Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.
The 1RR is being retained under the general sanctions noted above.

RS/N

Note that Fifelfoo from RS/N has said this. Do we need more people to say it or can we just obey the rules and respect British law? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with your discussion. For example, you posed a false question, stating, "there remains a question mark over whether a release of emails was illegal or whether it was hypothetically protected under UK whistleblower laws." There is no such question, and Legal Newsline does not in any way supplant the official UK report, nor can anyone argue that it does. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is not hypothetically protected under UK whistleblower laws Viriditas? Because you don't like the idea? Or because you're an expert on UK law? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that there is a question of whistleblowing. Who has raised this question? Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As you already know, plenty of commentators have raised the question of whistleblowing, e.g. Richard Lindzen. No legal expert has stated that it was NOT a case of whistleblowing. What I said was, therefore, and obviously, true. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The strange thing about those commentators, is that all of them were so-called climate "skeptics" claiming that there must have been a whistleblower because of the nefarious nature of the CRU and their evil plot for humanity (cue Monckton and the shaking teacup). In this little thing called reality, where tooth brushing and flossing is not a plot by wicked dentists, there is no evidence of any whistleblower, nor are we required to prove a negative. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The amazing thing about this alleged reasoning is the circularity. How strange it is, you say, that people who dare to disagree with you (=skeptics) are saying things you disagree with! Can you please instead return to the relevant issue of Wikipedia's rules. Do I need to find other Wikipedians from RS/N to restate the obviously correct view of Fifelfoo or will you just agree to follow the rules so as to avoid unnecessary time wasting? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresented this issue on the RS board. There is no "question" of whether or not there is a whistleblower, and the illegal release of data is just that. Are you here to build and improve encyclopedia articles or to push a singular, discredited conspiracy theory? Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you'd think that if I told Fifelfoo that Father Christmas lives at the North Pole he would have believed that too. You claim that the email release is, after all, obviously illegal. I mean, that is the beginning and the end of your argument. It is 'obvious' and anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. Is it not more likely that he simply understands Wikipedia's rules? Anyhow, I'll see if there's some way of getting further input from RS/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"You claimed that there is a question of whistleblowing. Who has raised this question?"

Michael D. Lemonick, in Scientific American. (Technically, the editors--it's a blog. Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American)

"There is no 'question' of whether or not there is a whistleblower..."

So here's the central question: Is Curry a heroic whistle-blower, speaking the truth when others can't or won't?

(Lemonick's question. Click the SciAm link above.)

Yes, there's a question. What we don't know is the answer. I happen to share the opinion that there was an illegal theft, but that's all it is--an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't report opinions, although we can certainly cite many RSs who report them as fact. We shouldn't be dogmatic about them on talk pages, though. Frankly, I haven't been able to figure out what this huge fuss is about. Who cares if it was a theft, a hack, a whistleblower, illegal? It was unauthorized, that's for sure. --Yopienso (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it was unauthorised; that is a fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to you, Alex, and I mean this in a friendly way, is that since a multitude of reliable sources report that the unauthorized release of the emails was a theft or was illegal, that you drop the issue. If the police ever get to the bottom of this thing, we'll know for sure. If it turns out there was indisputably a whistleblower, the article will swiftly be edited accordingly. Meanwhile, why should we get our panties in a knot? I've learned by hard experience this kind of thing isn't worth getting frustrated about. --Yopienso (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, Lemonick's article about Judith Curry as a whistle-blower is not related to Alex's claim about a whistle blower at CRU. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. So much for that. Thanks for your input; feel free to delete or hat or whatever my misguided comments. --Yopienso (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I always appreciate your input. I would even appreciate Alex's input if he would "flesh out" a viable scenario for a whistle blower and how we could consider it realistic based on the information that we already have. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, on Friday, November 20, 2009 BBC and other media outlets reported that the CRU had been attacked by hackers who had published their private data on the net. Where do whistle blowers come into this, and why are you distracting attention away from the illegal hacking and release? Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, I completely disagree. The bigger issue is we have rules and editors are supposed to obey them. Of course, it is a minor issue but if I can't get agreement on this very obvious issue what hope would there be in getting agreement on issues that are less clear cut? Wikileaks assumed this was a whistleblower, see Wikileaks Top Releases. And Wikileaks is run by a group of people pretty switched on as far as hacking is concerned. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Another red herring. It's completely irrelevant if the data has been released by a whistleblower or by a hacker, and if the release is somehow covered under whistleblowing laws. The UK Public Interest Disclosure Act only protects against reprisals by the employer. The crown may refrain from prosecution, but that does not change the obvious, unchallenged fact that e.g. distributing emails to third parties violates copyright law. We do have reliable sources who say the release was illegal - in addition to government reports, I saw it at least in New Scientist. And while other sources use a varied language, from "stolen", "theft", "hacked" to "unauthorized", we have no single reliable source that claims the release was legal. There simply is no foundation to the claim of legality.Let me repeat this. We have no single reliable source that claims the release was legal. Sorry for being bold, but this is about the crassest case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I've seen so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be carrying on a running discourse or argument with you, but I think you're mistaken about Wikileaks assuming this was a whistleblower. The page you linked to doesn't say a word about a whistleblower being involved in Climategate. Also, notice that the source by which the word "illegal" is supported in the lede, although not from a court, does carry the Queen's seal. It's presented to Parliament, not by Parliament. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change by Command of Her Majesty. That's good enough for me until something of equal or greater authority shows up. --Yopienso (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, your interpretation of UK law is no more relevant here than mine is or Yopienso's. And as you know, it is not my job to prove that it was legal. I am proposing to have the article be silent on the question of legality, in the same way that all actually reliable sources i.e. legal commentators have been similarly silent. The fact that no source says it was legal is another red herring. What is relevant is that not a single word of legal opinion has ever been published on this matter. Sorry for the bold, but you seem unwilling to accept both the blatantly obvious nature of this point and the advice of RS/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, the point about Wikileaks is that they evidently considered it a leak and not a hack. And the fact that a document has the Queen's seal is irrelevant. Maybe it would be relevant if we were living in the middle ages and King John had not signed the Magna Carta and agreed to be bound by the law along with his subjects. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, it's the government's position after about 10 months of investigations and three official inquiries in this country, as well as another three in the U.S.. The government would have had plenty of time to take legal advice in preparing this document, and would be expected to do that. It may be noted that there's been a change of government since the report this responds to, and far from being partisan, this is a report by a Conservative government.
The question of possible protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the "whistleblower act") relates to protection of employment rights under specified conditions, not whether or not the act was illegal. The specified conditions require ‘qualifying disclosure’ about malpractices, the examples listed being more serious than anything found in the emails. The disclosures have to be made by a worker to to the right person, and in the right way (making it a 'protected disclosure'). The worker is not protected if they "break the law when making a disclosure", hacking into someone else's server to plant unauthorised information is likely to be breaking the law. If the person or people who disclosed the documents suffer discrimination at work for making the disclosure, they can take their case to an Employment Tribunal. That doesn't make their actions legal. . dave souza, talk 09:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave, the government investigations have been investigations of the CRU, not the email leak/hack. The police investigation into the leak/hack has turned up basically nothing, and it looks increasingly doubtful that there was any actual hacking involved. This is another complete distraction. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is firmly against you in this matter, it appears. Time to move on? Tarc (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC. So far, all uninvolved editors at RS/N agreed that our wording is not reliably sourced. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You write, "The police investigation into the leak/hack has turned up basically nothing". If you don't mind me asking, how do you know this? Wikispan (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Three uninvolved editors from RS/N all agreed that my point is valid so far (and I believe that Yopienso also agreed as did some IP editors). How many do we need before watchers of this page would accept it? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That does not appear to be an accurate summary of the noticeboard discussion, and as with any discussion on Wikipedia, it is the quality of the argument that counts, not the quantity. You may want to seek out input from the law WikiProject, however your framing of the issue is still flawed and far from neutral. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alex appears to be raising valid points here, and he is a careful, thoughtful, and unusually well-informed editor on this topic. I don't have time (or inclination) to go through all this, but it appears other editors are attempting to brush him off without really considering his arguments. Maybe a law WP review would be helpful, as V. suggests? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso's suggestion was to drop these fine distinctions as too trivial until there is a court finding, which there probably never will be, or a police report, which there should eventually be. (Slowpokes!)

