Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

CRU Hacking Dispute

There is disagreement over whether the claim by CRU that they were hacked, and an inconclusive statement by the police that they are investigating a "security breach" is grounds for writing the article as though it were a categorical fact that a hack occurred, despite some (also inconclusive) evidence to the contrary. Drolz (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of this summary is disputed. See FAQ question 5.

This large RFC has been moved to a page of its own:

/RFC/CRU Hacking Dispute

RFC: Death threats against climate scientists

Following newspaper, media and blog reports of the contents of emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit, death threats have been reported by climate scientists in the US, the UK and Australia. There at least two distinct law enforcement investigations: one by the FBI and the other by Norfolk Constabulary. There is a difference of opinion on whether these threats should be mentioned in the lead section of the article. --TS 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This large RFC has been moved to a page of its own:

/RFC/Death threats against climate scientists

Move proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"

As this discussion seems to have developed into a serious proposal with considerable support, I've moved this section to the bottom of the discussion page where it will get more attention --TS 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit incident — Other data besides email were included in the incident; there is some debate whether this was a leak or a hack - should these be reflected in the title? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The article's name seems misguided as more than emails were hacked...there are thousands of pages of source code and other documents "hacked." There is also controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. Perhaps the article should be renamed Climatic Research Unit incident ...the name seems far more neutral without adding extra emphasis on the e-mails.Smallman12q (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a smilar discussion at the german lemma, here it was renamed from Climategate or E-Mail incident to a lengthy translation of the english lemma. Keep me posted :) --Polentario (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can just remove the "e-mail" from the name? Then change the opening line to reflect it? Ignignot (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Polentario, I wouldn't put too much faith in the English Wikipedia on this topic. We have a severe POV-pushing problem here between two different sides. The current article name merely reflects which side has better Wikilawyering skills. I suspect the best name for the article is either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" but it's not a battle I'm willing to fight. I hope that helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be evidence they were leaked, not "stolen" or "hacked" in the traditional sense. A name change would make sense (perhaps "scandal"?). Riley Ralston (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)user was blocked as a sockpuppet Kim D. Petersen (talk)

We already have a guideline which addresses this issue. "Scandal" is a word to avoid. So, no, we can't use "scandal". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" is best. Doesn't reference a hack which is unproven and (surprising to me) appears increasingly less like what actually happened. Doesn't reference Climategate. Indicates that there is a controversy over documents/emails without saying whether the controversy revolves around their content or matter of acquisition, which is an acceptable compromise, I believe (and really, outside of wikipedia, the controversy is the content). Drolz (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid: WP:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal. Actually this has been discussed a few times before, might be worth looking over previous suggestions an comments as well.
—Apis (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The page says to avoid using "controversy" except in cases where the is clearly a debate going on. That is, cases exactly like this one. Drolz (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to discuss possible names for this article with a view to achieving consensus. So far we seem to be bogged down, though. Most of the suggested alternatives have irresolvable problems. --TS 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute." Controversy is clearly an appropriate name for this topic. There is, in fact, no other word to accurately describe it. Incident needs to be replaced ASAP because it strongly implies that this was an isolated occurrence rather than an ongoing and developing story. "Climate Research Unit File Controversy" fairly describes what is going on. Constantly objecting to proposed names without finding alternatives is not constructive behavior, and only serves to keep the current, biased name in place. Drolz (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis used above is not part of the original text. A different part to "highlight" could be: "[controversy] is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject."
—Apis (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 'Climate Research Unit FOIA Controversy' or just 'Climate Research Unit Incident'? I don't want to contribute to sending the discussion off in a hundred directions at once, it's just that 'File Controversy' is a bit strange to me. The current title is clumsy, but I don't have strong opinions on alternatives.Dduff442 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now 3,000,000 google hits for "climategate" ... and google seems to be back censoring the term "climategate" in its "quick text" feature (or whatever it is called), because again it suggested "climate guatemala" even when I had "climateg..". But of course, according to the "scientists" who edit these articles, the google hit rate is going down, there is no censorship of wikipedia, and there never was a scandal. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are only 680. Those numbers that Google puts up at the top are actually pretty meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is neither neutral or encyclopedic language. The word is in the article, just not in the title.Dduff442 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FOIA would be fine with me, but others would probably consider email or documents better. Again I think controversy is obviously better than incident. I agree about file in retrospect-awkward. Drolz (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid". Actually, per WP:AVOID, "When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict." Numerous reliable sources are using the term 'controversy' including: The Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, TechNewsWorld, The Star, Mail & Guardian, Scientific American, Live Science, Politico, Irish Times, St Petersburg Times, Sidney Morning Herald, Seattle Times, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Reuters A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallstreet Journal The Guardian Los Angeles Times Christian Science Monitor San Francisco Chronicle FOX News The Boston Globe Business Week Forbes MSNBC The Miami Herald The Scotsman Cosmos Magazine CNBC New Zealand Herald BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Incident or Climate Research Unit Controversy are each fine by me. As Monbiot points out, attempting to deny there's a scientific controversy (of whatever severity; mild to moderate IMO) simply erodes the credibility of the person making the claim and the credibility of climate science generally. Von Storch's attitude reflects my views as well. There's the hacking controversy as well of course.

My only real objection to the current title is its incredible clumsiness.Dduff442 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Monbiot or any other serious commentator has said there is a scientific controversy: there may be a career crisis for 3 - 4 scientists, but there is no controversy with regard to the science itself and the other several thousand scientists involved in it. Has anybody called for the cancellation or postponement of COP15? If there were serious scientific controversy over AGW, that would have happened. That is just the extreme-right, big-oil fringe trying to have a last word. This is the article about the incident, and all its ramifications, in that there are no others, just what we have here. For sure, the only mention at Copenhagen has been the Saudis, and what could their motivation be? --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sry about late reply; didn't notice your post. It all depends upon what you mean by 'crisis'. For sure, the incident is insufficient to cast into question the massive body of work on AGW. It seriously damages the prestige and credibility of the discipline in the public mind, however, and by extension the environmental movement's ability to mobilise public opinion. Morale, strangely enough, is also important. The deniers are ebullient at the moment.Dduff442 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to be more specific in the title. Perhaps it should be "2009 Climatic Research Unit incident", or "Climatic Research Unit data theft", or something like that. Use of "controversy" should be avoided at all costs, particularly because there is nothing controversial about the theft of data (it happens all the time). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey's suggestion, "CRU incident" or "CRU data theft" is OK by me. Also consider other similar articles, Pentagon Papers for example, it's not called pentagon controversy or pentagon scandal not even pentagate.
—Apis (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be called Pentagate because because Watergate happened after the Pentagon Papers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry, Pentagate was added as irony, but that was unnecessary and it's easily misunderstood here. Point is, we should strive to use a neutral name.
—Apis (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is based off consensus, perhaps we could take a vote...

Do you support renaming this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident" (or something similar such as 2009 CRU Incident)Smallman12q (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Smallman12q (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
2. (I'd leave out 2009)Dduff442 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3. It's not just about email or about hacking. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Also prefer to exclude the year. Would be okay with "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Drolz (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
6. It's the content and the reaction to it, not the *alleged* hacking, that makes this a notable event.Flegelpuss (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Scjessey or Climatic Research Unit files incident. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Judith & Scjessey. Despite what some may think, I'm not actually opposed to controversy since I feel controversy doesn't imply there was any wrongdoing on the part of the CRU or scientists involved but given the controversy that will cause (pun semi-intended) incident is probably the best compromise Nil Einne (talk)
9. Support. "Controversy" would be better but I'll support "incident." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Qualified support Agree that "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" is neutral and accurate. Collect (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Would be happy with "Climatic Research Unit incident", "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" or "Climatic Research Unit controversy". I think the last is the best, but recognize some are quite opposed, so eith er of the first two are clearly better than the current, misleading title.--SPhilbrickT 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. It's a better title.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. though "Climatic Research Unit Research Misconduct Incident" would be more descriptive -- 97.125.30.19 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

    — 97.125.30.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

14. Support though I more strongly support the widely-accepted "Climategate" despite WP policies to the contrary. Nightmote (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Whats wrong with Climategate?? Peterlewis (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   Should this be recategorized as "On the Fence", or does Peter really prefer the current name, which is not "ClimateGate", to the proposal?Flegelpuss (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   It should be left as it is - Peter is opposing the name change, he is not on any fence. Brumski (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   'Climategate' isn't an option. '-gate' is listed as a word to avoid for article titles accoring to this guideline: WP:AVOID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

