The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed; deleted per nom Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific data withholding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Note to closing admin: please check for WP:CANVAS like [1]

Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism; POV fork of Scientific data archiving. RonCram spent an awful long time [2] and repeats trying to label inadequate data arching as pseudo science. Eventually he gave up, only to put the same text in a different article, this one. Its just a POV fork/vehicle for RonCram William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per nom :-) William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William, your most recent edit was interesting.[3] You did not make any statement on the Talk page to justify the edit. Your only comment was in the Edit Summary: "attempt at NPOVing." You seem to think the best way to make the article NPOV is to delete information that is accurate and well-sourced. This may be a surprise to you, William, but censorship is not the same as NPOVing. There is no question McIntyre found a subdirectory marked "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED." The fact Mann did not report in the article that he got results contrary to his conclusions is another example of data withholding. If Mann had a good excuse and I left it out, you could certainly add the excuse and call it "NPOVing." But censorship in order to protect a business partner is not Wikipedia policy.RonCram 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, you seem to think you know a lot about William's personal motives and "business partners". I respectfully suggest that you be aware of the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, especially the second. --Nethgirb 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, I did comment on the content of his edit. I don't like censorship. I do know enough about William's relationship with Mann to know that this constitutes WP:COI. See the RealClimate website listing the contributors. There you find Mann, Mann's coauthor Bradley and Connelly.[4] RonCram 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have discovered that scientists in related fields collaborate with each other on academic projects. A bit different than saying they are "business partners". I respectfully suggest that you be aware of the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, especially the part that says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Nethgirb 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Mr. Connolley could raise such an issue if it seemed necessary to him, and that you could refrain from taking sides in this personal discussion between these two persons? Besides, I would be surprised that WP:NPA forbids someone to raise or discuss WP:COI - otherwise the latter would have little relevance no? Perhaps that's what Mr. Connolley understood... --Childhood's End 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed William on the COI Noticeboard [5] Suppressing negative information about "individuals, causes, organizations, companies or products" you are affiliated with is the definition of WP:COI. I have asked William to explain.RonCram 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I originally thought data archiving and data withholding should be discussed in the same article. But they are different concepts. Data withholding is a much greater crime against science than a lack of data archiving. William Connelly's view of the article is affected by the fact he is closely associated with one of the examples of data withholding, Michael Mann. They are both contributors or partners in the website, RealClimate. In accordance with WP:COI, I have asked William to consider if he is too close to the subject to view it objectively.RonCram 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Replication and transparency are important (and seldom-understood) aspects of science. This article seems to provide fairly good supporting evidence. There are some famous examples of scientific data withholding, especially in the medical field, where data for drug studies was invented and ultimately lead to the disgrace of the authors. I think it would be good to have links to and from such examples. But overall, I think the concept of the article is reasonable for an encyclopaedia. 220.233.81.49

• speedy keep Consider that this was nominated for deletion within the first 24 hours. Keep the article (which already has established itself as legitimate and more informative in the 20 hours before this RfD was performed than many other articles that pass RfD. The article is not an issue is the nominator prefers text to be his way, even on the Talk Page for the article he links to above [6]. In fact, This article s/b WP:SK ("The nomination was unquestionably...disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it... Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations...nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (e.g., a userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment)"). The only catch is the nominator's cadre will come and support deletion simply to thwart the speedy. Nonetheless, this RfD is just another retaliation in a wide-reaching edit-war. -- Tony 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep I also agree with the comment "RfD is just another retaliation in a wide-reaching edit-war." It is pretty clear when the nominator here doesn't agree with something...--Zeeboid 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete As it stands right now - the article is a POV fork (or a pre-mature split) - i suggest that RonCram begin working on the article and differentiating it substantially from Scientific data archiving - it is way to close to a diff of Ron's work on that page currently. The concept should've been developed on the other article - and then when it was substantial, split off into a new article. --Kim D. Petersen 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not a POV fork, because it does not express a "different point of view" from its companion article. The articles could be merged. Moreover, Dr. Connoley is abusing the afd nomination to advance his own point of view, i.e., that there is nothing wrong with scientist withholding data from the scrutiny of their peers.