Meanwhile, it may be instructive to note "leak" does not imply legality or illegality, but unauthorized release:

3. Informal To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy: The news has leaked.

2. Informal To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.

3. Informal An unauthorized or a deliberate disclosure of confidential information: "Sometimes we can't respond to stories based on leaks" (Ronald Reagan). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/leak

Even "hack" doesn't necessarily imply illegality, although I think all of us assume it does:

2. Informal

a. To write or refine computer programs skillfully.

b. To use one's skill in computer programming to gain illegal or unauthorized access to a file or network: :::hacked into the company's intranet.

To reiterate what I said above, if a royal report calls it illegal, I'm fine with leaving it at that until and unless there is information from a higher source. Has a court or any reputable entity challenged the report? Abiding by the report and any official response to it is fully respectful of British law with its famously unwritten constitution. Over and out. --Yopienso (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Um. Haven't we been here before? I'm pretty sure I backed up someone (maybe Y.?) re this Royal Report, not too long ago? Can we move along now? There are some substantial problems with this article -- one of which is hanging fire at [6] (scroll down) .... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this at WikiProject law noticeboard, hopefully in a more 'neutral' manner, per Viriditas's concerns. Pete, I'll respond to your concern about Tierney above. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorized access to a computer system is by definition illegal under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 [7]. Therefore unauthorized and illegal have the same meaning in this context. Furthermore, the law in question [8] does not contain a whistleblower provision. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh get serious. If there was proof a server was actually hacked that would be a start. I am a sysadmin by profession and I find the hack story utterly implausible, for all the reasons that security experts have already said. As noted above, Wikileaks decision to publish the Climategate files is at least one expert organisation's vote against the plausibility of server hacking. Can we please leave the crime investigation to the police and the interpretation of the law to the courts? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on. These were essentially private emails. Are you arguing that someone who was authorised to access all of them published them? Seriously? Who would that be, other than perhaps a sysadmin, who in most jurisdictions is allowed to do all sorts of things with them, but not read them out of curiosity? And if you seriously think that it's not illegal for a sysadmin to read and 'leak' a huge number of emails from a server they are in charge of, then I must warn you to expect a visit from the police if you ever decide to follow up on your legal theory. Hans Adler 15:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the WikiLeaks-related link [9] that you are continuously talking about, here is what it says in full: "WikiLeaks was among the websites to publish controversial documents and email exchanges between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, one of the world's leading climate centers. The leak was seized upon by climate change sceptics who said the emails supported their cause, sparking a global row later dubbed 'climategate.' An inquiry later cleared the researchers of any wrongdoing." Nothing about "whistleblowers", and it's quite unambiguous about the researchers having been cleared. I can't find the emails on WikiLeaks, and if they had actually said explicitly that they thought the emails had been obtained legally, I am sure you would have told us. Hans Adler 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been clearly stated that the authority who can overturn the UK government's interpretation of its own law is the Supreme Court, not Wikileaks, so it wouldn't really matter if they did say the hack was legal (which they apparently don't). Why are we discussing this same point in so many locations (Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#'illegal' release, Wikipedia:RS/N#reliable sources for legal issues and here)? This is a dead horse, guys, move on and wait for the Supreme Court challenge to be made if you care so much. --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, no, what is clearly stated three times at RS/N is that the UK government's interpretation of UK law (and you need to remember that the laws in question were written by previous UK governments, perhaps decades ago, and not the present one) is nothing more than the present UK government's opinion on a matter of law. To be sure, the UK government should have avoided asserting 'illegal' for exactly the same reasons that you should. Your assertion that the Supreme Court can overturn the UK government's interpretation of (the) law shows confusion as there is nothing here to 'overturn'. The only thing the Supreme Court can 'overturn' is a ruling of an inferior court, and there is no ruling here to overturn. Sorry, this issue isn't going to go away no matter how many times you refuse to get the point. There is no grey area here. The present wording is wrong, and the only question is how many experts on Wiki policy you're going need to accept that this wording is wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the refs under FAQ Q5 above? Have you seen Teach the Controversy? Where is the RS that argues that that the release, and subsequent hack of the RealClimate server, was perfectly legal? Simply omitting the word illegal when mentioning the hack is not an cogent argument that no law was broken. --Nigelj (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have seen all the refs under FAQ Q5. The hacking of the RealClimate server and the release of the Climategate emails are two separate events. It is quite possible that the RealClimate server hack was the illegal work of a hacker who received files via email from an insider in the CRU. It is quite possible that a skeptic sysadmin with root access to the backup server believed he had a moral obligation to expose the CRU management who were refusing to comply with FOIA law. The absurdity of your position is claiming that the article MUST say SOMETHING was illegal without us evening knowing what the 'illegal' thing was. Was 'it' a hack from Russia that was 'illegal'? If so that would need to be tried in a Russian court, agreed? Or was it the Russian government? If so that would be tried in an international court? Was it a hack from America? That would need to be tried in a US court, agreed? Was it a hack from the UK? Ok, that would be subject to UK law. Or was it an insider? Was it a scientist who was given root access a sysadmin? If so, it wasn't a hack. Did the insider believe he was releasing the emails in the public interest? If so, it might have been protected under UK law. Your position here is absurd, and Wikipedia looks very biased as a result. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The ridiculous whistleblower conspiracy theory that you are promoting has no justifiable support in anything other than a few columns written by a handful of crank writers known for their crazy, fringe views on climate science. We go with what the best RS say and stick closely to the facts. What you believe is "quite possible" should probably be kept to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please stop that No true Scotsman nonsense. You are firmly in tendentious editing territory, and have been there for quite a while now. It's in your own best interest to stop before it ends in a block. I won't bother to respond to your incorrect and/or misleading claims in detail, because no doubt these things have been explained to you more than enough, and you are simply ignoring it. Hans Adler 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, can you show me a shred of actually published evidence, aside from what is linked in the FAQ, the suggests there is even a vague clue about what actually happened? This is the most up to date statement from Norfolk Police I've been able to find, which appears to indicate they were unable to find anything. I'm trying to understand how you can get from not a shred of evidence, to me being a 'ridiculous conspiracy theorist', simply because my mind remains open to all of the theoretical possibilities. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Christopher Monckton was one of the early, loud promoters of the whistleblower conspiracy theory. Occam's razor would lead us to discard it unless we have a good reason to consider that simply hacking the server and releasing the data isn't the simplest explanation. Considering the timing of the release prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference and the unprecedented media attack against climate scientists from the major media players as a result, it is highly unlikely that we are dealing with a whistleblower in the first place. All the evidence points to a professional, coordinated operation from the outside, not the inside as you would have us believe. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You twist and turn, but no evidence is forthcoming. I am, again, a sysadmin by profession, and my application of Occam's Razor says that an insider is the simplest explanation. My explanation simply requires an angry insider with root access to a backup server, and HARRY_READ_ME.txt proves beyond doubt that there was indeed such an angry insider. For a sysadmin or scientist with root access to pull this deed off, it would be trivial. But for a hacker to do this, a computer genius would be required. A year has passed, and security experts with the 'National Domestic Extremism Team' have found nothing.