2. If we miss out the hacking, then we've missed the point of the article. The persistent notion that there is significant debate over whether it was a hacking or a leak is addressed in the FAQ. UEA has reported a hacking incident to the police and the police are investigating it as a criminal offence, and there is absolutely no evidence to support the speculation that there was no hack. I'd also like to go on record as disliking this "vote" format. It's never a good way to manage a discussion on a wiki. --TS 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3. The proposed name ("Climatic Research Unit Incident") is far too vague. The clear weight of the media is behind that this was a hacking incident, and the largest majority of the media discussion has been about the e-mails disclosed. We cannot really leave either of these terms out, without making the title almost meaningless. When I say media, I mean, of course the WP:RS media, not the looney/denier blogosphere. --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
4. The arguments for changing the name aren't persuasive, so I'm OK with leaving it as it is. I'm with TS RE the vote as well. Brumski (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   To expand a little: going from policy, WP:Naming conventions#Deciding an article name advises the following for titles - Recognizable: Use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Easy to find: Use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). Precise: Use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Concise: Use names and terms that are brief and to the point. Consistent: Use names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. The current article name satisfies all those criteria adequately for me. The one that is arguable is "precise" but the policy clarifies that it just needs to be sufficiently precise to identify the topic to me; every time I see this subject in the news or discussed anywhere, the context (or frame) that news or discussion source uses to set the scene (i.e. to identify the subject/incident/topic for me) nearly always uses "email" and "hack/hacking" (or "leak" in some cases). So, on the basis of policy and the lack of a persuasive argument for the alternative, the current name is fine for me. Brumski (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Vague to the point of being meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I have mixed feeling about "email" (although the other files have attracted little attention, so it's really not too bad). I think "hacking" is a crucial element. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not wedded to "incident", but I can't think of a better word at the moment. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose. I still think that 'Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy' or 'Climate Research Unit documents controversy' are the most descriptive and accurate names for this subject, and in-line with the terminology used by WP:RS. However, I'm fine with whatever the majority decides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
7. As Guettarda points out, the proposed rename is hopelessly vague. We are required to use descriptive names for articles, which this certainly wouldn't be. I am also rather suspicious of the rationale behind this proposal, given the repeated attempts to whitewash any mention of hacking from this article; I note that some of the supporting comments invoke this POV, which relies on nothing more than a few bloggers' wild speculations. And in fact, immediately below in #Further discussion, the editor who proposed this change is busy pushing the (completely unsourced) line that the files were not hacked. His motive for deleting "hacking" from the title seems to be fairly transparent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'd just like to point out that I'm in favor of removing "hacking" for the reason that it allows for an article of broader scope -- so at least one editor has other motives than those you mentioned. But your point is noted. jheiv (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

8. Meaningless proposal. Current name is widely recognized and the e-mails are the locus of the discussion. "Controversy" is not recommended for any article. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Hacking should be in the title. -Atmoz (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. "Climatic Research Unit Incident" is too vague to be taken seriously. What's next, The New York Incident for the 2008-9 financial collapse? The American Incident for the Civil War? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

    Well.. This would be more like referring to the American civil war of the 1850's as the 'War Between the States'. It might not be any clearer than 'the Civil War', but one would think it should be easier to agree on than describing that war as the 'War of Northern Aggression' or something related to opposition to secession or the preservation of the Union. Nevard (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose as per the above, hacking is the major part of this controversy. Email while not entirely correct, is what the major focus of media attention has been on - whenever they explain the controversy, they mention emails as the most important part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Opposing with general agreement on weasel-like confusion of new name. It'll likely need a rename to something more official at some point, but this shouldn't be it. As far as someone browsing would know, the article is about an inexplicable explosion at the settled South Pole research facility sparked by Penguin extremists protesting the loss of their icebergs. That's, uh, technically every aspect of the new name, and also far sillier and what I wish we could have there. Hell, we don't even know if this story has a true notable future or might end up a section in an article of the conference as a whole. If this happened at any other time in the past 10 years no one would have cared. The Penguin Extremists who stole WMD from one of those frightful micronations in the region that demand sovereignty and a Wikipedia article? Oh yea. Now that'd be notable. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose, the hack and e-mails have been central to the discussion, without them there would be no "incident". Simply incident is too vague. It's true that more than e-mails were stolen, but as pointed out, there have been little discussion about the other files.
    —Apis (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Opposed until we sort out what the mission statement is for the article. MarkNau (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose for now. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - this proposed title is excessively vague. Names should be as clear as possible, and the current one, while a little wordy, is definitely preferable for that reason. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose This is a current event that is still developing. The current name seems properly descriptive enough for users to properly find the information that are seeking, which is the intent in the name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On the fence

1. Undecided. Would prefer "controversy", but I do feel removing "hacking" gets us closer. It seems there is significant support for "controversy", but as not to derail this vote, should I just let this vote go the way it looks like it will, then propose the change? jheiv (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

There is controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. I generally dislike the voting format, but I don't see any other way to demonstrate a consensus for the change.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change. Look in the archives. It's been discussed to death. --TS 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is indeed rough consensus for a change, your opposition effectively stands alone here. Gigs (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

'Climategate' is simply a non-runner - it's been thoroughly dispensed with elsewhere. The vote is only reasonable as a last resort however it looks like the only way of at least cutting down the field of options. A solid majority position has been established. Now it's really down to the opponents to decide why it is they rule out the new wording. 'Functional' is probably the most charitable description for the current title. Dduff442 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's holding us up here? The lone dissenter seems not to be active. Dduff442 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TS is active. Peterlewis is AWOL, but he didn't really oppose the rename per se anyway. "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" then? If you think we are ready to go, we should put {{editprotected}} followed by the rename request, and an admin will come review consensus and do the move. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there now appears to be quite a bit of support for this. As the discussion was previously in the middle of the page, however, and many involved in other discussions on the page haven't weighed in, I'd suggest that we give it another couple of days to allow them to comment if they want to. I've moved this section to the end to increase its prominence (I almost missed it myself). --TS 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it for WP:RM. Apparently we're supposed to leave seven days for discussion (which seems reasonable to me). --TS 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your listing there is anything but neutral. Can you reformulate it in a more neutral manner that doesn't put words in people's mouths? Gigs (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer you to do it. Just rewrite it using your own words and replace the signature. As I said, my words were just a formal placeholder. --TS 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The template is supposed to open discussion, not close it. Fixed. I also decapitalized incident. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, this is not a vote, it is an attempt to gauge current consensus. Therefore the quality of the arguments given for and against each comment will have to be judged and weighed, not just the numbers of them compared. --Nigelj (talk)