  • As a scientist, he's entitled to his POV, but "withholding data is contrary to the scientific method, textbooks describe it as unscientific or pseudoscience." If this sentence in the article is incorrect, it should be fixed; deleting the whole article serves no encyclopedic purpose. --Uncle Ed 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uncle Ed is right. If there are errors, they should be fixed, but this seems a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Phiwum 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is ultimately a POV fork of Global warming controversy. Ron wanted to give greater weight to a particular claim of data withholding in climate science levelled against Mann et al, so he created Scientific data archiving (for evidence, see discussion). Editors criticized that article as containing OR and being a front for discussion of a particular controversy regarding data withholding rather than data archiving (see much discussion). Now Ron has created Scientific data withholding, but the fundamental problems of being a POV fork and containing OR remain. This may or may not be a notable topic, but I can say that the vast majority of the current article (excluding the copied-and-pasted policy statements) is either POV, OR, or irrelevant, so there's no particular reason to save this. For example, the entire introduction, except for the last sentence, is OR. The bit about pseudoscience has a reference but is not actually supported by it; notice Ron didn't provide a quote from the source. --Nethgirb 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, you are entitled to your opinion on the question of keeping the article or not, but I have to respond to your misstatements of fact. Nothing about either article is OR. In its current form, there is nothing controversial about Scientific data archiving article at all. I can provide a citation for almost any statement you may question in Scientific data withholding. Regarding the statement about pseudoscience, you only need to read the Wikipedia article to find support. Or you can read the quotes provided on the Talk page of Scientific data archiving where it was discussed at length. Almost every textbook that deals with the scientific method in any detail will describe data withholding is unscientific or pseudoscience.RonCram 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SDA is only non-controversial *in its present form* because all the dodgy OR and POV pushing by you has been taken out; and subsequently stuffed by you into this article William M. Connolley 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ron, I know that we have discussed it at length. Yet you still fail to provide an external quote for your claim that "textbooks describe [withholding data] as unscientific or pseudoscience". --Nethgirb 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this explicit Ron: I challenge you to exhibit right here a quote from a reliable external source which states that "textbooks describe [withholding data] as unscientific or pseudoscience". --Nethgirb 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, here is the quote I gave you earlier from a textbook chapter titled "Evidence-based practice and pseudoscience:"

Publically Verifiable Knowledge

The second principle involves the public nature of scientific knowledge. Knowledge gathered empirically does not exist solely in the mind of the scientist. In fact, it does not exist at all until the person disseminates it to the scientific community for critique, testing, and replicating of results. Knowledge or findings limited to one person or group and not verified can never have the status of scientific knowledge (Dawes, 2001). The person or group must present such findings to the scientific community in a way that others can achieve the same results. This process ensures that a particular finding is not the result of bias or error. [7] When you read that carefully, you will see that unverified info is not science. More importantly, you do not delete an article if you disagree over the meaning of one quote. RonCram 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot in that quote about verifiability/reproducibility but nothing about data withholding. This is the fundamental point you continually have missed: a study can be verified and reproduced without looking at its data, because the data itself can be reproduced. "More importantly, you do not delete an article if you disagree over the meaning of one quote." -- Agreed. Other parts that are problematic: the rest of the introduction, excluding the last sentence, is unsourced and thus can be considered OR; the climate science discussion is significantly slanted towards the McIntyre/McKitrick POV; and the Jan Hendrik Schön example is not really about data withholding, because the important part is that he faked his research. (You might say that there was no data withholding involved, since there was no data in the first place. :-) ) This accounts for the bulk of the content in the article, excluding the copied-and-pasted policy statements. --Nethgirb 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, I must also respond to the charge the article is a POV fork of Global warming controversy. I do not understand how you can make that statement. First, the discussion of Michael Mann is a one paragraph subsection of the article. It is an illustration, not the main topic. Second, Global warming controversy is an article about the controversy. As such, its raison d'etre is to discuss events surrounding the controversy. How can you claim that an article about the AGW controversy should not contain information about Mann's withholding of data? That doesn't even make sense. RonCram 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First, the