was "smearing" the subject, as opposed to "misrepresenting sources" or "making a mistaken interpretation." You used the word "smear." You also said that I "misrepresented sources in order to insert negative material into a BLP". You are commenting on my motivation. Do you take it back? If not, you need to provide evidence that my reason for making that edit was to insert negative information, and that I knowingly misrepresented sources to do so. Let's see it. Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not commenting on your motivation, but rather on your actions. And, for what it's worth, you misquoted me. Good work, by the way. You're very good at turning a comment on your actions into an attack on the person who points out what you did wrong. Full points for "wrong and strong", as we say. Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you said what you said, and you did comment on my motivation. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

W...T...F. This has gone from bad to worse. The Telegraph's text:

In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics.

Cla's text:

in an email, Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer FOI requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics.

(bold text shows differences between the two versions)

No quotation marks. No attempt at paraphrase. And it's a 416-word article - that's more than 10% of the text copied. It's credited, so I suppose it's just a copyvio and not plagiarism, but whatever it is, that kind of "editing" doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Honestly, as bad as the last bit, this has me shocked. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the non-BLP vio version. I'll rewrite this one, to see if it works better. Unit Anode 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite follows:

Jones told a colleague to delete email messages having to do with a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also informed one of his colleagues that he had convinced university authorities not to respond to FOI requests from people associated with a website run by climate change sceptics.

Unit Anode 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten it, so that it's not in any way a copyvio. Yet, it follows the Telegraph's basic theme explicitly. Now, it needs to stay in. Unit Anode 03:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The text was attributed, so it wasn't a copyvio. Again, why did you simply revert instead of trying to fix it? Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As above, I've modified this using a better source than The Telegraph which has rather lived down to its "Torygraph" nickname in reporting on this issue. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the message didn't seem to get through, Wikipedia is about more than rephrasing inaccurate politically slanted sources – the revised version cites a proper source on the FOI opinion. If we want to get into the detail of claims about refusing info to McIntyre and the like, Jones's explanation in The Times should be given. This is all rather excessive on the bio article, I'm not completely convinced this belongs here. . . dave souza, talk 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is pathetic. I come up with a version that is basically a simple (and very easy to read) paraphrase of exactly what the reliable sources say, and Souza still thinks it is UNDUE? Now he comes up with his own version that is so full of qualifiers, modifiers, and his own tortured wording that it's almost unreadable. And people wonder why non-WP folk have noticed a blatantly pro-AGW bias in these articles? First it's "BLP vio" (which was BS), then it was "Copyvio" (which was dubious, given that it was obviously sourced), and now it's "UNDUE" (which is just hogwash as well). This has to stop at some point. Unit Anode 11:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem pathetic. You're demanding that we paraphrase a notoriously inaccurate right wing newspaper instead of accurately reflecting more reliable sources, and portaying Jones as "denying" what are ill founded accusations, without giving his statement about these accusations. This article isn't the place for a blow by blow discussion of all the accusations about the emails, in my view, but if it's discussed at all we should take care to show Jones's views rather than giving priority to the claims of the anti-action on global warming critics. BLP obviously applies. And yes, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to fringe scientific views. . . dave souza, talk 12:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the "science", and I think you know it. I actually agree with the majority of the pro-AGW views -- though you'd never know it from the corner into which the pro-AGW group paints everyone who disagrees with them on anything. I just have a serious problem with the current obstructionism to anything that might even be perceived as negative. Your insinuation that the Telegraph is unreliable (even going so far as to name-call it as the "Torygraph") is inappropriate. Unit Anode 12:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added some material from a source we both seem to find reliable. I've also moved a bunch of info from the overlong lede to the body of the article. Unit Anode 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You need to stop, Souza. You want to include things that supposedly support your POV that it was all just a big misunderstanding, but keep out anything that points a different direction. What you're now trying to airbrush out is a direct quote from a source you agree is reliable. This has to stop. Unit Anode 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

<ec> You're adding unsupported editorial opinion as though it were fact, describing it as The Times noted". Not good. As it happens, the same Times story also notes that Holland "had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists." Holland was requesting e-mails rather than data, as shown by Jones's incriminating discussion about deleting e-mails. We can go into huge detail here, but I think it's inappropriate. It's also inappropriate to start giving competing newspaper opinions, though that might be more balanced than just giving one. . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then put that in the Holland article. Unless you're now saying that The Times is unreliable, the two very brief quotes I've included should stay. Unit Anode 13:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Without digging up the diff, I recall another editor commenting that since coming under News International, the Times has tended to produce rather sensationalist headings and introductory paragraphs. I share that concern, but accept the detailed content of its articles as reasonably reliable. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of tortured logic for excluding some bits of a reliable source while including others. Unit Anode 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In all newspapers, care has to be taken to distinguish editorial spin from the hard news. In a discussion on a news item coloured by the heading in a reputable newspaper, the journalist responded to me that he didn't get to write the headings. So, as a sceptic I always look for any discrepancies or contradictions. This is an example. Didn't manage to check if it was in the early print edition. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Souza, we don't try to figure out what is going on in the minds of reporters and news editors. That's a slippery slope. We just report what the sources say. If we think that someone may dispute what a media sourc is saying, all we do is add the source's name to the information and then let the reader decide: "The Times states..." or "The Telegraph reports..." or "The NY Times claims...". If two sources disagree we say that: "The India Times states that...but the The Hindu disagrees, saying..." That's how we do things here. You should know that by now. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"'However' is deprecated"?

I used the word only to qualify the previous a bit. I don't have a real problem with its removal, but what does the above comment mean, and on what is it based? Unit Anode 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WTA. Note also that your insertion of the word inadvertently reversed the meaning of the properly sourced statement. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As the condensed explanation still seemed to be causing confusion, I've clarified it a bit. Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New bbc interview

[[11]] Quite interesting interview here, most interesting to me of course is that he says the MWP was warmer than todays temp`s and that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 95. mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, he does not say that about the MWP. And he points out that 15 years is to short to expect significance results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same. Despite rereading the article several times, i cannot get to the conclusion that Mark comes to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Buggeritmilleniumhandandshrimp, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today My bad, i missed the if :) but it reminds me of something on the wwp article so not a total loss :) mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some articles on that now:

more at http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&source=hp&cf=all&ncl=dVSTyIWJqHlvbtMrhRYdXnSj_4AzM

This article should be updated...Smallman12q (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

making international news, clearly needs to be updated. 24.24.225.92 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail's inaccurate and misleading spin travels fast, we need reliable analysis or careful reading of the original, as above. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv

I reverted an addition for the following reasons

the suicide thing has been discussed and deemed inappropriate
the fact that his office is "swamped with piles of paper" is utterly non-notable; how many academics offices are different?
the statement that "colleagues indicated the Freedom of Information requests had not been honored because the raw data had been "lost"" is based on pure speculation by unnamed "colleagues", and the unnamed source does not say that the data was lost, but rather speculates that Jones may have lost the data. Not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Article in The Daily Mail