Now we may agree to disagree, but I at least have some technical experience in this area. The bottom line is both of our theories are theoretically possible, however unlikely one or the other may actually be. Your decision in the text to go beyond the factual to an argument of your own based on your own application of Occam's Razor shows clearly you have all put original research into the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The only people pushing the whistleblower conspiracy theory are hardcore climate denialists, and they are doing it to justify their use of stolen data by criminals. If the climate denial movement were connected to this criminal activity, it would put them in a bad light, therefore, the usual suspects continue to try to reframe the data release and appeal to a lone whistleblower, which by all accounts does not exist. As Trevor Davies of the CRU said at the time of release, "experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost."[10] When one looks at the entire incident in context, one does not see the work of a whistleblower. Instead, one sees a coordinated, professional effort to undermine the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference and to attack climate scientists in the media, generating an incredible amount of noise which in turn, preempted all reasonable coverage of the climate conference. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that whistleblowing makes an action legal? The act clearly provides protection against discrimination by an employer provided certain conditions are met, but doesn't legalise otherwise illegal spreading of information. . . . dave souza, talk 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature

According to an article in Nature today, other research units have informed police investigators that their computers were also targeted by hackers during the same period.

"More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time." [11] 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature says it knows of evidence, but it doesn't say what it is? How does this help? If we could confidently assert there was a hack, which evidently the police still refuse to do, that would be a great start. I can't see how this changes anything about the appropriateness of Wikipedia making untested legal statements. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the investigation is ongoing and that the whistleblower/leak conpsiracy theory has been discredited. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza above, you are again soliciting my opinion on a legal matter. Why? Again, again, again, I AM NOT A LAWYER JUST AS NONE OF US ARE. Can you please admit that you really do understand this? If you understand it, THIS is what you need to address. Why YOU and others keep repeating their irrelevant opinions on legal matters? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

His question directly pertains to your comments and your reasoning. I think this discussion has run the necessary length and I move to close. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature is a reliable source (otherwise we may as well pack it in). Is there serious contention to the contrary? MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature is a reliable source, but "Nature understands that" is just reliably sourced rumour. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. So there shouldn't be a problem with an attributed statement: "An article in Nature suggested that evidence pointed to a hack rather than an internal CRU leak. For example, there were simultaneous, coordinated attacks against other climate-science institutions." Or whatever. The point is that speculation reported in Nature is different from speculation by an anonymous Wikipedian, in that it may warrant inclusion, albeit with appropriate caveats. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With appropriate caveats just possibly, but it's a pretty weak source. Do we really want to say "Nature reported rumours that..."? And the text contains nothing concrete about "simultaneous, coordinated attacks against other climate-science institutions". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

compromise

There appears to be wide agreement at RS/N that a change to the wording is required here. If we can change the wording to, 'According to X, the release of emails was illegal', or some variation, everyone should be happy. Support for the need for a changed wording includes Fifelfoo, Andrew Lancaster, Johnbod, Itsmejudith, Mastcell, Blueboar, and Fladrif, all of whom were previously uninvolved (I believe). Does anyone here still object to a compromise of the form proposed here? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How strange then, to find you making this edit, which does not reflect any such "compromise" by you in any way, but reverts back to your previous version from two weeks ago[12] replacing "illegal" with "unauthorized". Should I revert you or should I ask you to review the discussion you claimed to draw a compromise from in the frist place? It's quite clear to me that you are still POV pushing as well as misrepresenting the original RS discussion, its outcome, and your so-called "compromise", which was nothing of the sort. I would also like to remind you that as a single-purpose account devoted to this and only this issue (namely climate skepticism), unless you can actually show a good faith compromise with your edit, it will be difficult to assume good faith with you in the future. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant photo.

I don't see the relevance of the façade of the Hubert Lamb Building to the climategate scandal. The photo is actually a bit distracting and ought be removed per WP:REL.

Regarding the title, the medium used to record contoversial behavior is irrelevant. The Executive branch audiotape controversy (Watergate), had nothing to audiotape. Just as this page has nothing to do with email.

Also, a search for "Executive branch audiotape controversy" does not link to the watergate page. A redirect should be added so that spin-doctors and idealogues will be able find the information they are looking for. NOrbeck (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the photograph is relevant enough; it's the building that most of the emails were written inside, it is the Climate Research Unit itself. Don't see a problem myself. I don't have an opinion on the other points. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with NOrbeck that the image is out of place in the lead, and would best be represented by an image of one of the cover sheets from one of the final reports. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature's Climategate editorial

"Closing the Climategate", Nature (468) 345, 18 November 2010. Interesting reading, and some of it should should be of use here. Bits that caught my eye:

• "It would be naive for Jones and other scientists to assume that the fuss has passed into history. ..."

• On the name of the controversy: "... senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims of research skulduggery and corruption. That reaction alone helps to explain the sluggish response of the science establishment a year ago to the allegations made against their colleagues and their profession. ..."

This should have a certain, um, resonance here....

• "The UEA has taken some justified heavy fire for its handling of the crisis... "

Note: these are snippets, not specific proposals for adds. Maybe we should consider an "anniversary reactions" subsection??

Happy reading --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who noticed that they also changed referred to it as a "scandal"?

This week marks the first anniversary of the worldwide scandal over the release of e-mails stolen from a computer server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK.

Looks like it's time to rename the article to "Climategate scandal", as I originally proposed. There is no excuse not to at this point. Macai (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I appear to have posted this at exactly the same time as Pete. Weird. NW (Talk) 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the first major journal to post an editorial on the matter, and even if not, this is Nature, so it probably is worth adding. Also, based on that ref, it might be time to discuss renaming the page again. But that's another issue, I think. NW (Talk) 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

biased sentence in lede

I don't think the following sentence is neutral:

Allegations by climate change sceptics and other observers that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media.