That's some strange twist of logic. Ignoring !votes not based on policy reasons when there is a question of policy such as at an XfD is one thing. For something like this where it's more of a simple gauge of current opinion, accompanied with pages of actual discussion, it's kind of a strange argument to make. I agree that a simple majority doesn't indicate consensus, and people shouldn't confuse a straw poll with some kind of binding vote in any normal sense, but I think you've taken the logic a step too far. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Harrumph. I've no objection to the word hacking, it's just that its inclusion in the title isn't a major concern. Looks like I misjudged the state of opinion on this. We're as far from agreement as ever. Dduff442 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone doesn't need to agree with the change, everyone should agree that there is consensus for making it before any change is made. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the 'voting is a bad idea' I'm actually of the opinion it's a good idea here. It's apparent that there's significant ill feeling on both sides and a lot of discussions get heated and quite a few just degrade into back and forths, after a while usually repeating the same thing that's been discussed before, sometimes with some unnecessary sniping, sometimes eventually only involving a few and the same editors. And yes I've been a part of that on occassion. The protection also indicates a breakdown in communication and discussion. A move!vote, which is actually a fairly establised part of proposed page moves (and often used even when a page move appears non controversial but to check or even if there's been limited discussion but the proposer feels it's merited) is a good way IMHO for all to gauge their position. If editors find themselves supporting a clearly minimally supported option, even if it's not enough for consensus on a move, my hope is they will reassess their position and work towards compromise. This isn't something like Myanmar/Burma where there's only 1 option. Perhaps this won't happen but we'll just get more of the same, only time will tell. I would remind editors that nothing here is set in stone. It's perfectly fine to revisit this in 3 months if it appears things have changed and given the nature of this story, it may be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A vote can help sift out the realistic options from the non starters. I think the sceptics would make more headway if they structured their efforts and were less diffuse in their targetting. Their sense of outraged frustration is palpable however their own approach lacks practicality. Dduff442 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we have very many skeptics left editing the article? Most of them have been effectively banned with the page restrictions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This stems in part from the very lack of practicality I referred to. Rather than getting stuck in to reverts etc, which is a numbers game you can only lose, some progress might be possible if you focused on patient argumentation on a more limited range of issues. I only mention this because, as an AGW proponent, I think the perception (valid or invalid, I make no call) that the system is stacked against you creates a sense of righteous indignation and only serves to fuel the fire. Dduff442 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AQFN, there are no restrictions (afaik) on contributing to this Talk page. The idea of restricting access to the article is only to reduce ill-informed and un-supported edits to it, not to weed out one or more types of opinion. It gives new and inexperienced contributors a chance to find out about WP policies and procedures before hacking the article to a mess in their enthusiasm to get a point across, before they find out how things work here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dduff, the system is stacked against them. By design, we have a systemic bias toward published scientific works. Its usually not a bad thing, but it definitely puts a spin on these more politicized science articles. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Back on the topic of the name change) I'd actually prefer "controversy" to be quite honest as I feel it most aptly describes the situation. While I understand it is "a word to avoid", consider the precedent of Killian documents controversy, and the fact that it has found its way into at least one related article: Global warming controversy. jheiv (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to "controversy". My only caveat is that this does not seem to be as much of an ongoing issue in the mainstream media, so it may be more appropriate to retain "incident", but I'm OK with either way. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equally important, don't forget, is the feeling disseminated across widely in the loonier reaches of the blogosphere, Conservapedia etc, that this hacking incident represents the 'final nail in the coffin' that exposes all the 'fraud and manipulations by scientists' and so overturns the whole global warming 'theory'. Those guys don't want us to be discussing a 'hacking incident', but a glorious liberation of true knowledge that puts the whole oily world back as they like it. The sub-text of the title must not be allowed to drift in that direction. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Spin and distortion are as old as the hills. I wouldn't be too threatened by conservapedia... they're a minority of a minority. If our own house is kept in order, we have nothing to fear.Dduff442 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much Conservapedia that's the problem, it's all the Glenn Beck fans and naive or uninformed people who confuse bloggers' speculations with reliably sourced facts. That said, I can live with "controversy" in the title, since the issue discussed in the article is not just the initial hacking incident but the subsequent controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Their article is funny. But I only got about half-way through before I got bored and quit reading it. It does, however, score over our version in that I didn't read any sections that read like a list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read that Conservapedia's founder Andrew Schlafly was on Colbert recently. I wonder if he took the opportunity to mention the imminent demise of the communist socialist atheist homosexualist satanist conspiracy. --TS 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the arguments here are seriously jumping the shark. Senator James Inhofe, Ex-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, statistician Steven McIntyre, the number one news channel Fox News, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. are mainstream America, they are not "the loony fringe" or anywhere approaching it, no matter how strongly many editors here seem to wish they could portray them that way. Ditto for Russian government officials, Lord Lawson and many others in Britain, and so on for their countries. Also, folks who claim the article is about the hacking have to realize that police, prosecutors, and computer security officials are then the appropriate experts to quote, not scientists. Only if the article is about the content of the documents, the events discussed in the documents, and reactions to these documents and events, is it appropriate for the article to be quoting scientists as experts, as well as politicians on the political consequences of this scandal. Despite the silly claims to the contrary, the extensive coverage given to scientists in the article shows that it is obviously about the content of the documents, and the events discussed in the documents, not about the hacking, as in fact it should be, reflecting the extremely voluminous debate over the content and events discussed in the documents that any Google search on any of the famous quotes will readily find.Flegelpuss (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument from authority. Please read and familiarize yourself with it. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. FOX News, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal are all reliable sources. Assuming that these are straight news sources, it's not Argument from authority, it's the very essence of Wikipedia and exactly how we're supposed to write this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think not. Flegelpuss offers an argument from authority. He claims we should accept and respect the opinions of Inhofe, "Ex-Vice Presidential candidate " Palin, McIntryre, "number one" news channels, etc. not because their opinion is relevant to the topic, but because of who they are, and Flegelpuss erroneously claims they cannot be considered or criticized as "loony fringe" because their authority somehow rises above the level of criticism. This is in fact false - they are, most assuredly criticized, and quite heavily I might add. Now to address your claims. FOX News is not a reliable source for analyzing climate science. Neither is the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. Viriditas (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Vir, you are way off-base. This isn't a formal debate, where all logical fallacies are to be avoided. We are writing an encyclopedia, where informal logic is a better guiding principle. More importantly, this article is not "analyzing climate science". Not even close. WP has developed policies and guidelines covering what can be used as reliable sources. (As an aside, I could support a guideline preferring peer-reviewed sources over media sources in a purely science article, but I don't see evidence that WP has reached that conclusion, and in any event, it isn't applicable here.) You may not like Fox News, but it qualifies as a reliable source. Same for Washington Times and the New York Times.--SPhilbrickT 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. You're confused, and I'm here to help you understand why. Flegelpuss does not offer any reason why the sources should be used, and we don't automatically use a source because you consider it reliable. FOX News is most certainly not a reliable source on analyzing climate science, which you yourself claimed above. Whenever possible, we choose to use the best sources at our disposal. I very much doubt FOX News is a good source for this topic considering their open, overt, often confrontational bias against climate science. Perhaps if we determine that we need to demonstrate how certain media outlets are biased against this issue, using academic scholars on the subject, then yes, we can make an example of FOX News and use their poor, shoddy, biased, and error-filled reporting as an example of poor journalistic coverage on this topic. I look forward to writing that section myself, so I'll keep you updated on my progress. How does a section called, "Media bias and inaccuracy" sound, with an example of FOX News leading the first paragraph? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Jim Inhofe is pretty fringe, and not a little loony. He claims that 90% of Americans don't believe the planet is warming, for example. Palin's problems with facts are also well documented, as is the fact that even the McCain campaign thought her unqualified to run for VP, so the fact that she's an ex VP candidate doesn't add much credibility. As for Fox News, the fact that it's a leading cable news channel in the US says very little - few people actually watch cable news, the US is just 5% of the world's population, etc. - and the fact that Fox isn't very good with the facts is well established. They aren't "mainstream America", and when it comes down to it, America isn't exactly mainstream on the issue. So 'they are mainstream America', even if it were true, is a pretty weak argument. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Jim Inhofe could be as fringe and loony as you like but his opinion would still belong there because he's the senior Senator from Oklahoma. At national level, the opinions of elected officials in any important country are significant and should probably be reported. --TS 01:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I could debate that with you until the cows come home, but I consider myself even-handed. As long as Ihofe isn't given undue weight, I don't have a problem with him appearing in this article, but I still don't think he belongs. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the word "skeptic"

The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians. They are a small, but vocal minority, and the media provides them with a lot of airtime. There are a number of very close similarities between the relationship the contarians have with the media and the vocal anti-vaccination movement. I suggest that the word "skeptics" should not be associated with these contrarians, as it implies that their skepticism is based on actual science. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hate to generalize... and I'm also not convinced that their skepticism is not based on science. You may have strong feelings, but can anyone really state this as a fact. More importantly, however, this really seems like a pointless section on a page that otherwise has some interesting debates on it -- I suggest eliminating it (feel free to take my response with it). jheiv (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest discussing it, not ignoring it. What is a climate skeptic? Please define it for me. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A climate skeptic, in the context of this discussion (the one about AGW, etc) is someone who does not believe that AGW or GW in general is founded in reality. Macai (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's the funny thing. I've tried to find information that supports that idea, but I can't. Some of these so-called "skeptics" believe in global warming, but don't believe in anthropogenic GW, and quite a few simply take the position that GW is a good thing and promote the benefits of a warmer world. Some go so far as to argue that the planet is cooling. But I really don't see any actual "skepticism", which is a trait of most good scientists, not deniers or contrarians. So, I don't think your definition holds or is true. In fact, I wager there is no such thing as a climate skeptic. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is 'deniers' is obviously POV, not to mention a bit sly given the evocation of Holocaust denial. Many sceptics are just deniers but proving this reliably by reference to secondary sources is problematic. Certainly labelling all sceptics as deniers is counter productive. Look beyond the narrow debate between scientists and single-issue commentators and you'll find many of the sceptics are simply poorly informed, stupid or just unreasonable. Blanket criticism then just serves to drive these people into the deniers' arms.Dduff442 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the closure of this thread, as I specifically proposed using deniers or contrarians. The word "denier" has been reasonably disputed, so therefore, I await to hear from somebody about the word "contrarian". What is wrong with this word? Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I closed it citing Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/Archive_8#Sceptics. I'm sorry if that was inappropriate. --TS 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. And, if you can answer the question, you can once again close it. Looking through the literature, I see that the term "contrarian" is used to describe climate skeptics. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Skeptic" might not be the best word to use, but nevertheless, it is the term that reliable sources are using. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer Viriditas' question, I have used the word "contrarian" colloquially on talk pages, but I'm not satisfied that it's an appropriate word to use where the phrase "climate change sceptic" is more descriptive and neutral. I'm opposed to using it because it's the kind of word we would classify among words to avoid, even if for whatever reason this particular word is not currently listed there. --TS 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if some of the so-called "sceptics" aren't even calling themselves that? There was an article in the NYT just recently, where they were calling themselves "climate realists": "They call us skeptics - we prefer climate realists". Viriditas (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The "climate realist" monicker hasn't taken hold. This could change over time but so far it hasn't. --TS 16:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote could explain or mention the different terms? Something to think about. Viriditas (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A much more neutral, and in my opinion, emotionally appealing wording, could be "climate change opponents" or "AGW opponents" or whatever, depending on what exactly you're talking about. It happens to be exactly what this group of people is; they're opponents of climate change. It doesn't whitewash the nature of the subject and it's not like we're insulting them, either. Macai (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - collapse this section as irrelevant. This section is a monumental waste of time. Viriditas with a nonsensical claim, "The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians". Nonsensical, because the targets aren't even identified. Impossible to prove or refute, and irrelevant to improving the article. I suggest this section be collapsed so others aren't forced to waste their time reading it. Any objection?--SPhilbrickT 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

May I recommend Bud Ward's Communicating on Climate Change, specifically the section "A Word About Words" (p. vii–viii) Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Maxwell Boykoff's "We Speak for the Trees": Media Reporting on the Environment, especially the section staring with the last paragraph at the bottom of page 442. Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The first link is a book that, by my read, is advocating for a change in the way environmental policy is covered and discussed. Unless we can show that these recommendations have been adopted in current practice, this is not useful for establishing what the current "best-practices" are among reliable sources. In addition, the section you highlighted ("A Word about Words") is a description of why certain terms are being used "[f]or the purposes of this report." It is not a statement as to currently-accepted proper style or usage.

The second paper, in one section, uses the terms "Alarmist" and "Denier" as labels the two opposing extreme positions on a graph. We can't draw any conclusions from what the properly accepted style and usage is from this. Earlier in that paper, the same author says that "Research by McCright & Dunlap (88, 94) has focused on the opposition movement dubbed contrarians, denialists, inactivists, or sceptics." So, if anything, all this paper you cited does is leave us with an array of possible terms, without the author claiming that any of them is definitive or more proper than the rest. MarkNau (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we call conspiracy theorists "truth sayers" or "truthers"? I hope not, nor should we use the word sceptic here. Denier and contrarian has indeed been used in the literature. However, in the interest of neutrality I think the suggestion by Macai is a good one: "AGW opponents" or "opponents of AGW" etc.
—Apis (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Um... it doesn't make sense as grammatical English. To be a "climate change opponent" or an "opponent of AGW" means that one thinks climate change or anthropogenic global warming is a bad thing and presumably should be reduced. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. How about climate science opponent then? Hmm, maybe contrarian is best so far.
—Apis (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Contrarian" indeed is the term that many thoughtful people recommend, though the inaccurate "skeptic" has unfortunately become so entrenched that we may need to use it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ward's advice for "journalists, scientists and educators" (link above) is useful, IMO:

Unfortunately, the problem of semantics does not end there. The most responsible scientists and journalists take it as a matter of professional pride that they should be skeptical of claims, of new findings, of new evidence…of virtually all the information that comes across their desks in the course of their work. To these individuals, being called a “skeptic” is a badge of honor.