discussion of Michael Mann is a one paragraph subsection of the article. It is an illustration, not the main topic." It's also the longest paragraph. Coincidence? Here are your own words: "In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this [climate science] controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving ... I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science." [8] It seems pretty clear to me that you wrote the article in order to criticise climate science, and tacked on everything else in order to make it appear less like a POV fork. "How can you claim that an article about the AGW controversy should not contain information about Mann's withholding of data? That doesn't even make sense." I never said that. In fact, I agree: GW controversy or Hockey stick controversy are better places for an appropriately weighted discussion of the Mann issues, rather than creating your own POV fork. --Nethgirb 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have quoted me correctly. I started the data archiving article to explain the issues of data archiving and data withholding in climate science but also wanted to put the issues into a larger context. I thought it would be helpful if people could read the policies on archiving and data withholding, learn about some of the studies of the problem and read some illustrations of the problem. Mann's data withholding happens to be the one I know the most about. Mann's case was especially notable since Congress had to get involved before he turned over his source code. I fail to see how this is a POV fork. Are any of the facts in the article in dispute? The only statement being disputed is calling data withholding "unscientific" or "pseudoscience." Yet, Kenosis, who edits the Pseudoscience page, commented that science allows "no wizards behind the curtain." He quoted a textbook by Gauch. Data has to be shared to be considered science.RonCram 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete -- I agree that this is a content fork in the same way as the data archiving article is a content fork. I suggest that the over-arching concept is "Scientific data sharing". Within such an article, sections on archiving and witholding would be appropriate. I also think it's fairly apparently POV and, furthermore, blatantly USA-centric; hence I added a globalise tag. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I added a paragraph on Dr. Singh, a cardiologist from India and removed the globalize tag. If you think it is still US Centric even though it mentions the UK- based journal Nature and now an illustration from India, let me know what you think it is missing and I will research it.RonCram 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork. The name is much more controversial than the subject it discusses. Jerry 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly a POV fork. Plus, would an encyclopedia have an entry for a term that returns exactly zero pages on a google search? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeaAndSand (talk • contribs).

Try googling "data withholding" and see how many hits you get on science topics and papers.[9]RonCram 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Or you might try googling "data withholding" and "science" where you get 862 hits. [10] Or "data withholding" and "genetics" to get 639 hits. [11] Or "data withholding" and "climate" to get 260 hits. [12]RonCram 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete First of all, a POV fork, and an particularly unfortunate one, imitating another article in order to include views of specific topics which the consensus had removed from the original page. This material--fundamentally a POV not on this but on Global Warming-- had repeatedly be inserted into the original article by one particular editor against the continuing consensus of everyone else. When the article was protected, the ed. resorted to this means of putting his particularly wanted material into an article on another topic. To add to plausibility, he inserted two additional cases, but in the ones selected the question was not in fact scientific data withholding, but the fraudulent absence of any data whatsoever. This is concocted by the desire to insert POV analysis on climate warming into irrelevant articles. The immediate nomination was appropriate, considering the apparent intent in creating the article. DGG 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, apparently you have not read the Talk page for Scientific data archiving. If you had, you would know that no consensus existed that the information about Global Warming was POV. I decided to move the more controversial stuff to a new article, not because it was POV or controversial, but because of this comment by Kenosis. He wrote: If I may reiterate the point I made in response to RonCram's statement on my talk page: Data withholding is one thing; failure to archive all data points is another. The former is an indicator, one of may possible indicators, that may contribute to a judgment of a particular enterprise as being pseudoscience. The latter is not necessarily such an indicator if the operational definitions and summary statistics are intact in such a way that the relevant experiment or study can be replicated. ... Kenosis 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Kenosis convinced me that these two different concepts- "data archiving" and "data withholding" should be discussed in separate articles. I had no idea that William would try to use that to delete the article. This is not a POV fork and anyone who reads the Talk page will know that.RonCram 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a counterexample to your claim that anyone who reads the Talk page will know that this is not a POV fork.