Firstly, my own opinion is that, relative to magnitude of what happened, the media were extraordinarily slow & cautious to respond. So much for my opinion, but why does Wikipedia judge what is 'quick' and what isn't?

Secondly, I don't understand the 'theoretical' wording of the sentence, as if Wikipedians themselves would not dare to actually read the emails/documents. The documents are in the public domain and historical primary source documents so Wikipedia should simply state as a matter of fact what the emails reveal. Moreover, to the extent that even the CRU has admitted failings in the wake of Climategate, this should be presented up front, and not as a matter of controversy.

E.g. from CRU website, "In terms of handling FOIA requests, the University recognises that we should re-assess how we can support our academics, whose expertise in dealing with FOIA requests is limited, and our FOIA support team." So to the extent that even the university admits failings, this should be asserted as a matter of fact in the lede, then have a sentence following with the allegations which were refuted by investigations.

Any thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We should say how quickly the e-mails were publicized for specificity (within less than a day). I'm not sure there is a consensus as to what exactly the documents reveal. I think the level of consensus on this is that they reveal that scientists use e-mail -- and that's about it. The e-mails are independent of whether the CRU is asking for more help in handling legitimate or spurious FOIA requests. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A number of points, Alex. First, the e-mails are not 'in the public domain', they remain copyright to their owners. They may be 'available to the public' on certain websites, but that is a different thing. We are careful only to re-quote parts that have been quoted elsewhere. Secondly, that sentence, like the rest of the lead, summarises cited statements in the body of the article. I'm not going to re-read all the existing refs to find the ones that support that statement now as I have a present-day one already open that would suffice: The CRU e-mails "had been hacked into and leaked, and that scientists' personal emails were being quoted out of context to disingenuously imply impropriety on their part."[13] That the hack and the contents of some of the emails were in the main-stream media "quickly" is easy to verify, as SA mentions above. Regarding the 'controversy', people argued long and hard that the word had to appear in the title of the article, and be reflected throughout the text. Do you want it removed now? The University has made a change to its management of departmental FOIA requests, and the CRU were the subject of a sustained FOIA attack prior to the hack - over a hundred requests for the same information, coordinated by a blogger? - but I don't think there was much in the emails about FOIA, wasn't it mostly about 'hiding declines' and peer review? Anyway, the last five lines of the lead are devoted to FOIA, as covered by the third enquiry, but it's true that this sentence doesn't mention it - it can't be prominent in every sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

SA/Nigel, re "quickly". In the present age of the 24 hour news cycle, it would be extraordinary for any news outlet not to pick up a story of this size within minutes of information being publicly available. How exactly does the existence of media responses within a day prove that the media was "quick" to publicise the story? And on the proposal to change the wording to say "how quick" the media was, the question would then be relevance. Again, the media always responds to anything news worthy within a day. It would be better not to say anything suggesting that the media was quick to respond.

Re "what the emails reveal". Let's be clear, the emails without doubt revealed scientists discussing how to avoid complying with the UK FOIA law. There is no way around that; it's conceded in all reliable sources, and there should be no problem with us simply stating this as fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...whatever happend to "that is a legal judgement? Only the supreme court can really determine that"? Also, of course "all reliable sources" is simple hyperbole. Most reliable sources do not deal with the emails at all - see e.g. this list for examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What legal judgement? I didn't suggest we call anything illegal did I? And it is not illegal, as far as I know, to merely discuss avoiding compliance with the UK FOIA law; it is probably unethical, but it is only illegal to actually avoid compliance with UK FOIA law. The question of whether or not the CRU actually broke the UK FOIA law is, you are quite right, a matter for lawyers and the courts. What is a fact is that Phil Jones and (I think) others discussed avoiding compliance with UK FOIA law, and that is, indeed, what the scandal is all about (I doubt I need to tell you this). See, e.g. ref. It is fact that Phil Jones wrote the words, in an email with "Subject: IPCC & FOIA", "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise." There is no doubt that Phil Jones, at any rate, discussed how to avoid compliance with FOIA law. Wikipedia is not censored, so the article should just frankly state the fact that the controversy was largely about the scientists discussing how to avoid compliance with FOIA law and also about Phil Jones' instructions to delete emails. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And sorry for the hyperbole; you're quite right; I should have said "many reliable sources." Enough reliable sources that we shouldn't need to argue about it for weeks, at any rate. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a fact that the 'controversy was largely about the scientists discussing how to avoid compliance with FOIA law' - that's your interpretation, and IMO a wrong one. Much more attention was paid to the 'hide the decline' phrase and the people stoking the controversy were more interested in finding scientific malpractice than FOIA non-compliance.

For whether the media response was quick or not, compare with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where cartoons published in September didn't become a huge hoo-ha until the following January. A day or two is quick. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this scandal wasn't as interesting? Didn't have implications for all of humanity? This source here suggests that the media was very slow to react. Therefore, the assertion that it was "quick" to respond is OR. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For a daily newspaper, it's quick. For a weekly publication, it's extraordinarily quick. In the timescale of the year that has passed, it's the blink of an eye.

Agreed, the 'controversy' manufactured at the time was all about the science, because the political target was COP15: that wasn't going to be swayed on FOIA technicalities in some obscure UK University department, but on 'hidden declines' and 'peer review banditry'. All that fell through in the end for the attackers, but the University was told to, and decided to, put their legal people in charge of FOIA requests rather than scientists. This to prevent the DDOS attacks (and the scientists' home-made responses) from occurring again in the future. That's the bones of the story that is now the basis of this article. There's something to say about proposals for open-source approaches to scientific data and computer code, but that is muddied by data owners who won't have their data put out there, and long-standing conventions over scientific coding. --Nigelj (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may be true that 'hide the decline' was more exciting to climate change skeptics, but this article exists for mainstream consumption; it's not here for the purpose of refuting skeptics. Following the email release, there was condemnation from many quarters concerning CRU's efforts at evading FOIA law, including from Mike Hulme, Eduardo Zorita, Hans von Storch, Judith Curry, George Monbiot, and plenty of others. Indeed, even Mike Mann made a statement in the media condemning this much. For this article to be refuting skeptics ahead of conceding that some of the scandal was about actual wrongdoing shows a considerable bias. The article needs to say exactly what happened. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what happened is that the "release" of these materials was timed to deliberately poison the well on the subject of climate change and took away any and all media coverage COP15 would have received. Should the lead mention this? Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. And the discussion of the FOIA that was found in the e-mails, and was later crystallised into administrative changes in the University should be related to the blog-coordinated FOIA DDOS attack that was mounted against CRU earlier in the year. These are well documented in recent sources, like Nature's coverage this month. --Nigelj (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, obviously speculation that the email release was timed to derail COP15 is not relevant. Are you actually denying anything I said? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I suggest you take the time to read this article and review the sources, as it is relevant, and it is already in the article for a reason. Because it is important, it should also be covered in the lead, and it was until recently. At least one older version of the lead said:

The University of East Anglia and climate scientists have described these interpretations as incorrect and misleading, with the extracts being taken out of context in what has been described as a smear campaign. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri are among those who have suggested that the incident was intended to undermine the then imminent December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.