So what term do they then use in referring to that small but often vocal cadre of scientists and others who consistently rebut what many climate scientists have come to accept as settled scientific conclusions concerning the warming of the Earth and the factors contributing to that warming?

Many scientists refer to those who do not accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as skeptics, but there is also a sense among the scientific community that the term has been misappropriated. To address this confusion, climate scientists have suggested a variety of different terms to describe this small group of people who reject the science of climate change. These terms include "contrarians," "deniers," "denialists," and even "professional skeptics."

For the purposes of this report... The term "contrarians" will be used here as an alternative to "skeptics," given the applicability of the former word to the scientific and journalistic communities alike.

I think there's value in taking advice aimed at journalists into consideration, since ideally our aims should coincide with the aims of journalism. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, if we set our sights too low then we will end up with mere journalism. We aim to be an encyclopedia. That requires an encyclopedic perspective that journalists cannot, because of various constraints, aspire to. --TS 09:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But we need to think about the language we use. "Skeptic" may be too well-entrenched a word for us to abandon it, but we need to be clear about the language we use. I think we do our readers a disservice if we use such a potentially misleading term without clarifying what it means. Since there are sources that address this issue, we should use them to explain what we're talking about when we say "skeptic" (or contrarian, or whatever term we use), since this is not the normal English usage of the term. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "climate sceptic" is well enough established, and well understood to mean something distinct from scientific scepticism or rational scepticism. The phrase is clearly understood to imply contrarianism of the most antediluvian kind. --TS 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really? I think it's jargon that's understood by the "in" crowd, but it isn't apparent to someone who isn't familiar with the issue. I think at the very least it requires a note that clarifies what it means in this context. Much like we explain 'theory' in the evo articles. Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what form of words do you have in mind? --TS 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with skeptic, but I'd encourage the editors to avoid blanket assumptions like Viriditas made in the first comment of the section. While it may be your view that a group, despite being primarily referred in WP:RS as one thing, should actually be referred to as another, adding your own view is clearly WP:OR and we should stick to what it is being reported as. If you want to "clarify" the word, I'm not opposed, so long as the clarification fits WP:NPOV. Also, if clarified, it should be clarified so as to explain how it is being used in the average cited source, not how it is being used or is defined in a single source that is cited specifically to "clarify". jheiv (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the term "skeptic" is that it's a name, not a simple descriptor. It's jargon (which we're supposed to steer clear of). It diverges from the commonly used meaning of the word, and as such should not be used without explanation. Much like "Truther" doesn't mean "someone interested in the truth", but rather someone who has a particular (fringe) opinion on the destruction of the WTC. As for reliable sources, I provided two sources which describe precisely this problem - how language is used in communicating climate change - and why this usage can be misleading. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Truth does NOT matter

As much as I hate to have a meta-discussion about the discussion, I keep hearing arguments from both sides about the Truth. I cannot emphasize this enough, the Truth does not matter. The Truth is a matter of opinion and like a@@holes, everyone has one. In an attempt to end the endless arguments about the Truth, years ago Wikipedia set up the rules to avoid this endless bickering. All that matters is what reliable sources say about the topic. If reliable sources say that climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind, then Wikipedia says climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind. If reliable sources say that AGW is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man, then we say that AGW is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man. We are not supposed to engage in any dispute. We are supposed to simply report back what reliable sources say about a topic. And yes, if reliable sources say the Earth is flat, then we say the Earth is flat. Wikipedia is not to be used as a forum for cutting edge research or to promote an agenda. Like it or not, we must defer to reliable sources, not our own personal opinions about the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's a common misunderstanding. We always evaluate sources for authoritativeness, accuracy, neutrality, and currency, among other things. Reliability is not automatic, nor applicable to every topic. A reliable source in one topic may not be reliable in another, and popular newspaper and magazine articles written by non-experts are not considered to be as reliable as peer-reviewed or expert-authored reports. And, straight news reports do not have the same standing as opinion pieces or columns. So, you have completely avoided the underlying problem. We do not simply report what a "reliable source" says. We first must evaluate the source for reliability, and then decide on whether to use it. This is a necessary and required step. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Step down from the pulpit and practice what you preach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When haven't I? Over and over again, I've stressed the importance of following reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But, you haven't described the RS guideline here. You've described WP:V. Keep in mind, RS does not exist in a vacuum, but in a delicate harmony with all the other foundational policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, except for neutrality, I don't disagree with anything you said nor do I believe my post disagrees with what you said, but simply elaborates on the idea the truth does not matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple, which is part of the problem. People like pithy sound bites like "truth doesn't matter", but you know that isn't accurate. Truth of course, matters. It's why we are here. But, Truth is a perfect ideal that will not be realized in our lifetime. What this means is that we strive for everything that can lead us to truth (or as the Buddhists like to say, points to truth), but not truth itself, since that cannot be grasped, or more to the point, it cannot be verbalized or put into words. Little mouth noises and symbolic language is a poor substitute. Can you do it with math? Maybe, I don't know. So, in this domain, we cannot obtain truth, so it's not on the table. But we can approximate, get as close to it as possible, and reliable sources gives us one small leg up on it, but it is not the only way. We have to evaluate the sources, look for contradictions between sources, demand neutral sources, ask for expert sources, etc. It doesn't end with "reliable sources". That's only where it begins. Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, this personal vision of the nature of truth you have worries me. I agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge - I think we should stick to using Wikipedia policies as a guiding light, rather than our own philosophical position on truth as, if you use a personal definition of truth rather than Wikipedia policy, you might be lead astray (because that personal definition will be subjective and reflect your POV). An example: you say we should demand neutral sources, as that will somehow lead us towards this approximation of perfect idealised Truth that we will not achieve in our lifetime ("Truth" in some Buddhist context). However, Wikipedia's policy on WP:reliable sources does not say that we should demand neutral sources. It says to "mak[e] sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered: see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". WP:Neutral point of view then clarifies and tells us that "all editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article". So, if you are demanding neutral sources then it seems likely to me that you're a) doing so because of a philosophical position on "truth", which I think could lead to POV editing and b) not in line with policy, which tells us there is no such thing as a neutral source and that we deal with that by representing all significant views, rather than by demanding neutral sources. Brumski (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You have greatly distorted and twisted the simple words that I have used, and I find your misreading troubling. I have offered no personal vision or philosophical position on truth, but rather the complete opposite, a lack of one. Those who feel they have the truth or can grasp on to it or can communicate it with language are deluded. My words were tailored for User:A Quest For Knowledge, a self-described rational skeptic. You said that I propose using the most neutral sources we can find to lead us to the "perfect idealised Truth that we will not achieve in our lifetime", and then you compare this crazy notion to Buddhists pointing to truth. Please realize, that this statement is complete nonsense, and you obviously intended it that way. It's not even close to what I wrote. All good quality reliable sources are evaluated for accuracy, of which neutrality is a subset. When RS says that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," this is to avoid any gross bias. The fastest way to evaluate for this criteria is to look at the references used. If you have two sources, one of which uses sources and one that doesn't, we prefer the one that does, but obviously bad sources can be used to support biased work. But we can also screen for bias by looking at the author. That's why RS says "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors." We also look at the editorial policy, to weed out "questionable sources" that have a "poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." And finally, we look at the publication itself. We weed out biased sources at this stage as well, particularly "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." So, I'm afraid you misunderstand the evaluation process. We always screen for neutrality, but that term is often used in the form of "accuracy". We can only point to truth, and we do this by insuring our articles use the best sources we can find. If we need to represent a significant opinion or idea, we may use biased sources to do that, but keep in mind that we are attributing an opinion or idea that may be biased, we are not asserting it as truth. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So we're all agreed that we're aiming towards Wikipedia policies rather than some personal interpretation of Truth; jolly good. I'll answer the rest on your talk page as the provocative language about my intent indicates an argument is likely to ensue, which won't be relevant to improving this article.Brumski (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The key problem here is that on this subject (as on many subjects) reliable sources say different things. We have to sift through the reliable sources, rule out those that are contradicted by experts (for instance, if the Daily Telegraph says evolution is a sham we assume their usually reliable editor is having an off-day), and present the most reliable version we can. Of course we should still present significan opinions, but those of the flat earth (or to give a more pertinent example, creationist) type should not be misrepresented as being mainstream. We could say (assuming we had the data) that public confidence was hit by the revealed documents, but we could not say or imply that the scientific consensus on global warming had been changed by the affair, because it hasn't. --TS 15:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, reliable sources don't disagree with scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind, so I don't see the dispute that you do. In fact, if you search the talk archives and you'll see that I've called for stronger wording on this point, but it was lost in the all the arguing about the truth. If we follow what reliable sources say about this topic, I don't think we'll end up with an article that you, ChrisO, etc. will have much to disagree with. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed on that. I think we're having a disagreement on what the reliable sources are in this case. The article at present contains the balance of what the most unimpeachably reliable sources are saying, in my opinion, and avoids the mistake that most of the press had made in going for the juiciest tale. We are not a newspaper, nor a news aggregator. We do not uncritically parrot the most widely published story. --TS 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that there's some editorial judgment that we can exercise and reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch, but rather a sliding scale. But you're missing the point that WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS were written to resolve the sort of arguments about which side is right or wrong. If you want to add a sentence to the article that says "The leaked e-mails don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.", all you have to do is cite a reliable source such as [6] and the other editors can check your source to verify that it says this, and it should be the end of the discussion.