To be fair, there were a number of other editors who supported Ron's view on Talk:Scientific data archiving that that article held a neutral POV (unsurprisingly, the same ones who usually edit GW articles in ways that support a skeptical perspective). Those editors were in my opinion also wrong. Regardless, the lack of a consensus does not diminish the fact that this article is a POV fork. Rather than work towards a consensus (admittedly a difficult task) or fall back to 3rd-party mediation, Ron simply started a new article in which to insert his POV. Ron may not have been doing this intentionally—I believe Ron to be a good-faith editor—but that was the effect. --Nethgirb 05:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, I appreciate you trying to be fair. Did you read the comment by Kenosis that convinced me to move the controversial portion to the data withholding article? I copied and pasted it onto this page as well. I thought I was supposed to listen to the advice of other editors. He seemed to have a good point. It seems strange to me to now claim I was avoiding some kind of consensus on the archiving page. RonCram 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. I agree with Kenosis, who said that the data withholding-related text you wrote did not belong in Scientific data archiving. But that does not mean it belongs in its own new article; I would say it does not belong anywhere in its current form, and may belong in Global warming controversy in a reduced and neutralized form. This is consistent with my original comment above, which I quote again: "Editors criticized that article [ Scientific data archiving ] as containing OR and being a front for discussion of a particular controversy regarding data withholding rather than data archiving (see much discussion). Now Ron has created Scientific data withholding, but the fundamental problems of being a POV fork and containing OR remain." I appreciate your willingness to consider the ideas of another editor on this particular point, Ron, but the effect of being a POV fork remains. --Nethgirb 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change Name "What about "Scientific Data Auditability" That results can be reproduced by other independent scientists is one of the most basic principles of the Scientific Method, . That scientist A might prevent scientist B from reproducing A's results is unacceptable. If the conclusions of A are based on secret data, then A's conclusions must be suspect.
• Delete. Sorry but neologism is the over-riding argument. --BozMo talk 05:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the comment. What word is new? If you google "data withholding" you get plenty of pages dealing with science. If you google "data withholding" and "science," you get plenty of pages. If you google "data withholding" and "genetics," you get plenty of pages. "Data withholding" is the common term used for researchers who refuse to provide their data. RonCram 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article claims that withholding data is contrary to standard scientific practice in general (I'd be surprised if anyone had grounds for claiming this was controversial) and is specifically contrary to the policies of influential scientific journals and institutions. It backs up the claim that this aspect of scientific integrity is not adhered to by all researchers with a number of important example cases. That some of these cases make uncomfortable reading for some of the editors here does not make the article POV. The motivation of the original author is irrelevant: the article has merit in its own right. --Ralph Becket
• comment An article might have merity on this, yes, and we already have one. This article has no merit , the first ¼ repeats the other page, the middle talks about one special case, and the end talks about 2 scandals involving scientific misbehavior irrelevant to the topic. . DGG 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree: I think the article does have merit. It does not repeat material in the archiving article as far as I can see. I agree that better examples than Schon and Singh should be found, but the Mann example must surely pass muster. -- Ralph Becket —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.101.34 (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: quite clearly a POV fork, to the point where a large portion of the undisputed text is reproduced. --Philosophus ^T 08:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (not WMC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork also violates WP:NOR. Anything necessary should be in the data archiving article. This topic most certainly should not be used to create a fork for a relatively tangential topic (global warming). csloat 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Nethgirb. Guettarda 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - excessively one-sided POV thrust and content. --Skyemoor 12:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment SO what about the GW article and its mention of Data Withholding?[13] Are you guys going to delete this too? This is so frustrating, how some of these wikipedians are shoving items under the carpet that they don't want. If you guys think its violating POV Forking, please provide sections of text from the POV Forking article to back up your opinion. To delete an article just by referencing a link to a large policy is Very Un-Wiki. Also, if you want to start quoting policies, then I have one to quote as well. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. So by that rule, I believe if you guys are pushing the POV Fork (which I don't agree with anyway), then I think removing the article on Scientific data withholding would do more harm to Wikipedia then good. And to pull out the conspiricy stops, it would also appear many of these people markin the article as delete, carry over their same opinions when it comes to most GW articles: The balancing view must be crushed.