In the "Responses" section, sub-section "Climatologists", we have the following:

Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists."[4] He also said that climate change sceptics had selectively quoted words and phrases out of context, and that the timing suggested an attempt to undermine talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.

Furthermore, we have an important quote from the BBC in the footnotes illustrating the relevancy:

Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator has said the email row will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit in Copenhagen. [...] Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit – to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions. [...] "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News."

Now, what was that you were saying about this topic not being relevant, Alex? Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, suffice to say I agree with what was apparently a prior consensus that this COP15 business does not belong in the lede; none of this is relevant to this thread; and you have hijacked this thread to such a point that I'm not going to bother responding. It is clear that I need to raise this at NPOV/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nature understands" that it was a hack, not a leak

I noticed that someone (Dave S.? added this). David Adam, Nature's reporter, comments on this at Bishop Hill, and both he & the Bishop expect the police to make some sort of announcement shortly. At which point we can delete the awkward "Nature understands" business.

I found it interesting that CRU is still worried about what else might turn up from the hack, though Jones "feels confident the worst is behind him". Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added it. I definitely look forward to getting some less vague reports in the near future. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented out text

I just found the following text commented out in the lead. I assume someone was trying to avoid the "citations removed" tag from appearing after their edit. If there is consensus that this is irrelevant, let's actually delete it; if not let's reinstate it (somewhere?).

“ Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA detected no evidence of deliberate malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones, though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices.

According to an in-house review by the university itself, the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

”

--Nigelj (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"quickly publicised"

The following document proves that some had the opinion that much of the media was largely and unaccountably ignoring the Climategate scandal, Climategate Totally Ignored TV News Outlet Except Fox. It is, therefore, our opinion and our original research to assert that the media was "quick to publicise" anything.

One way forward would be to attribute the opinion "quickly publicised" to a reliable source. Another would be just not to say it. I'll leave the above thread for discussing the other problem I identified. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Newsbusters is more or less as reliable as Conservapedia, but thanks for sharing. I do love those illustrations of Jesus riding a dinosaur. If someone knows where I can get that on a t-shirt, drop me a line. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem. That piece is complaining that it hasn't had wide enough coverage quickly enough in the US. Of course it didn't happen in the US, so that's why Oprah Winfrey's scheduling decisions took priority there. But the whole point of the hack was to influence President Obama's actions at COP15, so that was why those in the know wanted something doing quickly in the US media. --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas/Nigel, OK, Fox News: "The private e-mails showed potentially unethical or illegal behavior and a possible conspiracy to distort science for political gain. That scary list includes plans to avoid freedom of information requests, efforts to delete data and discussions of ways to intimidate the peer review process of scientific publications. But the broadcast networks haven’t bothered with the story." It is sufficient to show that "quickly publicised" is opinion, and a matter of taste, and certainly not fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, you really need to read the sources you cite. That particular source contradicts your argument in the fifth paragraph. Narrowly focusing on op/ed Dan Gainor's complaint that ABC, CBS and NBC are not engaging in anti-science bashing is almost laughable. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

V, I don't understand your point about contradiction. It is as simple as this: If I think the media was slow to respond, and hundreds of others think as I do, it follows that it is opinion that the media was quick to respond; it doesn't follow that I am wrong, and nor would it even matter if I was. It is not VERIFIABLE unless you provide a reliable source. Do I need to take this to NOR/N as well? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes it a question of WP:WEIGHT. If hundreds of conspiracy enthusiasts used to think something a year ago, and millions of others think another today, it's hard to see a reason to give the first much coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"What started as a drizzle of stories in The New York Times and Washington Post is growing into an Internet flood that is sweeping along traditional news outlets from CNN to NPR...But morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC have remained absolutely silent. Both ABC and CBS's Web sites have covered the issue -- standard practice when networks want to bury a story but pretend otherwise. The only mention of the scandal actually on those networks was on ABC’s Sunday morning talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”[14]

Your own source disagrees with you, Alex. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there is nothing in that quote which contradicts anything I have said. What you need, Viriditas, is a source which is not an op-ed that says, "The media quickly publicised allegations". The present sentence is far from neutral in its attempt to blame the media for creating the controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you are joking Mr. Harvey! It is your own source that you used to support the claim that "much of the media was largely and unaccountably ignoring the Climategate scandal." Using your own source against you, we now see that your claim has been refuted. You cannot continue to cherry pick what you like from a source and discard what you dislike. Intellectual honesty is required to edit Wikipedia. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, please stop playing 'Gotcha!' with quotes. Your quote, which is from a source you firstly claimed is not reliable, would establish nothing beyond the fact that the media responded. It says that the media responded with a "drizzle". To be sure, I can't say whether a "drizzle" is "quick" or otherwise, but I certainly don't associate the verb "to drizzle" with "quickness". Do you? Drizzle, n. A fine, gentle, misty rain.. Can you return to the point please so we don't have to waste the time of editors at NOR/N or NPOV/N. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's your source, and therefore, it's your quote. You claimed that "the media was largely and unaccountably ignoring the Climategate scandal", when in fact, the very source you used to make this claim says the complete opposite. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this isn't the time or the place, Alex, to mount a new campaign that "the climategate scandal and great undoing of the whole of climate science" didn't get enough publicity? All the enquiries have shown that it was a manufactured storm in a teacup and so got far too much publicity in its day, relative to its substance. It's time to move on and look at this article from the point of view of the present time, and to stop using Wikipedia to re-fight old battles. --Nigelj (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nigel/Viriditas, can you both see the thread title, "quickly publicised". Can I remind you both that this thread is about those two words. If you think I have an opinion about something that is wrong, please go to my talk page and tell me. If you think I am mounting some campaign, please also go to my talk page and tell me. If I overstated something, sorry, but can you please keep this thread focused on the issue we're discussing. I would like someone to show me the reliable source which says that the media "quickly publicised" something. This is a very basic point, and it should not be taking so many words to address it. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, the theft "was first discovered on 17 November 2009 after the server of the RealClimate website was hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded." Only the hackers and a few server guys at RealClimate knew about the emails on that Tuesday. "On 19 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia,[7] before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.[3]", so by Thursday, the emails became available to a very few of the hackers' inner circle who knew about the Russian server. On Friday, the next day, the news was published in the main stream media[15]. By the Monday it was global.[16] How quick do you want? That is just some of the timeline, copied from our article. The lead summarises the article. Interestingly, US Senator Imhof "declare[d] victory in speech on global warming", saying, "today, I have been vindicated",[17] on the Wednesday, while the hackers had the emails but were still fumbling as to what to do with them. He did not to mention the hack. --Nigelj (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In a spirit of compromise, instead of 'The media quickly publicised', we could say something like 'Within a few days the media had publicised', because we can show that from the dates of reports in the media. It's then up to the reader to judge whether that is quick (seemed quick to me at the time). Mikenorton (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "the next day", yes. --Nigelj (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above has convinced me that "Within a few days..." would be accurate and factual. Thanks Mikenorton for the suggestion. The next thing would be to present this whole sentence in a way that it is clear that some 'allegations' were more than allegations (i.e. CRU scientists discussing how to avoid FOIA law) and other allegations (e.g. the data manipulation) turned out to be allegations that haven't stood up. (Send me your angry replies in the thread above.) new thread below Alex Harvey (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(diff) How does "the next day" become "within a few days"? How does one person not explicitly disagreeing with Alex become a consensus for change? --Nigelj (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For heaven's sake Nigel... I read your own summary of the timeline. "First discovered 17th Nov." "Guardian article 20th Nov." If we say "within a day" that is misleading. The only thing true about "within a day" of The Air Vent post and others the Guardian responded; not 'the media generally'. "Within in a few days" also the phrase to be interpreted broadly and include the other news organisations that responded 21st, 22nd, 23rd Nov etc.If you want to say, "with in a day" then you'd have to explicitly name the specific Guardian. Now you're really splitting hairs. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FOIA not mentioned in lede

The fix to the wording to remove 'quickly' seems to have removed much of the appearance of bias, at least to me. I realise now that what is missing is mention of the Freedom of Information Act from the lede.