(Now, personally, I prefer to have corroborating sources to cite, so I would add a couple more sources. I know when I proposed this sentence the last time, I had one or two sources.)

Would you support the removal of the death threats from the lede and replace it with a sentence that puts the controversy in perspective that the leaked e-mails have not undercut the overall scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No I wouldn't like to do that. Firstly, it is enough that we will refrain from stating, or implying, that climate science has been compromised (but that's obvious, because only a shrill minority of sceptics are saying anything like that). Secondly, it would be inappropriate to say that in the lead.

I don't see the death threats issue as make-or-break, though. I just think it's a very important part of the story, and one that the FBI and the Norfolk police are taking seriously. I'm really puzzled by manifest attempts to downplay it. But I don't want to sideline this discussion by inviting further comment on it here. We're still running the death threats RFC, I'm mulling it over, and when I have more to say I will add my opinion there. I hope you will do so too so that we can keep this discussion focussed on the broader question. --TS 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The way you're framing the issue is wrong. You may have noticed that I changed the way it was worded: the focus is on the law enforcement response to the events of the controversy. We document how the various parties involved in this have responded: the CRU, the UEA, the UN, governments, climate scientists in general, politicians and so on. Law enforcement organisations are also responding to the controversy with criminal investigations. That is an important fact which is discussed in the article; since the lead is meant to summarise the article, that information belongs in the lead. Your argument is in effect that either law enforcement involvement should be excluded from the lead, or that it should be included but we shouldn't say what they're investigating - neither of which is a viable position. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was important, then you'd see more sources mentioning it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Faulty assumption. See my comments below about sub judice, of which you're evidently unaware. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can come up with a rationale that follows WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I'll listen. But so far, you don't even have an argument. Saying "I'm right; you're wrong just because I said so" doesn't cut it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to be a bit more flexible in your approach. Your entire position is based on erroneously entering "death threat" instead of "death threats".[7] It's time to stop the bickering and admit you made a mistake. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"A Quest for Knowledge" seems to be treating the press and media as the only legitimate reliable sources. This is far from the case. Two law enforcement agencies have announced investigations into death threats, for instance, and these are unimpeachably reliable sources for their own activities. To complain that this hasn't got much press is to miss the point--and of Chris Owen is right to point to the sub judice laws that apply to the British press.

Law enforcement agencies aren't just some other guys with an opinion, they're major players, determining whether a crime has been committed and is to be investigated. If they say they're investigating a crime related to this affair, that's obviously an important fact, and isn't to be downplayed. --TS 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. People are never reliable sources. Only published works are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Published works are written by people. And the reliability of an author is one criterion for a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Which third-party reliable sources have been authored by the police? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you mean, but having worked in this area on other articles for a while, most police reports are generally classified as primary and secondary sources, depending on how they are used, or what kind of information they contain. Since they are official, they are generally reliable depending on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if the police say "we're investigating criminal offences" it's pretty certain that they're investigating criminal offences. Otherwise we might as well stop relying on anything anybody says. --TS 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure why this is so hard to understand, but in free societies, the police investigate allegations of criminal actions. In all of these instances, intelligent observers could add a probability that the allegations will turn into criminal convictions. Those probabilities range from close to zero to close to one, but are not one until a judge and/or jury so decrees. Those probabilities are sometimes so close to one that commentators will talk as if they are equal to one, but their sloppiness does not mean we have to be equally sloppy. In my view, the probability of a criminal action is fairly high but not one. Of course, my view isn’t relevant, but anyone who claims there is a certainty that a criminal offense occurred either isn’t paying attention, or misunderstands the meaning of “certainty”.SPhilbrickT 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would save everyone a lot of time if you just say what you mean. Are you trying to say that the word "alleged" should appear in front of "theft"? If so, please make that clear. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the police had mentioned alleged criminal offences, we would of course have covered this fact. They didn't. Words like "alleged", "possible", "potential", "suspected" are conspicuously absent from the statement of the Norfolk Constabulary. --TS 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They would say alleged if it were about a suspect. As it is investigations into criminal offenses does not mean that criminal offenses necessarily occurred. It is an investigation into whether or not they did. Drolz⁰⁹ 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadening Article

I would like to see a broader article here -- and that is being prevented two ways:

1. Saying that anything that falls outside the scope of the article title is inappropriate (as Archer pointed out at the top of this section)
2. Resisting changing the article title to something that will allow a broader article.

Now, to be honest, I could care less about what the title of the article is, but I would like to see the article broadened. Specifically, the controversy that has ensued -- whether it is a factually supported controversy or a controversy masterminded by Glenn Beck and right wing lemmings, I simply do not care -- it has been evident through this talk page that if this page is not the place to discuss the controversy then perhaps it should have its own, leaving this page to discuss simply the hacking (and lets be honest, every RS I've read has reported it as hacking, not a release or a leak) incident.

The problem with broadening the article, it seems, is that editors have used one of the two tricks (not tricks like the everyday, commonplace, use of the word, but tricks as defined by Mann :-) ) to restrict that content. Now I am assuming good faith and that the edits, which technically fell outside the scope of the title and the article were indeed just that, outside the scope of the title and the article and thus removing the content seems logical.

My question is this, would these editors have a problem with a page separate from "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" (this page) called something like one of the following where these discussions that fall outside the scope of the hacking incident can take place? (Please don't nitpick about my decision to use "Controversy", the spirit of my question should be clear.)

• Climate Research Unit Controversy
• Climate Research Unit Email Controversy
• Climate Research Unit Research Method Controversy

Thoughts? jheiv (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought: Quit trying to hit the dead horse. If the controversy is discussed in high-quality reliable sources then it may be included - otherwise it is question of waiting (and we have no deadline) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, that makes a lot of sense. jheiv (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We already discussed this and consensus was that it would be a WP:POVFORK. The short answer is no. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine Chris, as long as we're "allowed" to expand the article here without being restricted by the title. Thanks. jheiv (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's nothing to stop us proceeding along those lines. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Working from Tony's outline,

Tony's outline
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts: documents were hacked accusations were made, some wild and some less wild most of the scientific community closed ranks behind the scientists; some however expressed concern an investigation of allegations against CRU scientists has been announced the hacking is being investigated death threats are being investigated.

I would see the article developing something like this:

Lead

Summary of the major points of the article

Background

Why the CRU is significant here, mention of/links to the hockey stick issue, and the FOIA issue (if we can find reliable sources for all of that); context with Copenhagen. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Timeline

Theft of the docs; posting to RC and all that. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Reaction to the release

Accusations and death threats. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Analysis of the emails

What they were alleged to mean, what they "really" mean. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Reaction of the scientific community.

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Investigation into CRU.

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Investigation of the hacking and the death threats.

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident.

Guettarda (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, what you mean by "what they 'really' mean" is "what the scientists say they mean", right? I'm afraid we'll never be able to tell what a few of them mean as one side will say they're incriminating and the other will say they are not -- obviously both have reason to diverge from the truth. jheiv (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I used "really" as shorthand for "what their authors/authors supporters say they really mean". Hence the scare quotes. Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's impressive, I think we can work with that. Read 'what they "really" mean' as "what scientists say they mean". A lot of people have had a go at interpreting the statements of the CRU scientists in email, so it's as well that we clearly distinguish between interpretations by those who have relevant expertise from those who do not. --TS 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice start, Guettarda. I like it, especially the addition of a timeline, which may prove to be very useful. A couple minor comments:

• You indented “Analysis of the emails” – if this implies it is a subsection under “reaction to the release”, I disagree, as it is a different subject; I support it as a section parallel to the others.
• “Investigation into CRU” is a relevant section. However, there is an announced investigation by Penn State into Mann’s work, which is not really an investigation of CRU. I don’t think the PSU investigation deserves it’s own section, perhaps the title “Investigation into CRU” could be broadened slightly.SPhilbrickT 14:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of these are good points. The latter is obvious, and you're probably right on the former - I went back and forth on whether it was a subtopic or a topic on its own. Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

To extend the first paragraph of the Elected representatives and governments section by one sentence so that, in total, it reads as follows:

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected the view that the leaked e-mails had damaged the credibility of climate science. Speaking at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, he said: "Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear – that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause." However, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer conceded that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research "as a lot of people are sceptical about this issue in any case" but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists.