--Zeeboid 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Afd request coming from a user who is in an obvious COI, which is enough to turn it down. Subject is also notable, well documented, and is certainly different from the data archiving issue. --Childhood's End 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above seems to border on a personal attack, not to mention a serious failure to assume AGF. Furthermore, it is not at all obvious to me what William's COI would be in this case (that he happens to be a reknowned climate expert is somehow a COI now?), and even if there were a COI, nothing in WP:COI says that an AfDs coming from someone with a COI should be rejected. There are very good reasons to delete this article. Try to deal with those and not cast aspersions on the nominator. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Reknowned climate expert? Outisde his internet activities, is WMC a known "climate expert"? Also, I'm just trying to help with sound rules of evidence here (that the WP community is free to adopt or not, of course). If in any other inquiry, a testimony coming from a witness who is cought in a COI can hardly be accepted, why would it be different on Wikipedia? Please think about it before dismissing anything that may involve the nominator. --Childhood's End 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to comment Counselor, objective evidence of WMC's status as a "climate expert" is that his work is published in first-rank journals such as Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Physical Oceanography, and Journal of Geophysical Research. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me help you with the WP:COI. Please look through his pages (William) and note his self proclaimed environmental activism. An Environmental Activist editing things that have to do with the Environment is about as bad as someone who works for Exxon editing pages that have to do with Exxon. WIlliam has too much vested in the success or failure of a POV. I agree with User:Childhoodsend in this respect. William's COI in his nomination for deletion of this article should be enough to turn it down. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for an Activist's proclimation. Also, in what respects (becides Wikipedia) is this person "renowned"? Oh yea... RealClimate.org Blog, which is linked to off of his wiki article, lists articles from him that are hardcore bias. This website also has a vested intrest in Wiki articles like this failing. WP:COI.--Zeeboid 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Actully, suggesting conflict of interest here is akin to teling a geologist he can't edit articles on geology. Connolley is an expert in his field and we are lucky to have him invest his time here at Wikipedia.--MONGO 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, would be okay if the geologist worked for EXXON and deleted any negative information about the company or its executives? That is what we call a WP:COI and that is exactly what William is doing in this case.RonCram 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't decided yet whether this article needs to be kept or not, I was merely addressing COI issues and other accusations that I don't believe are true.--MONGO 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, your comment made it sound like we are lucky to have Connelly regardless of whether a COI exists or not. I agree that Wikipedia is lucky to have Connelly, however he needs to be able to pull back from editing when he is too closely involved. He is not doing that here. Perhaps you did not know Connelly and Mann work together on RealClimate? Being a part of the same organization and working on the same project is the very definition of WP:COI.

• • • (edit conflict) comment WP:AGF applies as a default, but when a person has established a history of edit-wars and retaliation then there is no room for assuming good faith. When the history (for years in the case of whom you speak) exists then anyone is justified for not assuming good faith. This is from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It gives 3 non-exclusive examples and continues to say, "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence." Pointing out that this Afd was initiated by someone involved in a COI (based on the fact the requestor is in an edit-war on the related articles...not more textbook of an example of a COI than that) is criticizing the action of requesting the AfD, is NOT implying any malice whatsoever, and if anyone erroneously concludes there is an implication of malice it would not be difficult to provide some irrefutable and "reasonable supporting evidence" of a continuous pattern as already described. -- Tony 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the above comments criticise editors rather than the content. I think it is better to stay focused on the content, for several reasons: (1) We are here to resolve an issue with the content, not the editors. (2) Any allegations of being involved in edit wars on the related articles can be equally well levelled against all of those involved on both sides. That is, to an outsider not looking at content, all that's clear is that there are two sides who are in conflict on many of the global warming articles. Thus, neutral 3rd parties need to evalute the content in order to reccommend a reasonable course of action. --Nethgirb 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guettarda, Nethgirb and csloat. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Purposeful witholding or suppression of scientfic data is already discussed, and could be expanded upon, in Scientific misconduct. Scientific data archiving currently however could also be expanded, particularly with a discussion of the need for increasingly large archives and the difficulties in data retrieval. Hal peridol 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't understand 'delete' votes. A delete vote means that we should have no article on the topic, or that a 'red link' is far better than the current article version. A redirect means that there's nothing in the current article worth keeping, but it's a legitimate topic that is (or could be) better covered in another article (the redirection targe).