The hackers/leakers called the data file dump 'FOIA.zip' and wrote,

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

Thus, the scandal was always firstly and foremost about the FOIA, and it should not be allowed to disappear in the lede behind a euphemism of the UEA's 'culture of withholding information' which is further downplayed by scare quotes.

The Committee chair Phil Willis, in the same source that 'culture of withholding information' came from, apparently also described the scientists' refusals to comply with FOI requests as 'reprehensible'; thus this lede is not impartial with respect to the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See this response to last time you brought this up: the last five lines of the lede are solely devoted to FOIA, you can't have everything in the first sentence. Regarding what the hackers wrote, we are not here to give a platform to them, but to report on the controversy in reliable sources. And the controversy is over, there is no longer any justification for alleging doubt as to accusations of malpractice, every e-mailer was cleared of any malpractice, none of them were tried, convicted or even lost their jobs. The wording in the official reports is the most recent reliable information there is, so of course it gets prominence over the failed allegations. --Nigelj (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, way down at the very end of a long lede is not the right place to introduce what the scandal was primarily about. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

COP15 not mentioned in lede

Viriditas has made a valuable point here that our coverage of the relationship in the literature between this hack and the upcoming COP15 conference has been all but expunged from the article and especially the lede. I think that it is important that it is reinstated and covered properly. --Nigelj (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article: Climategate

I think a number of editors have noted that with even Nature calling the incident 'Climategate' in its editorial, it's probably time to reconsider the name of this article. Wikipedia's title, "Climate Research Unit email controversy," is confusing and vague, because the controversy is about more than the CRU, and it's about more than emails. We evidently made up this name "Climate Research Unit email controversy", and we have refused to use the name that nearly everyone else is using. Further, googling suggests that very few have copied us. I don't believe our title is representative of reliable sources and we seem to be clearly taking sides with the few scientists involved who don't like the name "Climategate". That's not consistent with NPOV. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature didn't call it climategate here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Nature did call it Climategate in quotes here and without quotes here and here and here. The only reason for our absurd article title is the bias of the editors who control it. But don't fight it, Alex--there's a redirect for people who logically enough search for a Wikipedia article on Climategate. The title serves to clearly mark the bias, so it's well to leave it alone. --Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That comment seems to be made in extreme bad faith, and bad taste. People have been topic banned for less. I suggest a review of WP:TPG, especially WP:TPNO, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions. Please feel free to remove it, along with this response. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read some of the comments given further down? WP:TPNO states "such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist.". Read then this comment: "idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE" … ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)". Hopefully you will react here? I agree with you that we should try not to name calling anybody. It just distort the environment. Is it bad faith to counter a not true statement with four sources? And the current title is biased compared to our policies as I've noted below. Nsaa (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm against "Climategate" as it's pretty obviously a pejorative misnomer used to mislead people; however, I'm more than ready to agree that consensus can change. Perhaps if this topic hasn't been RfCed recently, you should simply RfC the issue. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One of the main people in the case is Michael E. Mann at the Pennsylvania State University with for example this much quoted email: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[18]. The Climategate area covers much more than CRU and emails "Altogether there were five inquiries or investigations, conducted by, respectively, The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Oxburgh panel, the Independent Climate Change Emails Review under Sir Muir Russell, Penn State University and the InterAcademy Council. The first three were established in the UK and focused on scientists at the CRU. The fourth was focused on Michael Mann of Penn State University, a major correspondent in the Climategate archive. The fifth was commissioned by the IPCC itself as a review of its policies and procedures." [19]. This tells us that it has been official inquiries into Penn state and Michael Mann, and inquiries done by UN into it's methods and work related to the Climategate incident. Emails is not correct either, even if we just takes a look at the article today. and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. … When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents[20]. And Washington Post at 21 November 2009: University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents [21]. The current article name fails on every part except controversy (many sources has used Climategate controversy, so this could be a middle way that covers the article area and is used in secondary sources (WP:V). Now even Nature directly talks about the Climategate name (not use it as some has claimed earlier by lazy journalist), where they state that: "most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate." and "Take the name Climategate itself. The 'gate' suffix, now routinely applied to the most mundane controversies, is as trite as it is predictable. At the height of the controversy, senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims of research skulduggery and corruption. That reaction alone helps to explain the sluggish response of the science establishment a year ago to the allegations made against their colleagues and their profession. One lesson that must be taken from Climategate is that scientists do not get to define the terms by which others see them and their place in society. This journal has already warned that climate scientists have to accept that they are in a street fight. They should expect a few low blows. The key is to learn which punches to roll with and which to block and counter."[22]([23]). It's time to move it to Climategate now. Nsaa (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That rationale essentially relies on opinion pieces to drive the name of the article. I don't think that's good practice. As to the claims that the "area covers much more than CRU and emails": I don't see any evidence for this. Just because investigations are far-afield doesn't mean they aren't related to the e-mails. The claims that the 3000 "other documents" are somehow of interest seems silly to me. Most of the "other documents" were apparently e-mail attachments and subversion controls and very few received any attention or "controversy" at all. This rationale strikes me as strident and seems to come from a fairly antagonistic perspective toward the people "implicated" in the "scandal". The term nipplegate is similar, IMHO. Nipplegate is the term commonly referred to in certain circles, but those circles are too parochial to influence Wikipedia. We should rise above the idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE" and we even should rise above the reactionary responses of science journalists and bloggers to their bluster. This is an article about a controversy surrounding the unauthorized release of data related to e-mails and programming files from CRU. The current title seems to summarize that point. "Climategate" seems to sensationalize it needlessly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces? Ok, so a lot of WP:RS sources that's not opinion pieces uses another description on this subject? No I don't think so … (or have I missed something?). I partly agree that most of the WP:RS sources has dealt with the e-mails. But for example the IPCC review cover other parts like how the process in IPCC works (doesn't is better to say). It has hardly to do directly with the emails. You do what's looks like an stupid comparison with Nipplegate. You claim it's similar. Can you provide one source saying that? Or give an overview like this [24][25] with all main sources covering it? Please? You claim that we should "above the idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE"". Great! I didn't know that Nature was "web-based climate denialists". Thanks for the clarification (Yes Nature uses Climategate). Can you please read the current article again. Ex it says "A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, […] but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.[41] The Investigatory Committee reported on June 4, 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, "[26], so your claim that it "related to e-mails and programming files from CRU." is not correct. Or do MM work for CRU? Maybe I've missed something. Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your post is almost not worth commenting on as it's a whole lot of bluster with little in the way of argument. I will say this: Nipplegate and climategate are similar in that those who think they represent legitimate controversies are political hacks who are generally of the conservative persuasion. Both are essentially manufactured controversies. (Compare Heartland Institute and American Family Association.) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] Nice post, Nsaa. I agree with your reasoning, and support the name change. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Lying low for awhile, then springing up with this same old song and dance one you think the coast is clear is not gong to happen. If anything, the media hysteria over this incident has subsided to a low background noise these days, so the "-gate" idiocy is even less relevant today. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