The proposed edit is the second sentence in the box above, starting at "However". Brumski (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So basically you're suggesting we add: However, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer conceded that that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research "as a lot of people are sceptical about this issue in any case" but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists.[2]? Could you explain what do you see as the benefit of this addition? Guettarda (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to balance the paragraph, from the point of view of the UN, especially since the quote is attributed to the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. If it were the ambassador to the UN from Bulgaria, however, I wouldn't think it would be so topical. jheiv (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, that's correct - sorry, I should have made it clearer that my proposed addition was the second sentence of that paragraph. Do you have any objections to this addition and if so, can you explain what they are? Thanks. Brumski (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an objection, I was just curious about your rationale. What do you see as the benefit of the addition. Just looking for a bit more context to help me make up my mind. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the revision, although an even better idea is to remove the Secretary-General's quote, since another UN official, the head of the IPCC, is already quoted in the article. The article gives undue weight to UN officials' opinions. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposed change seems uncontroversial, and does add more contextual information. --TS 09:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The change illustrated in the block comment above has consensus. The change involves the addition of the second sentence, starting "However..." --TS 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm opposed pending an explanation of why this is needed. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a little: yes, this provides "balance" to Ban's statement. But is it really appropriate for us to add "balance"? Or is it "spin"? It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that's urgent enough to be worth adding to a protected article. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Let's continue the dialog and take it from there. --TS 12:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, thank you for vocalizing your objection. There seem to be four components to it - I can respond to one of them (a) but I need more information about the other three to be able to answer them. a) two reasons that it's appropriate to add the proposed text to the article are given above by jheiv and TS. b) You agree it provides balance to Ban's statement but are concerned whether it is appropriate to add balance or not. Can you clarify why it is not appropriate to add balance c) I don't understand the concern about spin. Are you concerned that I am adding spin, that Yvo de Boer is adding spin, that pro or anti climate change people are adding spin or that the source is adding spin? Additionally (and probably more importantly), what exactly do you mean by spin? d) Can you clarify why time and urgency are relevant? Thanks. Brumski (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda seems to have chosen not to respond further, having edited this page several times in the past couple of hours. I think there is adequate consensus for this, while noting Guettarda's objection, and propose we go for an editprotected. --TS 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently opposed to this addition as currently worded. My concern stems from using "conceded that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research," which is a conclusion drawn from the person who wrote the UKPA piece. There is a world of difference between "image damaged" (which remains to be seen) and "a lot of people are skeptical" (which has always been the case). I think the "balancing" view of Yvo de Boer might be useful, but the opinion of the UKPA staff writer is not. I suggest a rewrite. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - got lost among all the other stuff here, and I didn't notice the replies. To clarify my concern - we included Ban's statement because, as UN Secretary General, his voice is important. So while adding de Boer's statement does 'provide balance', the question is whether we need to balance Ban's statement. After all, if we use de Boer to 'balance' Ban, why stop there? Why not add statements from other MPs in the UK to 'balance' Brown, or other members of the Obama administration to 'balance' Gibbs. Hence my question about 'rationale'.

As for the 'spin' question - what do we achieve by 'balancing' Ban's statement? Are we moving closer to Ban's intent? Or are we picking statements that move the paragraph closer to what we think is important? Now, frankly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing - in the end, we need to produce something that mirrors what we believe to be a fair representation of reliable sources, a fair representation of the tenor of, for example, the views of the UN. But that isn't the way the section is structured. So we need to clearly figure out why we're doing this. And if we do, then we re-write the entire section. IMO, anyway. Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FSB

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

---

Speculative piece from a single source

---

More information has come to light regarding the accusation that the FSB were behind it. In the Daily Mail today we learn: -

“Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link. They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible. A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation. ‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0ZaDsUbTH

It appears that the Russians know who did it and presume the UK authorities do as well and so this could be a possible blackmail attempt to keep the UK authorities on their toes and may well result in some interesting developments. It is for this reason that I would appreciate it for someone with ‘permission’ to edit the article could include the factual elements that are mentioned in this article regarding the FSB’s denial. Cheers80.47.207.46 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This could well be just line-dangling by a tabloid newspaper out for circulation. Extremely vague. Wait until it's picked up and expanded by a more authoritative source. --TS 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Intriguing, but needs more meat before it can be included.SPhilbrickT 14:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Climate change in the United Kingdom article

I had added Climate change in the United Kingdom to the See also section of this article but it has since been removed. I would like to have it put back, but in the meantime how about all the talking here is turned into expanding the stub page into a something better. Two hundred edits have already been made on this page today!!-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alan, thanks for this comment. I'm going to try and incorporate this material into a background section, including a link. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Something sober

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

---

Duplicate discussion topic (#AP_review_of_stolen_data).

---

Associated Press spent some effort by assigning several of their reporters to sift through all the material and consult external expert, where required. Their analysis can be found here: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty. I#d suggest to add that under the media section once the protection is lifted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this in the section #AP_review_of_stolen_data above. --TS 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

"This article is not..." Part two. :)

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

---

See also the earlier discussion J.M. Archer refers to, at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive_9#"This_article_is_not...", and the formal move proposal at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Move_proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"

The thread starter agrees that the natural process of editing has moved the article towards his ideal during the intermediate period between his first thread and this one.

---

Since I lacked the free time to return to the last discussion on this, I would like to clarify the points I attempted to make the first time. One of the earlier comments seemed to get the gist of what I was saying, but not quite. I've included his or her comment below:

I would like to see a broader article here -- and that is being prevented two ways:

1. Saying that anything that falls outside the scope of the article title is inappropriate (as Archer pointed out at the top of this section)
2. Resisting changing the article title to something that will allow a broader article.

In fact, I don't have a problem with either of these enumerated facts. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this article is squatting on the most appropriate title for an article specifically covering the controversy that so many people claim is being excluded from the article on the email hacking incident. I'm willing to accept that the "cartel" is justified in focusing this article specifically on the alleged criminal activity, but not with them appropriating the best namespace for an other article to do so.

Is there some reasonable justification for appropriating the "Climategate" page--that being the most commonly accepted name for the controversy stemming from this alleged crime--for no reason other than to have a more search-friendly redirect (I'm assuming there is no more nefarious motive) for the (apparently) completely unrelated email hacking incident chronicled here?

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? I could swear you never left. This is the same POVFORK argument we've grown so accustomed to, with the shiny new thread and new subject to boot. Why don't you just get it over with so we can move on to the AfD? Viriditas (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you see what this is leading up to. Man the AfD, full speed ahead. My bet is on the 17th. Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I remember. It's not a 'hacking incident', but a glorious liberation of true knowledge that puts the whole oily world back as Conservapedia liked it. --Nigelj (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the 17th the day Obama arrives in Copenhagen? --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time trolling active discussions with meaningless !comments. These should be deleted. jheiv (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other people hold views similar to mine has nothing to do with whether or not I spent the whole weekend putting a new floor in my parents' house.

I fail to see how moving the article to another similar title would alleviate the issue I raised above--although edits while I was not looking have helped to some extent. I think the article still attempts to draw a few more conclusions than are actually warranted for an encyclopedia, but it's much improved over the past few days. I still question the goal of squatting the other title, however: if an article on oranges is not intended to discuss apples, why redirect "apples" to "oranges"?

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Get it over with. Viriditas (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's AfD? J.M. Archer (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A: Articles for Deletion jheiv (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the idea behind nominating something for Articles for Deletion? ... and what would be nominated? J.M. Archer (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas is saying that your proposal is a proposal for a content fork. I think so too and would oppose it. Please see [WP:FORK]]. The best news sources are still consistently dealing with the email theft/hacking and the controversy about the content of the emails tgether. He is suggesting that if you were successful in splitting this article in two then you or someone would put the article on the hacking incident up for deletion. This need not detain us unless after reading the talk pages archives and familiarising yourself with policy you seriously want to suggest that this page is split. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They're suggesting (if I may) that you should go ahead and create the article at Climategate, at which point it would be nominated at WP:AFD. After a page has gone through and been deleted through the AFD vote, either the page needs to either change substantially or the context under which it was deleted needs to change, otherwise it can be deleted speedily. jheiv (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh. I will note that the two responses I've received here are actually not in agreement with one another, and that therefore the original meaning of the comments above is still somewhat unclear to me... However, the answers I've received were quite helpful.

In point of fact, I don't think forking the article would be a particularly good idea. Neither do I think creating a new article at "Climategate" would prove productive (as you've pointed out, it would simply be deleted). However, I do feel that--though correlation and causation aren't one and the same--pointing out this hypocritical catch-22 has been helpful so far. :)

Simply on the grounds of usability, I agree that a fork would be a crappy idea; a person doesn't come to Wikipedia to follow a trail of crumbs across the intarwebz (even if they wind up doing it anyway). The information should be here, where the other information can already be found. What bugged me last week was simply that I scanned the talk page and found so many instances of "We can't include that because the article isn't about that." I don't think it's quite so bad anymore.

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Death threats in lead

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

---

Duplicate discussion topic (#RFC: Death threats against climate scientists).

---

Sorry to bring this up again, but it looks to me like this is symptomatic of major problems here. After a long discussion, we agreed to remove death threats from the lead, but not from the article itself. Good decision, reflecting different opinions reaching a reasonable compromise. I see the issue was raised again, with a little more heat than light this time, but no consensus to restore the mention of death threats to the lead. yet there they are. I hope I missed something, and someone can point me to the consensus to this reversion – if so I’ll be happy to remove this section. SPhilbrickT 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, at no time have we developed consensus to remove death threats from the lead. There is still an open RFC on the question and that reference remains in the current version of the lead.. --TS 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course we did Tony. It was in the lead, and then it was removed. I was hoping not to have to track it down, because I didn’t imagine there’s be any dispute over straightforward facts. I’ll look for it.SPhilbrickT 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still in the lead. The relevant sentence is:

Norfolk police are investigating the incident and, along with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are also investigating death threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails.