He's admitted there's been no further warming since 1995. (Contradicting the CRU's last 15 years of "output") Daily Mail -Ho hum, nothing to see hear, move along, now. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. He said there has been no statistically significant warming in the period. That is neither new nor surprising, as it usually takes a 30-year period or so to generate enough data to show a global temperature trend, statistically speaking.Esben (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mangle. Meanwhile, NASA GISS: Research News: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade, and AFP: Heatwave roasts Rio, kills 32 in southern Brazil. Note the Brazil item is weather, and not a statistically significant indication of climate change. . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this fact deleted? It is his own words. The circumstances and interpretations do not change the fact that he admitted there has been no warming since 1995, despite the claims that he himself backed up for many years. This information on the e-mail links ignore what the leaks revealed, and focus only on how they were leaked. End the partisan editing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manic755 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he has not admitted that there has been no warming. This claim is wrong. He has stated that there has been a warming trend, but that, over 15 years, it is (barely) not significant at the 95% level. Do you understand the difference? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RC piece

This may be useful [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote that article? I only see the name "Gavin" at the top of it. Cla68 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gavin" is Gavin A. Schmidt aka Gavin Schmidt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That will be Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller who "has published over 60 refereed articles in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, and Nature." [13]--TS 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the "contributors" bar at the top it leads you to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/ which will tell you who the contributors are William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Science (journal) 19.Feb.2010 Interview [14] link

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5968/934/DC1 Add Science (journa) 19.Feb.2010 Interview [15] link. 99.24.249.104 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

News About Jones and Data Availability

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE Göran Ahlgren, secretary general Kungsgatan 82 12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougransom (talk • contribs)

And your source for this is...? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be the named Swedish official, though he didn't provide a URL. DanielM (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

M'learned friend advises that said "official" may be found at this URL, an organisation promoting such "Points for media" as "Contemporary climate changes are neither unique nor alarming" and "No relation between carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes has been verified." So that's allright, then. However, the source of the statement is apparently the rather unreliable Anthony Watts, featured at McIntyre's Climate Audit blog. An interesting analysis is available at a more reliable blog. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the press release above ahs been cunningly written to look rather more official than it is. As you've noticed, reliable Blog Science analysis reveals all :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Misconduct

Would it not be prudent to place Phil Jones page in the category Scientific Misconduct, since there is certainly a lot of controversy about his behavior? Certainly there are widespread allegations of fabrication, and there are many links on the Scientific_misconduct page to alleged misconduct; The economic impact of climate science misconduct may be the most expensive misconduct in the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by no one cares (talk • contribs)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be prudent, as I don't know if it is prudent for those other "alleged" cases, given WP:BLP. Maybe it is appropriate, maybe not. I will say that this current page on Phil Jones does not seem to squarely address PJ's role in the climate emails controversy, in my opinion it seems downplayed and papered over. As well, the lede is curiously short at about 13 words, and encapsulates neither his career in climate science not his widely-publicized role in the controversy. DanielM (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper. --TS 15:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said we were. The things I referred to relate to notability and are encyclopedic. DanielM (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in some doubt as to that. There is currently a bit of a freak show surrounding the hacking, and I'm waiting for the kerfuffle to die down before reviewing the articles on the scientists involved. It seems that I'm not alone in this view. --TS 23:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's bordering on libel. There are investigations being conducted, and we should wait for the outcomes of those investigations before assuming that any and all allegations are true. StuartH (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should wait for the outcome of the investigations.--SPhilbrick T 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Or indeed that any of it is true. Right now we have a lot of uncorroborated allegations being made by those with vested interests. This is not a reliable basis for any statements of fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

general comment before I weigh in here

This article has become an article about Climategate, rather than an article about Phil Jones. Given that it's rumoured that Dr. Jones is nearly suicidal at the moment after this awful Climategate scandal, and despite my view that he has done wrong, I think is punishment far outweighs his crime, and I feel sympathy for the man. Does no one here have any sensitivity towards how Jones himself must feel to see his entire career reduced in Wikipedia to the Climategate scandal? Like nearly every climate change BLP, this one is an utter disgrace. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just want to make clear what other editors here are saying (others have commented similarly to Alex): the situation you describe is that Jones is near-suicidal over the controversy involving his emails, and Wikipedia should therefore exercise extreme caution and perhaps refrain from covering in his article the controversy in which he is key. Let's just get that proposition on the table so it can be met head on, and we can try to identify any applicable policy on the point. Is that the position of the several editors here? DanielM (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's about more than that; we're talking about someone who's been an active scientist for decades, with a distinguished career in his field. It's undue weight to focus on the CRU emails controversy at the expense of everything else, particularly as there has been absolutely no finding of any wrongdoing on his part. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DanielM, I agree with ChrisO, because it's precisely the same argument I have made when editors try to turn the biographies of skeptics such as Richard Lindzen into refutations of their positions on climate change. In order to write a neutral biography, you need to get balance right. Quoting WP:UNDUE, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. See also WP:STRUCTURE. This article, when I saw it, had become an article about Climategate, not about Phil Jones. As such, I'll have to admit, it was even worse than Lindzen's article. Now, I am fully aware that it is a fairly radical position I am taking -- relative to what normally goes on in Wikipedia climate change BLPs -- but it is the right position. Sensitivity towards the subject is a requirement of the BLP policy, and it's also just the moral, right thing to do here. I would appreciate it if climate change skeptics would support me in applying Wikipedia policy here. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked a clear question about whether it is the position of the several editors that Prof. Jones's rumoured near-suicidal mental state, as they appear to have said, means that this Wikipedia article should be restrained and cautious in covering the climate emails controversy in which he is central, or refrain from it altogether, for fear of giving him further agony that drives him over the edge. ChrisO responded in a way that muddles the issue "it's about more than that." Alex at least points to WP:BLP and says "sensitivity." Looking at that policy, it appears to call for sensitivity in personal matters and don't be sensationalist, i.e. avoid eagerly pointing out that the actress' husband has been having an affair, etc.

I don't think the email matter is like that at all. They weren't personal emails. The issue is politically charged but I don't think that coverage of it is by necessity sensationalist. I don't think one has to be a climate change skeptic to recognize that the notability, the extensive media coverage, and the legitimate questions raised by emails from a (the?) lead climate change scientist that refers to a need to "hide the decline" and a "trick" (no matter if that word means innocent cleverness not deception) ought to be getting some coverage. In fact I think integrity suggests it ought to. And WP:BLP doesn't say don't cover it in my view. Yet perhaps the "but he's near-suicidal" contention means we shouldn't. It seems now though, that no-one really wants to get behind that contention. DanielM (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, I think Chris's response was right. I'll try to make it even clearer: our core content policy is WP:NPOV; all articles should be neutral. A subsection of NPOV is WP:WEIGHT and this policy insists that all material is given its due weight with respect to the subject's (i.e. Phil Jones's) notability. This criterion was violated with at least 2/3 of the article being about Climategate. It is not true that 2/3 of Jones enduring notability derives from his role in the Climategate scandal. Meanwhile, the WP:BLP policy insists that we are sensitive to the feelings of living people. Sure, it could be argued that that bit is rarely enforced, and I'd have to agree this is true. The main point, then, is that it wasn't neutral because it wasn't weighted right. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE emphasis on Climategate, WP:COATRACK