With the debunking of much of the alleged conspiracy and media sensationalizing having died down, a name change seems even less appropriate now than when proposed a month or two ago. BigK HeX (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Climategate" is an inherently POV term, as the appellation of the "-gate" suffix implies that something scandalous occurred. Given that the allegations of a vast climate conspiracy have proven more unfounded with each subsequent inquiry, it seems unwise to use such a loaded term. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the nipplegate comparison is the best comparison. While I could guess what that was, I've never heard that term before. I suspect the term people associate most with the event is 'waldrobe malfunction' although that's obviously not a suitable name for the event. In this of this article, I rarely see the controversy referred to by anything else (sometimes in quotes sometimes not) and I've semi supported a move before however I've also seen it claimed -gate implies some sort of legitimate scandal in the US (in NZ the term so overused it doesn't really, for example corngate) so I'm sympathetic to concerns about such naming it such. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A simple comparison with the original, Watergate, is enough: Five burglars were arrested, facing impeachment a US president resigned, and a government was toppled. At CRU, no-one was arrested, no trials, no convictions, no-one even lost their job, no government was overthrown. There is no comparison, except in the dreams of a few political extremists, who failed to achieve anything much, except to add a little confusion to COP15. COP16 is coming up soon, so even that now makes little difference in their world. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not made the connection to Wategate. Why? It's not our responsibility making original research like this. We should follow our core policies wp:Neutral point of view, wp:No original research and wp:Verifiability (if you're unsure about that, read this signpost Signpost/2008-03-13 Tutorial:_Summary_of_policies). That the current article title (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) fails on every one of these policies. That some people has managed to block the move is a wiki scandal, and it will probably blow in our face (this is my original research). It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that this incident has been named Climategate by nearly every WP:RS source commenting on it. Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You've not made a connection to Watergate? Where did you think the -gate came from in 'climategate'? Did you think a gap in a fence had something to do with it? You make a connection to Watergate every time you say it. The policy you're looking for is WP:POVTITLE. There's a link there to WP:RNEUTRAL, which uses this very article, and the climategate redirect, as an example of good practice. --Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Please read WP:POVTITLE: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). " (My bolding). This has been established beyond any doubt, so I rest my case. Even through Wikipedia has had it's own homemade name for this incident It has not even been picked up and used by more than a couple of blogs like this Climatic Research Unit email controversy « I Hate Al Gore (probably somewhat critical of the current title) … Nsaa (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE does not provide enough help to definitively settle this. It states that resolving whether an article title is neutral depends on deciding whether to use a common title (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors).

When a topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should use that name as our article title, even if that common name includes non-neutral words [or phrases] that Wikipedia normally avoids (examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). That section goes on to say that it is also acceptable to create articles with a descriptive title. In that case, it is best to choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject (lifted from that page with a few modifications).

It is my opinion that "Climategate" easily is the best for the former criteria and "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" fits the latter criteria better. I don't really have an issue with either title, but I question whether it is beneficial to spend so much time discussing this, as it only seems to be leading to bad feelings. NW (Talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NW, I don't think that's an accurate representation of what POVTITLE says. After your quoted sentence, it continues:

In such cases [i.e. where a single common name exists], the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.

It is implied that we are only meant to create descriptive titles when common names don't exist. That's not the case here. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And then did you follow the link to WP:RNEUTRAL? It gives two examples of good practice with regard to neutrality, and this is one of them. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Common" is a relative term. I'd argue that no name for this obscure and boring saga is common because it's not of any historical relevance yet and it is unclear whether our recent focus on it and the sources that use the colloquial term for the event are going to have any lasting impact on the ultimate narrative. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Nothing at RNEUTRAL is relevant to the discussion because our subject has a single common name, viz. Climategate. POVTITLE asks us: Does the article have a single common name as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources? Nsaa and others have demonstrated beyond any doubt that it does. RNEUTRAL would become relevant if our subject did not have a single common name. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

SA, it is wishful thinking that Climategate is going to be forgotten. Climategate will be remembered for as long as there are climate change skeptics to keep reminding people about it. But if you want to believe that somehow this scandal is going to be forgotten I can't stop you. But I can bet with you that we'll be having the same discussion about this article title every three months or so until it is changed. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you proved my point with "as long as there are climate change skeptics to keep reminding people about it". I agree with you about interminable discussion being likely, but that's par for the course on Wikipedia and not a basis for changing the name. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climategate — I'm opening this just so we can get the matter settled. After this move request, further discussion of the title of the article is forbidden for at least 6 months. NW (Talk) 17:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Those sources which give it a name all call it "Climategate", although many sources don't give it a name nor think it's worthy of notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME, in part. Since many sources, including the most reliable ones, don't give it a name, it is up to Wikipedia to follow WP:NAME to give the least sensationalized name possible. Compare nipplegate. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You state "Since many sources, including the most relialbe ones, don't give it a name, it is up to Wikipedia to follow WP:NAME to give the least sensationalized name possible."[27]. Again I assume WP:AGF I polity ask for sources that support this claim No one has given a single source for this. The sources given above has shown that this controversy has been covered as Climategate in "the most reliable ones". Do you have reliable sources that has covered this controversy without naming it or telling that Climategate is the name for this? Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - most sources which use the term use it in quotes. It's not a "-gate scandal", it's not a scandal at all, so using the term without quotes is highly misleading. It is, to quote Mr Popo "the thing without a name". Since it doesn't really have a name, we should stick with a descriptive title. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "-gate scandal"...so using the term without quotes is highly misleading.