• 2nd comment. What policy permits (let alone requires) an article to be deleted because a "consensus of editors" chooses to suppress factually true, well-referenced information which is germane to a topic?
• 3rd, concluding comment. This afd is too complex and the matter it addresses should be taken up in an article RFC. The chief issue is whether the data archiving / data hiding issue is of sufficient importance to merit an article (or section of one); or should be omitted from Wikipedia entirely. --Uncle Ed 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ed Poor. Different topics and not close to be considered a POV fork. If nothing else, merge. ~ UBeR 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE this forking fork. •Jim62sch• 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What was the data that was withheld by Mann?...in what way did it "conflict" with the rest of the information we have on global warming which have been made by hundreds of reknown scientists that the earth is warming? The reason I ask these things is because that seems to be the main examination in this article...the situation regarding Mann...almost half the refs are in regards to him and that situation. Data witholding sometimes does happen in the scientific community when the data may be believed to be grossly inaccurate, or it comes from a contaminated source (this could be the same as not referencing information from biased sources) or if the data cannot be reexamined due to certain limitations.--MONGO 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, Mann withheld data almost from start to finish. The final item was his source code, an item the NSF says has to be archived and provided to other researchers. Congress had to request it before he turned it over. Mann also placed some data in a subdirectory marked "censored" that showed his his statistical method was flawed and his conclusions unwarranted. This is simply not done by a scientist. However, the controversy around Mann does not disprove AGW. RonCram 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand...and I also see that the two folks most behind the opposing view are McIntyre, a former mining executive and McKitrick who is a GW skeptic...regardless, I see that much of the info about Mann is already provided in detail at Hockey stick controversy, and the rest of the info here isn't really that notable...certianly nothing to rival the Piltdown hoax so I believe this article should be Deleted.--MONGO 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, Hockey stick controversy discusses the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick and the subsequent reports by Wegman and NAS. However, it does not deal with Mann's data withholding at all. If you had read the article, you would have known that.RonCram 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article...what do you think I have been doing? I would not be opposed to taking some of the sources and info from this article and adding it there, as there is a lack of refs there...thaty would actually be a good idea. But I disagree that this isn't covered in Hockey stick controversy...just that it might be in less detail than it can. Building a better framwework in that article aout these events would help clarify the controversy there and that is my suggestion.--MONGO 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, Hockey stick controversy (HSC) does not discuss the fact McIntyre asked for data, methods and source code and Mann said "No." HSC does not talk about Mann's subdirectory titled "censored." HSC does not talk about the fact the NSF, contrary to their policies, backed Mann's refusal to provide data. HSC does not talk about the article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the fact Mann would not turn over his data and methods. HSC does not talk about the fact Congressmen read the WSJ article and decided to investigate. Congress had to request Mann turn over all his data and source code before he would turn it over. I keep seeing people repeat this refrain that "it is already covered" in HSC. It just is not true. And even if it was true, there is no context for people to understand the crime against science that data withholding is. This is not a question of good science or bad science. When data is withheld, it cannot be called science at all. RonCram 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make it clear that I think that this info can be put in that article as that would make it easier to understand wht the controversy is about. I think it can be summarized and added there...the rest of the infomation here is not notable. looking at the graphs done by numerous other paleoclimate scientists, Mann's work is supported, so unless there is a conspiracy by all these scientists to misrepresent the data, which there doesn't appear to be, I can't see having the same info here that should be in Hockey stick controversy.