I have read the article carefully and I am unable to find any good reason for this Climategate material to be defacing Jones's biography. It seems clear to me that it hasn't been added with any view to producing an end-product that would be an encyclopaedic treatment of Phil Jones career as a notable scientist. I propose that a single short sentence should replace the entire Climategate section to the effect that "Phil Jones has recently been controversial for his role in the Climategate scandal." In depth discussion of Jones' role in the scandal should be deferred until there is in depth discussion of the rest of his career, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:STRUCTURE. This is a BLP and I have objected to this material in all sincerity and good faith. I trust no one is about to say that I'm a POV pusher from the left faction. Any comments? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of what you're suggesting, but I dislike your wording. Let me come up with something suitable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, see what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, your wording is better. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we agree on something at last. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that the climategate scandal is an attack on the integrity of Mr. Jones' career in full, particularly on the merits of his primary work, and that it is furthermore the only reason most people would have heard of him at all, to fail to mention it would be folly and ostrichlike. Ray^Talk 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We mention it, and also mention that the first serious investigation has exposed the "scandal" as the media and propaganda circus that it was. Follies. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack external link

Spiegel Online International A Superstorm for Global Warming Research – a dubious analysis at best, repeats inaccurate and exaggerated stories started by the Sunday Times, and is superseded both by the Select Committee's analysis and by poll analysis suggesting little impact on public perception and trust, despite denialist propaganda. External links should be biographical, not overviews giving false equivalence to the anti-science agenda. . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AEB (GHits)

@Dave Souza: About notability. You may want to try Google's search. Compare the terms '"Phil Jones" climate -BBC' and '"Phil Jones" climate BBC'. The first one gives an approximative number of hits without the BBC being mentioned, the second one with the BBC being mentioned. Without the BBC gives about 82.200 hits, with BBC as search term gives 46.300 hits. So, 46.300 / (46.300 + 82.200) * 100% = 36% of all sites mentioning Dr. Jones mention the BBC. Now you might argue that Dr. Jones and the BBC are mentioned for another reason, apart from the interview. In that case you should know that the search terms '"Phil Jones" climate BBC "February 2010"' still give 4.970 results, so about 4%. So notability: proven.

Wikipedia is not about naming and shaming. So, on second thought, I think we should not mention any source guilty of misquoting; that is beneath us. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Google hits are a meaningless statistic once you cross 1000. (Try "Phil Jones" climate -BBC -email -climategate and all of a sudden you get 194,000 hits. Just "Phil Jones" and climate - 130,000 hits. So removing 3 terms adds 64,000 Google hits. Why? Because the numbers are made up.) Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Of course, I tried your proposal. I tried "Phil Jones" climate -BBC -email -climategate and got 26.900 hits. "Phil Jones" climate gets 135.000 hits. Every term added decreases the number of hits. Please verify. I had to use www.google.nl. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@ M.w.denotter, you're still failing to show that this interview is significant to Jones to the extent that it should feature in his biography. While it's more to do with whether an article can be sustained, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria gives sound advice – "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links." The topic you're proposing remains insignificant and non-notable. . . dave souza, talk 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza: The quality of the links has been sufficiently evaluated. About one third of the webmasters mentioning Dr. Jones at all disagrees with you about importance of the BBC interview. If anything, the section People notable for only one event applies. M.w.denotter (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Google hits? Can you point me to where these links were evaluated? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The ratio of the hits is more than sufficient evaluation. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but as convincingly pointed out by Guettarda, the numbers are meaningless, and hence is their ratio. And neither would be an indication of quality even if they would be reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Please read my two contributions of today well. My results are not matching Guettarda's. Try it yourself. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I use Google.com and get 236000 for "Phil Jones" climate -BBC -email -climategate, but only 44600 for "Phil Jones" climate -BBC -email, and 82,300 for "Phil Jones" climate -BBC. All this shows why GHits is a bad metric and is recognized as a bad metric by Wikipedia. We do not need to reargue this here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Several parties here may confuse the discussion by suggesting search terms such as email and climategate. For the new joiners of the discussion, we are talking about a BBC interview of Dr. Jones, and this interview is generally misquoted. This is the point that should appear on the wikipedia page of Dr. Jones. Climategate is about data, for instance emails, illegally taken from computers of the University of East Anglia. Professor Phil Jones stood aside temporarily because of climategate. At best, it can be argued that climategate caused the sceptical questions by the BBC to Dr. Jones; but also, the tone of the questions is not relevant in my view. The worldwide misquotations are.

Stephan Schulz has verified my result for "Phil Jones" climate -BBC" and found 82.300 hits, matching my findings very closely. So it is very special that Schulz and Guettarda find about 9 times as many hits on Google.

I recommend that you try to reproduce the hit ratio that I put forward. None of you reports results on Phil Jones" climate BBC. None of you even report any search forcing inclusion on BBC or the interview date, which is the actual point. So please stay on topic. M.w.denotter (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Google hit-counts aren't taken very seriously here, at least by experienced editors. I haven't looked at this for awhile, but the consensus seems clearly against using this quote. You might find your Wikipedia volunteer time better spent on improving a less-controversial article. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not take the absolute number of hits very seriously either. The ratio between hits is a much better measure. Unfortunately, I see that nobody has reported in this discussion any attempts to reproduce this ratio. Sad, isn't it? M.w.denotter (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Let somebody else answer this for me:

“

On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

”

— Charles Babbage

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The ratio is wrong only if the hit number for one search is biased more than the other. Is that likely? It is of course nice to share quotes of Mr. Babbage, but it is a little besides the point. An unfortunate misquote in a discussion about misquotes. For instance, if a scale is used that is 30% off in some recipe, the dish will still taste fine. Only if other measures than the scale are used, the dish will not taste well. That is because the ratios matter for the taste, and not the absolute values. So you may want to reconsider statements like the numbers are meaningless, and hence is their ratio.

So far, so good. At least I am pleased that nobody objected to the use of the ratio that I proposed; only the right value of the ratio has to be determined. Let's see if it can be established. I will get back to you on that. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a weird way of reading. I do object. As has been shown above, Google hit counters are unreliable, and no, they are not systematically off by a fixed factor. Moreover, let me remind you about WP:GHITS: "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number" (and let me add an "s" at that end). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on - the research is taking somewhat longer than expected. M.w.denotter (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I also object. You're seriously talking about counting google hits? Absolutely not! If for no other reason than this is a biography of a living person. --16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the BBC interview section

I too removed [16]. There are a couple of problems with it. WS mentioned some in the edit comments (This is meaningless without context.) but also Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level isn't actually correct. It is the ratio of size-of-signal to variance that matters, not just the size of the signal. Also, I agree with the lack-of-context problem. Why would anyone mesure the trend from 1995 to 2009 anyway? There is no point. Trends from 2002 to present are even more pointless. Jones has to patiently answer silly questions, but we don't have to report it here William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I re-added the interview to the EL as a minor gesture of compromise William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement made "Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level" is made by Jones. If it is true or false is not relevant; it is the opinion of Dr. Jones and it is quoted from him. Please feel free to start a discussion with Dr. Jones. Only he can change his mind; it can not be done by editing this paragraph. The trend from 1995 to the time of the interview is 15 years, about half of the normal period of time used to define climate on. 15 years is considered long. If you feel that the opion of Dr. Jones has not been described well, you can add your own material. Please make sure to stay unbiased.

With statement about 'silly questions', you place yourself also in the shoes of Dr.Jones. You may have responded differently, but this is what Dr. Jones said and this is his wikipedia page.

In short, I think quotes about the scientific opinions of Dr.Jones have a place on his page; it is not our right to keep the wikipedia readers from the opinions of Dr. Jones because we do not like them or consider them irrelevant. So please add your material to the paragraph, but leave the current content of this paragraph as is. I trust I will find the content back on the page soon. Thank you.