Here's the first 3 "highly misleading" non-WP Google hits in a search for "Watergate" (no quotes used)..."Watergate"and "Watergate" and "Watergate". Wikipedia is out-of-step with an overwhelming prevailing reference in the popular culture. Fix it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fix what? Are you saying that Watergate scandal should be moved to Watergate? If so, I think you are in the wrong place. If not, I have no idea what you're trying to say. In any case, the Watergate scandal is so named because it stemmed from a break-in at the Watergate complex...so "Watergate scandal" is actually a descriptive name, much like this one. And, incidentally, Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal. The point is that this was an entirely manufactured controversy, not a scandal (apart from the hacking, email theft, misrepresentation of the content of the email, false accusations of misdeeds, etc.) Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scandal? Maybe not, but it's a controversy named Climategate by "the most reliable ones". Please check out my post above and the references given [28]. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Originally the most common name was "climategate" (i.e., with quotes), but in recent months the quotes have been removed in many significant sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - per DesSmogBlog. I think there's a message there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - The obvious choice. What's sad is that Wikipedia is used by the lazy media people and not calling it Climategate here has caused some media to refer to it by the Wikipedia name. That can't be in the spirit of Wikipedia? If there is a rule for "no original research" the should be a ban for "making shit up to impress the world".91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Redirects here anyway. Just a delay and indirect deny tactic, more Obscurantism / Climate change denial by other means than the Merchants of Doubt. 99.155.152.87 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great that you have so many WP:RS sourcing supporting your claims about "Just a delay and indirect deny tactic, more Obscurantism / Climate change denial" (I've not seen one, not even the latest Nature article cited in discussions above. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I find the term personally offensive and an affront to scientists everywhere. However, the term is clearly in widespread (although not nearly universal) use in the popular media. It's also apparent that the use of the "-gate" suffix is much more easy-come, easy-go outside the USA from reading the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I would weak-support a rename of the article to "Climategate" so as to indicate that the use of the name is not universally accepted. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Looking back at the so-called controversy, we see a manufactured smear campaign promoted by bloggers and opinion writers with a political agenda to oppose climate science and climate scientists by any means necessary, including dragging their names, reputation and expertise through the mud before a single investigation was ever conducted. After report after report exonerated the people involved and showed that it was a lot of hot air intended to disrupt the climate conference and poison the well, except for a few sources, very few retractions were made, with the smearing continuing as it has always continued since the climate denial movement began in the 1980s. There is little difference here between the organized birthers screaming about a birth certificate and the bloggers screeching about FOIA, yet because Wikipedia attracts an unusual number of fringe views, we are told that we must cover this topic from the POV of these same people, rather than the NPOV we hold out like a candle in the darkness of deceit and ignorance, in the blackness of misinformation raining down on us from the mainstream media, tabloids, and opinion after uninformed opinion. We know now that there never was a "climategate"; rather there was a release of emails and documents, and subsequent investigations that upheld the science and the reputations of those involved. Changing this title is an attempt to deliberately ignore the facts and the outcome, and to continue to smear the innocent victims after these smears have been disproved. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The name climategate is not value neutral, it carries an inuendo of deciet and malpractise. It would be a partisan move to rename the article at this stage and it would be seen as a vote for climate change deniers by Wikipedia, and as such used as a propoganda tool. Climategate redirects here and is mentiioned as an alternative name in the first sentence. There can be no confusion as to what the article is about. Leave it as it is. Lumos3 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per policy on avoiding "gate" names. Plus the scandal has turned out to centre on how the documents were released rather than the actions of climate scientists. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The coining of the term 'climategate' was a clear partisan attempt to link scientists' work in an English university to the American scandal that led to the downfall of president Nixon. As we say in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, "The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name [in this case 'climate' itself!] to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal ... the term may 'suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up'." We recognise the term with a redirect and a mention and brief explanation in the first line, but there is no need to legitimise it any further, especially considering that all investigations have found all the scientists innocent of any misconduct, and all their scientific work stands unchanged. --Nigelj (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This bit of partisan hackery ran its course long, long ago. Apart from the granddaddy, we shouldn't use blatantly POV names for articles, especially "-gate" gibberish. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per clear instruction of WP:POVTITLE. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, no need for a POV-laden title. Nsk92 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support for reasons discussed many times, as the common name for the event whatever its origins. As a process matter, though, I respect that this has never had consensus. Haven't we had this discussion a few times already? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Viriditas comment and reasoning above. Vsmith (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as before. It's what everyone else calls the affair. Our current name appears to be WP:OR. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever - I fully support NW's suggestion, "After this move request, further discussion of the title of the article is forbidden for at least 6 months." But, I'd prefer a 6-year ban on further title discussions. Whatever the title is is of little relevance, just nit-picky silliness.

--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question Does anyone know why it is that every time I click the 'edit' button on this section I get told You tried to edit a section that does not exist. Because there is no section 17, there is no place to save your edit. Sections may have been removed after you loaded the page; try to purge the page or bypass your browser cache. I am sure there is a good reason for it, and now that I've pointed out the problem, I trust that the 7 days response time will be extended accordingly, to accommodate all those editors who likely tried to say something but were unable to. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it works now is passed a query string of 'section=13'. My bad? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the complete answer, but I can give you a partial answer. When you click on an edit button next to a section, say "Media Reception" it doesn't literally execute the command to edit the Media Reception section. Instead, it executes a command to edit section number N, which almost always is the section number associated with the section you want. However, certain changes, such as deleting a section, can leave the section numbering off-kilter for a short time. When that happens, the edit number is connected to a nonexistent section, and you'll get the error. I don't know what action fixes it (maybe just trying again in such a way that it doesn't try to reuse what it has in cache, but it is usually OK in short order.--SPhilbrickT 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that you were looking at a cached version of this page when you tried to edit. Clicking on the "edit" link went to a URL that didn't exist. I'm pretty sure this is what happened because your previous post to this page was done before a bot archive which changes the section numbering. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Incidentally, this problem can, occasionally, result unintentional reverts. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. "Climategate" is pejorative, POV and judgmental. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, it is what it is known by in the press. Since no other source is using the current title to refer to this, the current name is nothing but OR and bias pushing. Q Science (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, avoid -gate suffix in names. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, many opposes above have not shown a single WP:RS-source covering their analysis of the Climategate-name. They're just telling us their ::WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ORIGINAL analysis. I don't say that it's wrong. I just see no reliable sources covering it like it's told. It has been established beyond any doubt that the name of this controversy is Climategate. Just let us again quote "one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals" Nature that says "most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate."[29][30] (my bolding). Nsaa (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling this out, Nsaa. I think we need to go to a formal renaming process (where?) with a neutral admin as arbitrator, as there are too many doctrinaire naysayers here to ever resolve the issue -- even though it's crystal-clear in the Real World. If Nature agrees.... well, a stronger bastion of pro-AGW alarmism in the scientific community would be hard to imagine. And the current, absurdly OR name continues to make WP a laughingstock. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. If even Watergate is a redirect, there's no reason to move this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  Please? Watergate is redirected to Watergate scandal. If it's fine for most people using Climategate scandal (or Climategate controversy) we could do the same. This is hardly the discussion here is it? Nsaa (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Small insertion

What is the point of this addition? It is not very good grammar, does not follow from what was there, and is out of temporal sequence. The section roughly proceeds from the early responses to later ones, and this ends the section by taking us right back to Dec 09, with relatively meaningless stabs that do not relate to the previous statements. It's time to update long sections like this by reducing our repetition of uninformed comments from the first few weeks and replacing them with more considered and scholarly recent summaries. This is a step in the opposite direction. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred Pearce is a respected journalist from one of the UK's most respected newspapers and he did a big investigation into the Climategate affair. If you're asking why a paragraph or even a whole section is not devoted to his Climategate investigation then I'd say you have a good point. It shouldn't be tacked onto the end of this paragraph. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)