--MONGO 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism and POV fork. The substantive issues of the controversy between McIntyre and Mann (which, as seen in his comment above, is the author's main justification for the article) already are discussed at Hockey stick controversy, so the present article serves no purpose. Raymond Arritt 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. POV fork. FeloniousMonk 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork. Well-sourced content may be merged into Scientific misconduct, Scientific data archiving per Hal peridol. To his list, I would add politicization of science for the Joe Barton, Energy & Commerce Committee, letter to Mann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wsiegmund (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Again, another baffling nomination of a well written, highly sourced article. Cloveoil 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps a Mediation here is required. The usual suspects are voting in the usual ways for this article's removal via FORK. In fact, I tend to think Mediation for all global warming related topics may be needed.--Zeeboid 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Scientific misconduct, Scientific data archiving, and/or politicization of science, per Wsiegmund. 75.35.74.5 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A Conflict of interest noticeboard thread relates to this nomination. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into scientific data archiving. This is an obvious POV fork with content duplicated from scientific data archiving and other content that should be in that article. The article delves into great detail on two incidents rather than give a large list of incidents and brief descriptions of the issue in each, and both presentations are POV as the title implies that the subjects are known to be guilty of "data withholding". The title is also a neologism. --EMS | Talk 01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a neologism. It is significantly larger than scientific data archiving. Maybe a little bit POV, but this is not a reason for deletion.Biophys 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is POV from the very start, and the actual selection of cases of misconduct doesn't seem neutral. Why are these cases included and no others? I'd be OK with something built up from well-balanced secondary sources, but this isn't it. The selection of material is so arbitrary and incomplete that merging doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content back to scientific data archiving, and delete. Article as-is appears POV, though a list of cases of scientific fraud article or the like with some of the leftovers could be useful. --Christopher Thomas 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'Merge and Delete' is not an option in an AfD, because of GFDL. The edit history of whoever first added the material has to be kept. If a merge is done, the title of this article would become a redirect, which should achieve what you want. EdJohnston 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - A list of cases already exists at scientific misconduct. --EMS | Talk 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The underlying issue here is the practical implementation of the scientific requirements of reproducibilty and openness to public scrutiny. Beside global warming, there are important scientific results that cannot be readily reproduced/verified, e.g. because they are very expensive and/or require huge infrastructure (think of Gravity Probe B), but also for other, subtler and more controversial reasons. It may be very hard to reach a consensus, but IMO an edit war is preferable to deletion. I may add, for transparence's sake, that I have been directly involved in a controversy concerning data withholding and that my POV here is directly affected by the stance I took. Stammer 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The underlying issue may be worthy of an article, but I think the data archiving challenges you reference should be at Scientific data archiving, and the scientific misconduct part of it should be at scientific misconduct. This article is overrun with POV. --Nethgirb 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author of this article has coined a phrase. Google returns exactly one results for the phrase search "scientific data withholding". "Scientific data archiving" returns 3,420 results! That means this article fails WP:N as applied to neologisms, and I am convinced that this is a content fork. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what that one hit is? [14] To be fair, though, the neologism problems with "scientific data withholding" may be somewhat mitigated by the fact that the phrase "data withholding" is used frequently in the context of science. [15]. But IMHO the content still belongs in other articles like scientific misconduct as EMS pointed out above (and it's still a POV fork). --Nethgirb 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV fork/neologism per all of the above, but most especially the rather horrifying results of the Google search - if Wikipedia is the only source, delete with fire and brimstone, salt and have done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork/neologism and original research and synthesis. To the extent there is reliably sourced material there, it should be included in the relevant articles about the scientists so long as it is done in an NPOV fashion. -- THF 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pov fork - it's all been said above. Vsmith 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to Scientific misconduct. Count Iblis 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Background info - keep at bottom:

• Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. From Wikipedia:Content forking

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.