--TS 16:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember any consensus to remove it. Can you give us a link to that conclusion. --Nigelj (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Nigelj, I don't recall any such resolution. Links? Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the assertion (quoted above) isn't supported by the cite given -- cite gives one DT, of rather dubious credibility. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the RFC. I thought it was an attempt to return the wording to the lead, but I see that that has already happened. Any honest reading of the RFC would conclude it is not supported, so I request that it be removed until such time as the consensus may change. (For example, I would support it if an actual arrest lead to a conviction.)SPhilbrickT 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC says nothing about the current status of the lede and I assume any honest editor commenting on the RfC actually takes the time to read the article before doing so.
—Apis (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

?? The very first sentence is “Yes, I think this belongs in the lead.” The second comment starts” No, it is tangential at best. Inclusion in the lead only…”. I don’t understand why you claim otherwise. Are we talking about the same thing? SPhilbrickT 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of verbiage on this page, it's entirely possible that you aren't. Presumably this is the section you're talking about? Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, aren’t they the same? Other than the fact you linked to the section heading above the notice, and I linked to the discussion content about 3cm below the notice. At one time, I thought an RfC took place elsewhere, but now I think I understand that you post a notice in a centralized place, but the discussion takes place on the talk page, i.e. here. Is that correct?SPhilbrickT 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - somehow my brain didn't register that was a hyperlink. Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The way you are framing this is wrong. What is in the lead is the law enforcement response to the controversy. That response has two elements: an investigation into the hack and an investigation into the death threats. The involvement of law enforcement agencies is always significant and is all the more so in this case since it's (so far) the only formal state involvement in the controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, framing is important. And your attempted framing is pure spin. The incident was alleged hacking (not yet proven). The legal response is a law enforcement investigation of the allegations, both notable and deserving of mention in the lead. The allegations of death threats aren’t the incident, they are alleged responses to the incident. The proper law enforcement investigation of these idiots is a responsible investigation into an allegation of an alleged response to an incident. Without a single RS confirming that there is any meat to the allegations. Using your logic, we should have a mention of law enforcement investigations of death threats in every BLP where there have been death threats. You make the changes to the tens of thousands that are more credible than this case, and we can talk. Start with Obama, then Bush, then Carrottop, all of whom have had more credible allegations of death threats (OK, I’m making up the Carrotop incident, but surely I’m right.)SPhilbrickT 22:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe death-threats are so common in the US that they're not worth reporting, but this happened in the UK, to scientists, where such a thing is definitely notable in its unusualness. --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We've already been over the "alleged" point ad nauseam, so I'm not going to address that canard again. There have been plenty of RS reporting the investigation (not just the "allegations"). You're welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. Get back to us when (if?) you've returned to reality, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is about how important it is. We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, that’s non-responsive. The used of “alleged” isn’t central to my point, I’m using it because I’m sticking with facts. The central point is that the death threats are not a major issue, and you haven’t provided a factual basis for claiming that they are. And you’ve totally ignore my point – if death threats are prima facie evidence of a point so serious that it belongs in the lead, why isn’t it in the lead for Obama or Bush or Carrottop? And don’t even try to push otherstuffexists. It isn’t in those articles because the factual existence of death threats isn’t notable. It is even less notable here. You haven’t provided a scintilla of evidence explaining why it deserves mention here, despite not reaching notability in thousands of other articles. Sorry, this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and we ought to start taking NPOV seriously. SPhilbrickT 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Something I am still a little puzzled about: "The involvement of law enforcement agencies is always significant..." I keep seeing variations on this phrase and I have to ask: Why? I mean, the phrase has bite, to be sure, but it's not at all obvious to me that the involvement of LEAs is always relevant. What if, for example, a prominent AGW scientist was being investigated for tax fraud? Would you mention this is the GW article? To me, it would seem that an investigation into someone directly involved in the issue at hand would be more relevant than an investigation into someone who mailed a threatening letter to someone directly involved in the issue at hand. What is everyone's view on this? Drolz⁰⁹ 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's based on the assumption that our own personal opinions should override reliable sources. As I mention below, it's Not even wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's based on nothing of the sort. The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant. A separate investigation into the personal life of a scientist involved in this incident is irrelevant. Very simple to understand, so I'm astonished at your inability to grasp this basic requirement for avoiding coatracks and sticking to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(indentation reduced at this point)

No, we would not. See Wikipedia:Coatrack and WP:NPOV. Official investigations, police reports, review boards, ethic inquires into the actions of scientists directly related to the event, are all relevant. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, which is my point. The police investigations here aren't into the scientists. They are into some anonymous nuts who mailed letters (or emailed? do we even have this information?) to scientists. Seems highly irrelevant to the article to me. Drolz⁰⁹ 02:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the distortions. I explicitly stated that the police investigations are directly relevant to the scientists due to the event, in other words, the theft and release of data, harassment, etc. Ancillary issues, like the personal life of the scientists, are not relevant. This is very clear. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis is Not even wrong. It's based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect. Namely, that our own personal opinions matter. Please stop arguing the Truth. Tell us something we can verify. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AQFK, you are not even making sense now. Please try to at least address the topic under discussion. I'm starting to worry about you. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. How about we just stick to WP:NPOV, shall we? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Worrying about the welfare of another editor is not a personal attack. Your comment did not address a single thing I wrote. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Do you really believe that? In any case, nobody can respond to an argument that based on faulty assumptions other than to point out the faulty assumptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe it, and I've been following your comments in other places. Your comment still does not address what I wrote at all. You seem to be trying to distract the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, OK. Nobody can address an argument that doesn't make sense. Perhaps you would be willing to present an argument that does make sense? Also, why do you believe that focusing on the issues is a distraction from the discussion? The issue here is WP:NPOV. Are you familiar with it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've explained your confusion in simple terms above: The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant. A separate investigation into the personal life of a scientist involved in this incident is irrelevant. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the discussion is about Sphilbrick's point about the death threats in the lede. Did you read the opening post? Or any of the subsequent posts? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the thread before weighing in on it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now you are just disruptive. The "discussion" you were directly responding to was in response to points made by Drolz09. I think I understand the problem now. You didn't even read the discussion, you just responded to it out of ignorance. No problem, but just don't do it again. It appears that the concept of "threading" may be giving you some problems. Viriditas (talk) 0

"The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant". Yes, you're made your personal opinion abundantly clear. But our own personal opinions don't matter when determining weight. If you disagree with WP:V, that's fine, but this is not the venue to do so. Instead, you should bring this up with the editors of WP:V. If there are any relevent changes to WP:V, please let us know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)4:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Now you are reduced to making out of context quotes and addressing straw men. How childish. The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant, in comparison to Drolz's hypothetical assertion that the personal life of the scientists was also relevant in some way, but it isn't. Your continued misquoting of this discussion is very troubling. This opinion was based directly on our avoidance of coatracking, which goes against the NPOV policy. I shouldn't have to explain this to someone as smarte as you. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack [8] Please explain why this active discussion was closed down so quickly? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Media section POV

Media section represents only one point of view. It's better to include other opinions too.Sasha best (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Or remove the section, merging it with "Other". I can't see the point of it. The media provide space for views to be aired. They're not a source of views. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of "Media" section. Completely pointless, magnet for all sorts of opinion crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we could safely delete the whole "Other Media" subjection from "Reactions". Similarly, I see no point in having a section for "Other" reactions (there is none at present). The Reactions section aims to contain a spectrum of informed opinion. Ultimately I'd expect us to phase the whole thing out and use the content as a basis to write a more encyclopedic article. --TS 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I'm not at all fond of the structure of the article (I think we should address things topic-by-topic, not speaker-by-speaker) I see little value in having the section. The content might prove useful, but I don't see the section as especially valuable. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am dubious on this because it seems to me that media reactions are a legitimate part of "Climategate" as it stands now. I do think the reaction section in general could stand a lot of cleaning. Have you considered consolidating the "Scientists say" section into something that is semi-readable? "Scientists say that the science is still strong and they are being intimidated, etc." would seem to pretty much sum it up. Drolz⁰⁹ 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the opinion spouted by "the media" on this matter can be safely excluded. As soon as a news organ switches from reporting the facts to characterizing the facts (which the British media has a penchant for in particular), the quality and reliability of the work drops precipitously. Also, I have to take gross exception to constructs like "Scientists say that the science is still strong..." for two reasons. It sounds weasely and vague, and "the science is still strong" clearly implies an opposing POV ("Despite incident, the science is still strong" - gives too much credence to the incident). And the science is strong, not "still" strong. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think in an article about an incident, you shouldn't say "Despite the incident?" Even when scientists are responding to the incident? Drolz⁰⁹ 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sucked into pedantic argument: still means without movement, or "nevertheless" - and you are disagreeing that the science is unmoved by this incident? Ignignot (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

@Drolz09 - I'm saying that the sentence you suggested implies that the incident caused harm to "the science", which would be your opinion. I know what you mean to say, but the way you are saying it is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

@Ignignot - Absolutely I am disagreeing. The science is completely unharmed by the incident. If anything has changed, it is public opinion about the science or the scientists. The important thing here is that we don't use ambiguous wording that implies something that is either (a) not the case, or (b) unsupported by reliable sources. Drolz09's wording would inject personal opinion (although I am willing to accept that it may have been done unwittingly). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz has acknowledged his POV above, so I'd guess he's in the camp that considers the science to have been tainted or overturned by the incident. That's undoubtedly a fringe view, at least among actual scientists. Fortunately we don't rely on bloggers and op-ed writers to determine the state of scientific knowledge. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about the state of scientific knowledge. And until you realize that the article will never be balanced. Drolz⁰⁹ 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't argue that it was, but it's worth noting while we're here that the view that the state of scientific knowledge has changed is very much a fringe one and shouldn't have much if any prominence in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a key point. This incident has not changed the science. Even if the work of the CRU was removed from the record entirely, there would still be overwhelming evidence supporting "AGW" from the plethora of other data and research sources. It would be fair to say that public opinion toward AGW and the scientists who study the global climate has been influenced by this incident (and plenty of reliable sources support this), but it is also fair to say that this influence is largely the result of climate skeptics and deniers misrepresenting or misinterpreting the documents in question (and plenty of reliable sources support this too). I am not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for supporters of the AGW theory to "debunk" the rhetoric and "analysis" from skeptics, but I am equally not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for skeptics and deniers with all manner of quotes from opinion pieces and other crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with the way you characterize WP:Fringe, ChrisO:

• "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it.'"
• "By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy."