"Why would anyone mesure the trend from 1995 to 2009 anyway? There is no point." To mislead people Speaking as a layperson, one thing I have most assuredly learned over the last several months, is that you cannot rely on 'sceptics' to provide complete and honest explanations to anything. The question to Phil Jones was design to solicit a specific answer, which doubters knew would confuse people not familiar with trends. [17] [18] A link to the full BBC interview will suffice. Wikispan (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a good point to measure climate data. It started long before 1995 as you well know. The aim of the analysis of this data is to describe trends over longer time intervals, and Dr. Jones clearly thinks that 15 years is long enough to say something about. If you feel that Dr. Jones was trapped and did not handle it well, you can recommend a media training to him. Even if you dislike the answer he gave, the fact remains that he answered what he did; he expressed his opion and I think he did it well. His answer is a fact that can not be denied and should appear here. Please feel free to add more information about Dr. Jones opinions. My opinion is that someone like Dr. Jones does not need corrections from anyone.

If you add more info on the scientific opinions of Dr. Jones, please leave my original text as is; you can change the section title to better represent the content when you add your material.

If you disagree, you can add more recent quotes by Dr. Jones to his wikipedia page. His expert opinions should not be omitted from this site. Please leave all of the paragraph except the section title as is.

I think it is not acceptable that the interview which caused so many raised eyebrows around the world gets as little attention as just a link to it. Don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.w.denotter (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The interview which was widely misinterpreted does not need to be covered as a part of Jones' biography, as this would give undue weight to inaccurate or fraudulent accusations being made against Jones. You may find it helpful to read the links provided by Wikispan. . . dave souza, talk 12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The undue weight guideline is intended not to confuse readers with texts out of the main stream. This does not apply to Dr. Jones nor to the section under discussion. The interview was and is very relevant to our readers; nobody benefits from acting like it never happened, or that Dr. Jones opinions may have changed or whatever.

If you have evidence that the interview was widely misinterpreted, you should mention this briefly on this wikipedia page as well, as this is just as relevant; also, you can complain at the publicists about which you feel so strongly. This can not be a reason to leave the interview undescribed at this page.

I think that I described the interview well; if you disagree, I am sure we can come to an agreement. The description has nothing to do with inaccurate or fraudulent accusations. Again, the world-wide fuzz about the interview should not be omitted from this page. It may become the event with the most influence on the life of Dr. Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.w.denotter (talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement made "Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level" is made by Jones. - no. Please read what I wrote. What you're adding is an inaccurate paraphrase, written by you. It is not what Jones wrote, and I've explained *why* he didn't say that.

15 years is considered long and Dr. Jones clearly thinks that 15 years is long enough to say something about - no, it isn't. Climate means are normally calculated over 30 year periods. As fart as I know there is no "standard" period for trends, but if there was, it would certainly be longer than 15 years. Note that this isn't information Jones is volunteering - he is only answering a question posed - and you can tell from his answer that he thinks the question isn't a good one: The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Jones was perfectly capable of responding by saying that 15 years is too short a period to measure trend, if in fact that's what Dr. Jones means. In fact, Dr. Jones not only answered the question with a yes (meaning, not statistically significant), but went on to elaborate, specially talking about a calculation performed by Jones for the 1995 to 2009 period, and offered a conclusion. The conclusion is that the trend was positive but not significant. He did not say "I did a calculation you requested, but I decline to comment on it as the period is too short." One can speculate about how others wish Dr Jones had answered, but as editors of an encyclopedia, we cannot wish the statement away, simply because we might have answered differently. (As for the 30 years being a minimum, I'll bet money it isn't a formal mathematical conclusion, but a rule of thumb made up one day. As is true of many trend calculations, the usefulness of the indication grows asymptotically with the length, with the last additions to the period adding less and less value—there's nothing magical about 30 years that makes it acceptable where 29 is not.)--SPhilbrick T 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

15 years isn't too short to measure a trend. You can measure a trend over any length of time. 15 years is just not very useful for extracting useful information. And re your Dr. Jones was perfectly capable of responding by saying that 15 years is too short a period to measure trend, if in fact that's what Dr. Jones means - that is indeed exactly what he did say. Because contrary to your assertion that he just said yes, he didn't. He said yes but. Specifically, he said Yes, but only just. Now you say As for the 30 years being a minimum - again, please read what I actually said. I said 30 years for climate means. A trend isn't mean William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Oh, and while we're here - do you believe that Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough is an accurate paraphrase, or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nit-picking over the exact wording in an article (as opposed to talk page comments) is necessary. We can debate the exact wording, but that's a waste of time if the consensus is to keep any mention out.--SPhilbrick T 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an evasion. Please answer the question directly William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As editors of an encyclopedia, we must determine proper weight, and the reality is, there is nothing remotely notable about this one answer other than the documented media distortion that followed publication of his remarks. No wishful thinking is required. Wikispan (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The worldwide frenzy is indeed the reason why the right quotes should appear on this page. An encyclopedia page about Dr.Jones should contain these important facts - otherwise the page looses the right of existence in my perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.w.denotter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Frenzy" is too strong a word. What you wrote below (''I propose [we] write a better section containing the parts of the interview that have led to the controversy") is better. But I don't think it's proper to expand Jones' BLP on the basis of somebody else's error. A description of the controversy, plus ensuing criticism, is better suited to those who twisted the meaning of Jones' reply (Sunday Mail, Anthony Watts, etc). Wikispan (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... At least it should be mentioned what he said. The right quote should appear here in my view. Also, it should be mentioned that the misquoting have led to 'something' (to avoid frenzy). As far as I am concerned, the events can be described elsewhere. M.w.denotter (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. If you quote me, do it well - too many people are being misinterpretted and misquoted these days. Here is the full quote: Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level. In answer to the question "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming", Dr. Jones answered: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." So I think that I represented the original text of the interview very well, and not inaccurately as you suggest.

Basically, if you say that the 15 years period is too short, you are contradicting Dr. Jones, who prepared the answer well. It can not be argued that he did not say something about this 15 year period, period. He was well aware of the specifics of this period before the interview. Also, Dr. Jones was not forced to say something. Interviews generally do not involve torture or blackmail. He realised he was being interviewed. With respect, I find your judgment about good or bad questions irrelevant; the answer of Dr. Jones is, however.

I have not claimed that the climate was changing, and certainly not that this could be discovered in periods of 15 years. The common period of time is 30 years, like you say; but Dr. Jones is free to look at any period of time he wants, including this period of 15 years. The word 'climate' only appears once in my contribution to the page of Dr. Jones. You are now opposing anything I wrote, even in the Talk page, essentially going nowhere. I think we should focus on how we get content on 1) the interview and 2) the scientific opinions of Dr. Jones on this wikipedia page; so I propose we return to the section on the page itself.