Secondly, whether or not the science has changed is not relevant to this article. Imagine this: some totally spurious claim is made by a complete crackpot, and despite the objection of every real scientist, this person completely dispels public belief in global warming. Would you not mention the impact of this person? Sure, they science hasn't changed, but that's not a limiting factor on the scope of this article. And I'm not even saying that you shouldn't mention what scientists are saying about it: of course you should; it's an important part of the article. But equally important is the effect this controversy is having on the public perception of science, and what various groups (scientific and otherwise are saying about it). Scjessey says: "I am not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for supporters of the AGW theory to "debunk" the rhetoric and "analysis" from skeptics, but I am equally not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for skeptics and deniers with all manner of quotes from opinion pieces and other crap," and I completely agree with this. I don't want to see a laundry list of skeptics quoted in this article. What I want is a concise description of what exactly they are saying about the emails. What we have now is something like "skeptics say this email shows corruption." I want to see their arguments for why. Conversely, I want to see what scientists are saying, but we don't need to quote 20 of them saying the same thing.

Scjessey: do you think that the article is balanced as it stands? Because from where I'm sitting it's nothing but a debunking article. I would like to get it at least to the point where we can see what exactly they are debunking. Drolz⁰⁹ 01:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz writes: I don't want to see a laundry list of skeptics quoted in this article. What I want is a concise description of what exactly they are saying about the emails... That's precisely the problem. If a specific email is about climate science, why would we quote an opinion piece written by someone who doesn't know the science? Take a look at Wikipedia:Coatrack, and understand that just because somebody has an opinion about an email, it doesn't mean we should quote them on the validity of climate science or the accuracy of the data. In fact, we can't unless they are experts in that field and their opinion is based on evidence that we can see for ourselves, like the conclusions of police reports or review boards. So, what "they are saying" is not relevant to this article unless it meets a specific set of criteria. The WP:NPOV policy lays out an approach to how to write when you are dealing with competing views. You need to first determine which are the significant views. Then you can focus on how to best represent them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has a very long way to go before you can start talking about it as a coatrack for anti AGW views. And for the millionth time: this article is not about scientific consensus, etc. (or at least not only about it). The effects Climategate has on the perception of global warming are noteworthy whether or not they are legitimate. A big part of this article is the political fallout of the CRU incident. Why would we quote an opinion piece by someone who doesn't know the science? Well, for one, because some of these people have influence. Some of them have a lot more influence than any of the scientists we have quoted already. (It's also not clear to me that you need scientific expertise to evaluate at least some of these emails.) WPNPOV notes things like impartial tone, etc. (You need to stop linking these things without reading them, incidentally.) The main point is that you need to realize that this is not the Global Warming article. What scientists say is not the end of the story here; it's also a political and public debate. Drolz⁰⁹ 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Influence" on what? The politicization of science? You need to identify the significant views and argue for their inclusion. It's really very simple. And no, we don't quote non-experts on expert matters, nor do we use opinion pieces when we have better sources at our disposal. The evaluation of sources implies using the best of what we have. That's precisely why we evaluate them. Again, this is not very hard, so I don't understand the frustration. Pick a significant view that you would like to add/change/delete and provide good sources for your modification. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely immune to reason. Drolz⁰⁹ 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You were warned about personal attacks several times, here and on your user page. What I have explained to you above is how we write articles. As the FAQ explains, if you need to discuss your interpretation of policy, this is not the place to do it. We have noticeboards and policy talk pages for that purpose. Here is where we talk about actively writing an article. You are on the wrong page. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it premature to suggest that we now have broad consensus to remove the "Media" subsection of the "Responses to the incident" section? It contains a reference to a Nature editorial and a George Monbiot opinion column from The Guardian. I see no arguments in defence of either of those in the above, and their role in the article seems dubious in their current location. They do show the editorializing of two fairly well informed, but not expert, parties, but perhaps at this stage we should continue to narrow focus on the impact on the political and scientific communities, specifically through the responses of scientists, elected politicians, and government spokesmen. --TS 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove redundancy in "Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009" section

This is pretty minor, but in the "Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009" section, we mention that Trenberth wrote the e-mail twice in the same sentence:

"An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," Trenberth wrote.

I looked at all the other quotes in the article, and none of them have this trailing attribution. I propose we remove the trailing "Trenberth wrote". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this removal, although I understand why it has been suggested. The current form is desirable, actually providing a better model for the other quotations. The effect can be softened by changing the following sentence to "However, the climatologist told the..." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed innocuous so I did it, but I hadn't seen your opposition, so I've reverted it back to the way it was. Evercat (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the WP:MOS give us any guidance? I skimmed through it quickly and didn't see anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is to remove the first “written” so it says “an email by Kevin…Trenbeth wrote.” SPhilbrickT 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to follow established precedents. If WP:MOS doesn't give us any guidance, perhaps we can find some WP:FA articles that have similar sections on quotes and see what they do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We really don't need to sweat this. It's okay, but not ideal as it is. It would be nice to edit it for flow, but that will be easier to do by normal editing than to arrive at a decision by committee while the article is still protected. --TS 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Trenberth link to article?

I've heard that Trenberth's email linked to the article he had written on the same subject. Can anyone verify that? Evercat (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good source

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

---

Duplicate discussion topic (#AP_review_of_stolen_data).

---

• Borenstein, Seth, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter (Associated Press), "AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty"- appears to be a very balanced, informative article on this topic. If this source hasn't been used yet, I suggest that using it be considered. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Take a look at AP review of stolen data and join in. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

NPOV noticeboard notification

On December 7, User:Nightmote filed a report on the NPOV noticeboard concerning the title of this article. This message is only for informative purposes notifying interested editors of the discussion. Please do not respond here. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AP review of stolen data

AP have some interesting comments after a full review by 5 reporters of all stolen data [9] ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks very impressive--not for the "five reporters" but for the comments of experts in climatology who are regarded as moderates, for the comment of a science policy expert. The quality of this piece stands out among reporting on this affair.

We certainly should cite this piece, though I foresee that gettingg consensus on exactly how to present it may need some discussion. --TS 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It has a certain amusing naïvité about it. "The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics". Stunning? For private commentary? And the revelation that the politics of academia is nasty? That's a revelation? It's a useful source, but as Tony says, for the comments by experts. (Which reminds me, of course, of the problem of reporters - why is it that they never get quotes straight, even when they write them down as you speak?.) Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also co-written by someone whose emails were some of those leaked - Seth Borenstein, although this is not mentioned in the article. Cf Andrew Revkin, who in his articles notes he was mentioned in the emails. 130.95.128.51 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That Yahoo! News link will expire in a few weeks. Here is a more permanent link to the same article at MSNBC. I think this part of the article is especially interesting: "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we already have quite a lot of scientists making that point, too, and if that isn't already reflected in the article it should be. On the other hand the CRU has repeatedly pointed out that it doesn't originate raw data, but only aggregates it. --TS 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and we have a quote from Von Storch: Climatologist Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming,[68] said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said.

The AP piece also rsises this as an ethical issue, but seems to have no clear comment on that issue from any of the experts it consulted. --TS 10:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear who he means by "other researchers". Are we talking about scientists or the sceptic agitators who've been bombarding the CRU with FOI requests? It also seems to overlook the CRU's statement that it can't share a small percentage of its data because of non-disclosure agreements. Furthermore, Von Storch apparently has a history of conflict with the CRU. I think we need to balance Von Storch's statement carefully against what the CRU says are its operational limitations and the background of his interactions with them - we shouldn't just throw it out there without context or response. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect we're already providing ebough balance, but I'm open to suggestions. --TS 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press did an investigation, here. This should probably go in the article but I don't feel qualified to edit the article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Look above. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to you all that you not be tempted to cherry pick the points from the AP article that support "your" POV on the topic. Instead, I suggest that you list any points from the AP article that aren't mentioned here in this article, or else could be explained better in this article using the AP's perspective. Then, you can ask an admin to briefly unlock the article to add or change the relevant content. Just a suggestion... Cla68 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We have broad agreement already, I think, that the AP article is of most use for the statements of the experts quoted--whatever point of view they happen to express. The view of the reporters is of much less significance; they're just journalists. --TS 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would like to hear more from Cla68 if he has time. Considering his experience and contributions, his input is valuable. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientist Section

Does anyone else think this section could stand to be trimmed down quite a bit? Aside from any concerns about weight, it is essentially unreadable right now--a huge list of individual comments. Seems to me that it could be profitably trimmed such that repetitious comments were removed, and the section itself just listed what scientists are saying instead of what each scientist says. Obviously the refs should be retained in a note section or something to that effect. Drolz⁰⁹ 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)