Since the contributions in this discussions have been mostly destructive towards my initiative, I propose that you write a better section containing the parts of the interview that have led to the controversy. In this way, you can help wikipedia. What do you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.w.denotter (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is painful. As I've already said, Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level. is inaccurate. And I've already explained why that is so. Did you read what I wrote? Did you understand it? It is this diff [19]. As to The common period of time is 30 years, like you say - no - this is not what I said. And I've just been forced to re-say it to Sphilbrick who didn't understand it either. You need to understand the difference between a trend and a mean. Example [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep asking if I read what you wrote, or if I understand it. That does not help. The diff you quote is not relevant. The period of 30 years is not relevant. The difference between a trend and a mean is not relevant as the word 'mean' does not appear in my contribution. All of this is off topic. You are defending the removal of my text and you should give arguments why you think you can justify it. So far, none of your posts on the talk page has given any good reason for removal. So either we agree let it return as is to the page, or we discuss your proposal for a better text. M.w.denotter (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is now really painful. Lets try it in simpler terms. You added some text. I removed it, citing various reasons, one of which was that your text was inaccurate. So the question is, do you accept that your text was inaccurate? If so, then we can move on. If not, you need to answer my reasons for why your text is inaccurate William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is now really painful. Lets try it in simpler terms. Do you really feel that this makes your point stronger? Anyway. Back to the topic. Since I quoted both the full question and the full answer without edits, I do not see how the facsimile quote can be inaccurate. I propose again, for the third time, that you start a positive contribution by a text proposal containing the question in full, the answer in full and some kind of referral to the subsequent misquotation circus. M.w.denotter (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight applies. The Beeb asked some questions, Jones gave scientifically accurate answers. That's all that your source shows, and that's not significant or notable in the life of a scientist. WP:BLP policy doesn't permit you to add in things you think denigrate people. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of a scientist are very relevant, especially in this field of science. The fuzz around the misquotations add to the importance. It is not possible to be disrespectful by giving the full question and the answer of the interview. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in casual conversation, I said 15 years is too short to measure trend, when I should have said too short to draw certain conclusions. Picking nits and missing the main point is counter-productive, unless you really aren't up on the subject (and I think you are.) My point remains unchallenged, Dr. Jones is perfectly capable of making that point. He did not. Contra to your claim, his "Yes, but" was not followed by a contrary conclusion. He said, "Yes, but only just". In English, that's a "yes", not a "no".As for trends versus means, I don't know whether you are deliberately obfuscating, or simply missed the point. One more time - my guess is that 30 is not carved in stone, it is a convenient rule of thumb. I'll be happy to retract if you can show evidence otherwise, but I've spent my life measuring trends, means, standard deviations, and CVs. I know who this is done in other areas of applied statistics, I seriously doubt that climate science is ahead of the pack (based upon what I've seen, they are badly lagging.)--SPhilbrick T 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're still missing the point. All this 30 is not carved in stone, it is a convenient rule of thumb is a strawman, because it isn't the rule of thumb for trends. My point remains unchallenged - this is just WP:IDIDNTHEAR that, since I have directly challenged your point. "Yes but" isn't Yes. And it isn't No. It is, in fact, context-dependent. In this case, the context is, that isn't a good question. If you want to know Jones's considered scientific opinion (which would be a good addition to the article) you shouldn't be reading a BBC interview with questions posed by skeptics. You should be reading his papers. And the sort of thing he says there is Since the mid twentieth century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small, and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the twentieth century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty. [21]. You see the diffence, I hope. Oh, and pointless snarks like based upon what I've seen, they are badly lagging are just inflammatory. Please drop them William M. Connolley (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point, which is odd, because you've conceded the point. Is 15 years too short given the "known" standard of 30 years? No, because the standard isn't for trends. To quote Dr Connolley " there is no "standard" period for trends ". Your professional opinion is that one needs more than 15, but we aren't here to debate your professional opinion, we are here to determine whether and how to incorporate Dr. Jone's comments. While you may wish he had conferred with you in advance, he did not. --SPhilbrick T 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"You see the difference, I hope." Yes, I do (Do you?). When he talks about a 50 or 60 year period, his conclusion is different than when he talks about a 15 year period. Quite unremarkable, and it is true for trillions of observations, that the answer isn't the same over 50-60 year periods versus 15 year period. There are multitudes of statements about the financial markets alone where trends over a 15 year period differ from the trend over a 50-60 year period. So in essence, your argument is that Dr. Jones made one conclusion about a 50-60 year time period, therefore we should ignore him when he says a something different about a 15 year period. Surely that's not what you mean. --SPhilbrick T 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unremarkable, and it doesn't belong in a BLP. Surely you're not going to be tendentious about trying to include this piece of trivia? . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A way forward

I think the discussion above has got rather bogged down. Lets try to find something to agree on. How about:

Jones's opinion on temperature trends is worth having as a part of his article
What Jones thinks about temperature trends should be read from his actual scientific work, based on the propositions that he himself puts forward

I'm sure we can agree on #1. How about #2? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see #1 as obvious.--SPhilbrick T 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that helps to defuse the situation somewhat, since "not #1" is the current state of the article. But I'm puzzled as to why you say so. Are you arguing that Jones's primary expertise is in constructing the records themselves, rather than analysing trends? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would reject #1 too. I do not know Jones' opinion on temperature trends. It is also off topic. Jones is generally misquoted, so we should offer the right quotes here rather than force the interested reader to seek quotations/misquotations elsewhere.

Regarding #2, please clarify what you want. Should the reader dig into the actual scientific work, or do you want to ask Jones himself for propositions for this page? M.w.denotter (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm now really confused. You've been adding Jones's opinion of temperature trends to the article, and I've been removing it, because I don't like your text. You're now saying we shouldn't mention his opinion at all? Including that BBC interview you've ben wanting to use? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely some sort of failure to communicate here. When I read SP's comment last night I found it very puzzling. If MWD feels the same way, then what's the problem here? Sounds like everyone wants to leave it out. Great! Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

When reading a contribution to a wikipedia page or a discussion page, it is important to read after the first sentence. Please try to read the text in full. My contribution is about a BBC interview. In this interview, Dr. Jones has given answers to questions. These answers have raised doubts about climatologists all over the planet. The answers of Dr. Jones have generally been misquoted, causing the world wide doubts on climate change. This is the reason why the question and the answer must appear in full on this page; on this page, the reader can read it without doubting correctness or manipulation. So again, the main point of the added section is about the period 1995-2009, and I think it should be on this page. I have never changed my mind about this.

Now read well. The opinion of Dr. Jones is not what is shown in my contribution; only Dr. Jones himself can write down his opinion well, as he knows it best. It represents what he actually said. What he said is not under dispute; undisputable, unchangable fact, ideal for representation here. The full answer is in the contribution, whether you like it or not. Someones opinion is much harder to represent in short than the actual answer to a question. It is not the opinion of Dr. Jones that causes the fuzz, it is the (mis)quotes. In relation to this, please explain what you want with your #2.

WMC keeps on complaining that the sentence Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level. is inaccurate, without explaining what he thinks is actually wrong with it. Please make a positive contribution and propose a better line to replace it; it may clarify your point of view regarding this sentence. Once we have sorted out this sentence, we can have a look at the rest of the contribution. 77.248.173.187 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I've explained what is wrong with it right at the start of this section - it is the post from 10:42, 11 September 2010. This diff is [22] - I've pointed you at it before, and also explained this on your talk apge (assuming you're de Notter) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

All of these objections have been covered already. We are now at the next level, please keep up. Your refusal prevents progress, so please reconsider answering the question why the sentence Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level is an inaccurate paraphrasing. Inaccurate means in my book that it is not precise and paraphrasing means a non-literal representation. Please do not keep us waiting any longer.

It's not puzzling at all. I see an attempt to reframe the discussion. The proposed reframing is identification of a subject, one which may or may not be one of Jones' strong points, and query how best to present it. I reject that reframing. In the context of the reframing, one could debate which of Jones' areas of expertise should be highlighted, then decide the best source to illustrate the area. If someone wants to pursue that, go ahead, but only as a separate exercise. The present subject is whether the BBC is a RS (it is), whether discussion of recent temperatures trends is a notable subject (it is), whether Jones is qualified to opine about the subject (he is), and whether the proposed wording accurately reflects his position (not yet settled). I suggest we work on that which is not yet settled, rather than running off to address some other issue, (although, of course, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, so by all mean, pursue this new topic as well if you wish).--SPhilbrick T 16:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the same issue. Some of us just want to use a broader frame to encompass more of the picture. A narrow focus doesn't help anyone. Wikispan (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

SPhilbrick is right in my view. The broader frame did not cause the worldwide fuzz, it was the answer to the question that was misquoted. My cause is helped when the BBC interview is quoted. If you like to add more information, fine; please do it separately from the current BBC effort. In order not to confuse things, I propose to do the BBC thing first. 77.248.173.187 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "worldwide fuzz" is not what you twice added to this article. Here are the diffs. [23] [24] You simply reproduced an answer to one question that, on its own, is not worthy of more attention than the twenty-one other questions Phil Jones was asked in the same Q&A. Sphilbrick is simply pushing for re-inclusion of the removed text (absent any mention of press distortion) which I and a number of other editors find odd. Wikispan (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think some of the other questions and answers are as notable as the one being discussed, you are perfectly free to propose inclusion. In the meantime, I haven't seen an cogent objections to this question other than fair questions about making sure that the text selected for the article accurately summarizes the conclusions made by Dr. Jones. Do you have proposed wording to meet that? If we can't find a good paraphrase, we could always fall back on a direct quote. As for the alleged press distortion, what do you mean? This is a q and A format so presumably the Jones responses are direct quotes. Do you have evidence otherwise?--SPhilbrick T 22:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I direct you to the sources presented above and below. Now where is your evidence this question is notable stand-alone? Wikispan (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you like, I can add some information about the fuzz, such that it becomes more clear why the quotes are so important. If you know a usable source, please let me know. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Sphilbrick's objections. We have a interview, with the BBC, in which Jones talks about trends. As I understand it, SP wants to include quotes from that, with Jones talking about trends, in the article. I too would like to have Jones-on-trends, but I'd rather have him based on his scientific papers, which seem, self-evidently, a better source. I admit I haven't proposed any actual text. Is there any diff that SP actually wants to see in the article? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The anon said: My contribution is about a BBC interview. In this interview, Dr. Jones has given answers to questions. These answers have raised doubts about climatologists all over the planet The BBC interview is of interest either as a source of information about Jones' opinions on trends in warming, or it is a "gotcha" source, one that was spun and misrepresented to try to embarrass Jones and confuse readers. Obviously no one would argue that we misrepresent sources for the purpose of embarrassing Jones. So what's left is to use the interview to discuss Jones' opinions on trends in warming. SP and MWD have already said that they aren't interested in that, and the anon apparently isn't aware that our WP:BLP policy doesn't allow us to spin comments out of context in order to embarrass people. So what's left? Guettarda (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are assuming that we want to misrepresent sources for malice, i.e. to embarrass Jones, confuse readers. I do not share this viewpoint with you. The question and answer are quoted correctly. I think you do not understand the point of view of SPhilbrick; I think he wants this on this page as well. I was the anonymous poster myself, sorry about that. Nothing has been spun out of context. The context I volunteer to add is on the wikipedia page itself, stating there was a "fuzz." So once the 'inaccurate paraphrasing' thing ends, we have almost agreement on this new contribution. I guess we are waiting for William M. Connolley to make a contribution. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's nice of you to volunteer to add information about the "fuzz", but before you do so you have to produce reliable sources showing that this is sufficiently significant to the biography to be included in this page – WP:BLP policy sets a high bar for including information, and you are a long way from meeting that standard. You also need consensus on this talk page that your proposals are appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and other press articles wildly misinterpreted Jones (they may have quoted him correctly), as is obvious to anyone with a cursory understanding of statistical significance testing. Still, I think the controversy is notable, and I wouldn't mind using the interview as long as we can point out how Jones was misinterpreted. The best source I have found so far is [25] -- it's a blog on the Economist website, but it says it's written by the Economist's correspondents and thus appears to be under the Economist's editorial control (which would make it a permissible source to use here). What are editors' views on that? --JN 466 02:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a similar source, from the Washington Post website. --JN 466 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Vancouver Sun and a direct statement from UCS. [26] [27] Wikispan (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Thanks for those. As media distortion is a factor in this discussion, allow me to mention that there is currently a thread on the relative reliability of media and academic sources at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Academic_and_media_sources. --JN 466 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    - Thanks indeed. I will use those in a next proposal. M.w.denotter (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to show the available temperature data of the last 45-75 years or so. This is short enough for comparison of the 15 years period of 1995-2010, and long enough to show the longer term data. Who knows a good temperature data source of unquestionable quality? M.w.denotter (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the new and improved paragraph. What do you think about it?

BBC interview

Professor Jones was interviewed by BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin in February 2010. This interview has been widely misinterpreted http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/02/phil_jones_speaks--again.html. In answer to the question "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming", Dr. Jones answered: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

In answer to the question "Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?", Dr. Jones admitted that temperatures have dropped in this period: "[...] The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the 1961–1990 period. Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations. These averages help to describe the climate. [ref: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/]

The data suggests dropping temperatures between 2002 and 2010 and rising temperatures between 1995 and 2010. Although these two periods are a fair fraction of the usual 30 years averaging period, these periods are too short to be conclusive for climate change.

Therefore, Dr. Jones remains confident that the climate has warmed since the 1950s due to human activity.

What do you think? M.w.denotter (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Still has the pre-existing problems. For example, you're still going on about 30-year periods for averages - why is that of any relevance? Also, you're quoting stuff that you acknowledge was misinterpreted, so the obvious question is, why are you trying to re-inforce the misinterpretation. Back to the obvious point: if you want ot know what Jones thinks about temperature trends, rea dhis papers William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresents tne WapO source, which might be better summarised by saying that "In an example of malpractice by journalists, a BBC interview with Jones was widely misreported. Jones correctly agreed that, though there was a measured global warming of 0.12°C per decade since 1995, this was not statistically significant taken over this short period, but some newspapers made the false claim that this meant there had been no warming." Still probably rather long in this bio, and says more about the media than about Jones. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: I thought the 30 year period was brought up by you yourself. It does not appear in my original contribution, does it? So the relevance must also be clear, especially to you: climates are based on 30 years of data by international standards and not on shorter periods. Anybody can calculate trends over any period of time, but this trend may not be meaningful. It is the common scientific way to calculate significance levels together with trends. Non-significant trends are still trends, but often meaningless. Now for your second objection: the second proposal explicitly warns for misinterpretation. This is an improvement as a result of the discussion here. So there is nothing being reinforced. Now your third point: it is not me who wants to know about Jones ideas on temperature trends. Wikipedia has an audience and the audience is not helped by no information. Not giving the information is quite special in an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia should not tell its readers to look for information elsewhere. In my view, scientists like us have the moral obligation to disclose and explain progress in science. Dr. Jones gave an interview, and we now try to explain what he said as clear as we can, and what the misinterpretation caused.

By the way, I am still waiting for your explanation about the inaccurate paraphrasing. Also, I would like some details about your own proposal at the start of this section. Please keep in mind that the rest of the editors may reach consensus on this disputed section, and your window of opportunity for contribution is lost. M.w.denotter (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza: Malpractice is a word that is in my view too strong. Journalists are not necessarily malicious, and I think we should not imply that they do it more often by giving an "example". Reading your proposed sentences carefully, I think this is not what happened. Jones admitted to cooling since January 2002, albeit not significant. It was not the heating but the cooling that caused the media fuss. I welcome your proposal though; it gives me the feeling we are building rather than destroying. How about:

Dr. Jones' answers during a BBC interview were widely misrepresented and misunderstood. In the interview, Jones correctly answered that the measured global cooling of 0.12°C per decade since 2002 is not statistically significant. In other words: there was global cooling since 2002, but the period is too short to claim that the climate is not warming. M.w.denotter (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@DeN: we've been round this circle before. See [28] for both the point about 30 years (which SP got wrong too) and the reason why your paraphrase was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@ M.w.denotter, the link you give goes to Climate change and the media: Journalistic malpractice on global warming | The Economist which states "What's truly infuriating about this episode of journalistic malpractice is that, once again, it illustrates the reasons why the East Anglia scientists adopted an adversarial attitude towards information management with regard to outsiders and the media. They were afraid that any data they allowed to be characterised by non-climate scientists would be vulnerable to propagandistic distortion. And they were right." We go by the source, not by your view of what's too strong. The way you've linked above obscures your WaPo link to Post Carbon: Climate scientist Phil Jones speaks -- again - Juliet Eilperin, which you seem to have misunderstood. It too notes misreporting by the Mail, and says that Jones pointed out that there has been continued global warming, not "global cooling" as you propose above. So, given that, do you still think this is terribly important? . . dave souza, talk 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza: Ok. I get your point. Basically, it was a mistake in using a web page named Journalistic malpractice. I think it is beneath the standing of Wikipedia to viciously attack journalists like this. We may have a look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html instead; even if we decide not to use it, it shows very well the point; He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. I have indeed not used the Washington Post link; choices have to be made. The Daily Mail was not the only source to misunderstand Dr. Jones. Again, in my view, this is not the place to pinpoint the misunderstandings on a small group of newspapers. I don't think that wikipedia should give a list of journalists and newspapers who were wrong; rather, I want to point out that many sources were wrong. Regarding the global cooling, the cooling trend can be calculated. Dr. Jones did it right. He also mentioned correctly that the trend is not significant. I think that the significance, or lack of it, of the cooling should be explained well in this section. The quotes from Dr. Jones that I used, are about two periods: one with a cooling trend and one with a heating trend. In summary: yes, I think this is important. It should have been in Wikipedia half a year ago, to be honest. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: You forgot to say something about your own proposal. If you are serious about it, follow up on it. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@ M.w.denotter, what is your proposal? You seem to think this is important as an issue in itself, but as Jones had it right there's no reason for this to be important to his biography – see WP:COATRACK. . . dave souza, talk 06:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza: The section named "what is not a coatrack" of WP:COATRACK applies in my view. It is my goal to make an unbiased contribution. I will follow up on it shortly. M.w.denotter (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

@ M.w.denotter, you're far from having shown that this is Jones's main claim to notability, indeed the incident itself seems barely notable and is about the media rather than about Jones. As you say, this is not the place to pinpoint the misunderstandings on a small group of newspapers. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the long expected update

First of all, the ratio that I intended to use, was given by the ratio of sites allegedly found by Google. The intention was to find the ratio of sites on the entire internet mentioning Dr. Jones and the BBC interview on the one hand and the number of sites mentioning Dr. Jones at all on the other. To obtain this ratio, I intended to use Google hit counts. Objections were raised to the use of the Google hit count; it was said to be not representable for the internet as a whole.

In an earlier stage of this discussion, it has been argued that the BBC interview and/or its miquotations were not notable in the Wikipedia sense. The ratio between the number of sites mentioning Dr. Jones and the interview on the one hand and Dr. Jones at all is a quantification of the notability. This avoids the discussions about what is a respectable source.

So I have downloaded the first 1000 sites reported by Google on the search terms climate "Phil jones". This can be done with a small script and a lot of patience. A second script analyses the downloaded web pages. I can make the scripts available for you on request; they are written in Bourne shell and run under Cygwin. The first 1000 results by Google expand to 33708 files and 35491 folders, total 586 MB.

Results: Google found 1819 files simultaneously mentioning Phil Jones and climate.

Google found 936 files simultaneously mentioning Phil Jones and climate and BBC.

Google found 290 files simultaneously mentioning Phil Jones and climate and BBC interview. Sites mentioning "interview by the BBC" are not counted.

Google found 290 files simultaneously mentioning Phil Jones and climate and BBC and interview. Sites mentioning "interview by the BBC" and variants are included in this count.

So, 51% of the sites mentions the BBC and even 16% mentions Dr. Jones and the BBC interview. That is notability regarding the BBC interview for you.

Google found 494 files simultaneously mentioning Phil Jones and climate and BBC and significan. Each of these are treated as a group of characters as opposed to a word; significan and expand to significance, significant etcetera. This means that 27% of the sites mention something about significance, but it also means that a large number of files does not mention anything about significance at all. That is misquoting Dr. Jones and notability of wide spread misquotation.

Please let me know your comments before we turn to the discussion about the formulation of a section mentioning the BBC interview. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. But the problem remains as before: You look at numbers, not content. In particular, every article by the BBC or from the BBC is likely to mention the term BBC, whether it is about this particular incident or not. Plain Google hits are also bound to return primarily unreliable sources. What's more, the third hit for "Phil Jones" BBC I looked at was this one. How many of your "BBC" hits are about the British soccer player? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The initial Google search I used was on "Phil Jones" climate. Google is supposed to look for sites containing the quote "Phil Jones" and containing the word "climate". Soccer players have less to do with the climate than the intended scientist. Nevertheless, I have adapted the scripts to look for a combination of quotes: "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit", where letters (but no spaces) replace the dots. The same downloaded internet sites were used.

Indeed, I look at numbers and ratios. These numbers and ratios depend on the content of the sites though. Please understand that the recent work does not just look for any site mentioning just a few keywords; the sites considered relevant have to contain combinations of words and quotes. The search "Phil Jones" BBC will include results of other people named "Phil Jones" who have had a connection to the BBC; however, the number of people with this name and associated with the climate is very small or unity. That is why the Google search already rules out sites that do not simultaneously mention "Phil Jones" and "climate". All sites/files I consider have to contain the word climate. In the work below, I further restricted this to "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit". This narrows the results down to one person.

1090 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit"

 14 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and soccer
132 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and football
751 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and BBC
232 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and BBC and interview
140 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and BBC and interview and significan...

The off-topic references to sport are made in links or pop-ups during mouse hoovering; think of commercials and other news items. So about 232/1090=21% of the sites mentioning Dr. Jones mentions the BBC interview. That is notability of the interview. Of the sites mentioning the interview, 140/232=60% mention the significance, so the rest is misquoting.

266 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and "global cooling"
191 files containing "Phil Jones" and "climat... research unit" and "global cooling" and significan...

Here again: 191/266=72% mention global cooling and significance, so some 28% does not mention the insignificance. That is proof of misquotation. M.w.denotter (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At least this discussion has not been completely pointless. I have encountered here for the first time, let it be known, the wonderfully graphic phrase "mouse-hoovering." I picture a whole line of vacuum cleaners in the shape of a computer mouse, or else a small cartoon-style mouse that sleeps in the wainscoting by day and pops out at night to tidy up the house with the dearest little hoover, tut-tutting all the time at the mess these lumbering human monsters leave behind them. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. Learning another language is not easy. I apologise for errors. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Already been mentioned: Google hits over 1000 are meaningless numbers. And analysis of Google hits in this manner, even if they were meaningful, would constitute "original research". Sorry you wasted your time, but none of this is of any use in a Wikipedia article. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a patronising asshole above. --TS 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: My research shows the notability of the interview by the BBC. Google hit counts are not used. I do not want to post the research to prove notability, I want to have the interview and the misquotations of it mentioned on the biography page as mentioned in the earlier parts of the discussion. And of course, it is fun to write these scripts. M.w.denotter (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say "google hit counts are not used", what do you mean? This entire discussion revolves around the idea that Google hit counts matter in some way, and you are the person promoting that idea. --TS 20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Google hit counts are not used in the current update. I have actually downloaded the first 1000 sites reported by google and verified by scripting the relevance with respect to the BBC interview. The current paragraph on this site starts with details about it. If you have any questions, please let me know. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you're playing with words. You deny using Google hit counts yet you admit to searching Google, downloading the target articles, filtering them in some way, and reporting numerical results. --TS 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My research shows... - and that's the problem. It's your original research. Which cannot be used in Wikipedia. Please see the link in my previous response. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, misquotations about misquotations. This time by Guettarda. If you quote My research shows..., you should have added the next words: the notability of the interview by the BBC. Some editors have asked me to prove notability, and that is what I did. The research can not be published in wikipedia, but the topic of the research can. If you dislike the word research, that is your own problem.

I think several of you and I have different ideas about original research. The first line of "original research" sais it all: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Surely, nobody thought I intended to publish these numbers on the page itself? Or did you? Very strange. Poor reading, I suspect - but then again, what are you doing here, editing an encyclopaedia. You must be able to read to do it well.

"original research" also states: The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.. It is strange already that I had to prove the general misquotations of the interview, and the notability of the misquotations. It is common knowledge to anybody with an interest in the news or in climatology - so the misquotations are unlikely to be challenged. It has been decided earlier (20:36, 17 September 2010) already not to do any naming and shaming; that is why respectable sources are not used.

The complaints of Tony Sidaway above are also very strange. Please explain what you want, Tony. Do you have a problem with the use of Google? Or is the difference between a hit count and the actual verification of it not clear to you? Did you think that removing the discussion from the talk page would make the entire discussion go away? Surely, you have a good explanation; let's hear it.

I get the feeling that several editors here have no interest in actually contributing something. It seems that these people are not interested in sharing knowledge and understanding to the public. Anything that sounds even slightly opposing the mainstream view is objected to. I find it disappointing that hardly anybody here is interested in opening up information to the intended audience. M.w.denotter (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I have a problem with Google. Manipulation of Google search results is meaningless. --TS 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reason to remove the discussion, but an opinion; it remains unmotivated, unfortunately. A repetition of a previous statement does not help in any way. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I continue to be a patronising asshole. I'm sorry. I will leave the discussion to those who have proven to be far more civil than I. The fault is entirely mine and if I could I would undo all my comments here. --TS 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not a misquotation at all. You have used sources to draw conclusions which are not present in the sources themselves. That is the "original research". For example, you wrote:

51% of the sites mentions the BBC and even 16% mentions Dr. Jones and the BBC interview

What is the source for this information? To what reliable source is that fact attributable? None, because it's your own original conclusion.

Some editors have asked me to prove notability, and that is what I did

In order to prove notability you would have to demonstrate that reliable sources considered it a notable aspect of Jones' career. Let's take a look at what you actually did:

The ratio between the number of sites mentioning Dr. Jones and the interview on the one hand and Dr. Jones at all is a quantification of the notability
- This is an entirely fallacious argument. To begin with, it in no way resembles what we—what Wikipedia policy—considers "notability".
- Volume is meaningless - most of the information on the internet is worthless. I see nothing in your methodology that excludes blogs published by non-experts. I see nothing that would exclude duplicate copies of the same article. I see nothing that would exclude websites that build 'content' by scraping text off other websites. I see nothing that would exclude mirrors of this very discussion.
- Assuming that you had managed to restrict your search to reliable sources, there's still the problem of the news cycle. Jones' career did not begin within the last year. His publication record goes back to 1974, and by 1998 he was distinguished enough to head the CRU. So any attempt to gauge the notability of this interview based on frequency of publication would need to sort out the weighting problem. Assuming he was only notable since 1998, you'd still need to ensure that 2010 was not given greater weight that any of the 12 prior years. What did you do to handle this weighing problem?
- Jones primary notability derives not from giving interviews but rather, from his scientific publications. What did you do ensure that your search was not giving undue weight to newspaper interviews?

I could go on, of course. But even setting aside your misunderstanding of the policy on original research, the fact remains that your methods cannot give meaningful results. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In order to prove notability you would have to demonstrate that reliable sources considered it a notable aspect of Jones' career.

Where do you find guidelines like that? I did not find it on WP:BLP. Dr. Jones was the one that gave the interview in the middle of climategate. The misquotations startled the planet even more than the stolen emails. It is hard to become more notable when the eye of the whole world is on you. I can hardly believe that the worldwide uproar around the interview is not enough. Regarding volume and non-experts: I did not look at the volume, but at the probability of finding sources on Jones mentioning the interview. This probability is very high. That the incorrectly recited information is worthless is exactly the point; it is the kernel of the uproar. Experts would not have quoted incorrectly.

Regarding the weighing problem: There is hardly anything found on Dr. Jones before climategate. I know that because I investigated it; by far the largest stack of sources mention the BBC interview and climategate. About newspaper interviews: these are not accredited to the BBC. Finally, I think a biography should not deal with someone's carreer, but rather about someone's life. Anyway, suicide ends both, and if the publication of stolen emails is reason to contemplate suicide, think of what damage all the misquotations must have caused to the life of Dr. Jones. What a contrast. Here notability to his biography is doubted, but the poor man himself thought about ending his life. M.w.denotter (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Planets can't be startled, and if people are startled enough for it to become significant enough for a bio then reliable third party sources will have explicitly commented on that. You're commenting on press-inspired reports alleging thoughts of suicide, but these seem to have come from leading questions by a reporter – this was discussed on this talk page at the time, and the consensus was that is should not appear in this bio, to meet BLP standards. Your opinion about the probability of finding worthless information does not justify including that information. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I give up. There is no point any more. It has become clear to me that wikipedians are not interested in truth and facts... this is just a disguised forum to vent personal favours. Opinions presented as facts are motivated by more opinions. The removal of the entire discussion was a sad highlight of it all. I will have no part of it. M.w.denotter (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Background

Why is there no detailed biographical data on Mr. Jones? Where did he go to school (other than university)? When and where was he born? Who were his parents? Who is he married to? Does he have any children? I think this kind of information is extremely important when learning about the character and mind-set of a public individual. We have more pertinent information about rock stars here on Wikipedia than we do about climatologists. Can someone please research these items? I don't know where to begin...--Comeoncloser (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

^ Climate row unviersity 'broke data law' [Edition 3] Author: Nick Collins Journal: The Daily Telegraph ( London (UK) ) Pub.: 2010-01-28 Pages: 17

[1] Climate row unviersity 'broke data law' [Edition 3] Author: Nick Collins Journal: The Daily Telegraph ( London (UK) ) Pub.: 2010-01-28 Pages: 17

[1]