Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Contested edits

I changed:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, intefered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

to:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made that the emails showed evidence that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, intefered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Some prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.

This was contested by Viriditas. I'm not sure why. For justification see (currently)recent edit history. Any specific problems with these changes?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you deleted

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.

and you changed

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded

to

Controversy arose after various allegations were made that the emails showed evidence that climate scientists colluded

(Emphasis added). Why the deletion? And what's your basis for claiming that "the emails showed evidence"? Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(And obviously it wasn't just contested by Viriditas, I also contested the changes. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

These are the edits indicated in the passages I pasted here. I didn't realize you contested the pages. You said you were enforcing what you saw as WP:BRD. In any case, I made the deletion that section because, as I said in the edit summary, it is the opinion of a scientist implicated in the controversy and with no indication of this it is not contextualized appropriately. The following sentence provides similar information from a noncontroversial source. I made the change because "my" version better represents the sources and the subject matter of the article itself.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't. There is no mention of your deletion of "Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December." And you didn't add the sentence about Richard Somerville, you merely changed the first word of it.

You say your version better represents the sources. Can you explain what you mean? Guettarda (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, the idea that most of this is about "selectively quoted words and phrases out of context" is one of the most central ideas to the whole issue. So what's your rationale for removing it from the lead? As for sources - the material you removed appears to have been produced by AP's staff writers. The latter is based on a post from SolveClimate.com that was re-distributed by Reuters. What makes one "noncontroversial" and the other, presumably, "controversial"? As for the "collusion" sentence - your change makes the sentence longer and clunkier without changing the meaning in any important way. So how is that an improvement? Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Such controversial and opinionated statements have no place in Wikipedia without strong evidence. No such strong evidence has been found. --TS 08:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits to article summary and climatologist's reactions[6]. I moved the last two sentences from the article summary, the reactions from Trenberth and other climatologists to the Climatologists' Reactions section of the article. My edit was undone and the summary given was "Severely unbalances lead." I did not remove the content, I simply moved it to the section allocated to climatologists' responses. What do you mean by unbalances lead? Is the article summary looking lopsided from a formatting standpoint? Please explain. I don't believe we should be misplacing content just to make paragraphs look longer. Static623 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He presumably means that taking out those sentences makes the lead too favorable to the skeptic side. Personally I think the lead should just be a quick summary, like "Content of the letters set off a new controversy in the climate change debate..." and then move all the specifics down below. Drolz (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean that a rather contentious charge was mentioned but the vigorous and near-universal rebuttals were not adequately covered. I agree that the lead could be more compact, but it should still be balanced. --TS 09:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have a section for rebuttals - including a few rebuttals in the lead makes the article seem biased towards apologists while disorganizing the overall article. Note that I did not delete the rebuttals, but merely replaced them. Also, your edit summary said it "severely unbalances lead". I don't feel this is the case. Does anyone else feel that the lead summary becomes biased by moving the rebuttals? In my opinion, it seems bias is introduced leaving them there. Static623 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Static that the only reason to put the rebuttals there is to preempt the actual allegations. Drolz (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else care to offer feedback? If it's only Drolz, TS and I, then I'm going to put my edits back in, as there is agreement over the length of the summary and some of its content is misplaced - amid other concerns of disorganization/bias. Static623 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The charges are mentioned in the lead, so including rebuttals, which were given promptly and with vigor, is appropriate. Not including rebuttals simply isn't acceptable because it gives a false impression. --TS 10:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The charges are mentioned in a general way. The rebuttals should be included, but in the same general way. The specific rebuttals seem out of context there. 71.206.138.96 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)— 71.206.138.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, the rebuttal is perfectly acceptable and encapsulates and summarizes the incident. If we wish to rewrite the lead, that is another subject, but pushing one view over another isn't the way to do it. The material stays. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Small earthquake on "Reactions"

I've renamed a couple of the subsections of "Reactions" to sharpen the focus to expert commentary (there is much uninformed commentary and we'd do well to ignore it). I've also moved the newspaper section to the bottom and renamed it "Miscellaneous media". Frankly given the patchiness of the contents I'd rather we did away with it altogether and reassigned any useful material from there to other subsections.

The media coverage of this affair has not been particularly good, and we've done a far better job of covering it ourselves. I don't think we should highlight the media coverage per se. --TS 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Msm (mainstream media) hasn't done a good job of appropriately covering the subject. But wikipedia, which is comprised of the educated masses, has done a much better (still not perfect...but much better) job of covering the subject. Give wikipedia a pat on the back, they deserve it=D.Smallman12q (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that pat on the back, and raise you an ice-cold beer! Chilled in one of those vanishing glaciers, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes we forget this in the hurly burly of editing and discussion: we're producing a really good reference work and it is much appreciated. --TS 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian Hackers

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is not qualified to give an expert opinion on the hackers' identity, nor is he in a position to have personal knowledge of the event. Moreover, he doesn't even pretend to give an expert opinion; it's just rampant speculation. Even more ridiculous, his speculation that the hackers were Russian adds NOTHING to this article. What difference does it make if the hackers are Russian? Presumably it must be a matter of some importance to warrant the inclusion of speculation that is far more prejudicial than probative. Drolz09 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ypersele is Vice Chairman of the IPCC. As such, his opinion should go into the article. His opinion on this matter--expert or not--tells us something about the thinking of the scientific authorities about this matter. --TS 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when are "scientific authorities" polled on criminal activity? And again, what bearing does the nationality of the hackers have on the debate? Drolz09 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When it's a criminal matter that targets the scientific community. Much like when labs or homes of academics are targeted by animal rights activists. Guettarda (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, based on the idea that they have some insight into why they were targeted, as in "do you know anyone who might have something against you?" In this case, he blames paid Russian hackers, with no possible foundation. We already know the emails were hacked in order to make CRU look bad anyway. There's just no reason for this comment. Drolz09 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The source makes it plain that Ypersele's claim is not without foundation, though it is of course speculation, as we make it plain that the hackers have not yet been identified. --TS 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, what if they are Russian? Does that somehow change the debate? It's one thing to include a fact like this if it becomes a fact, there's no justification for the speculation. Drolz09 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. So far, it is 4-1 for inclusion, so you need to focus more on persuading people to take your view, and less on reverts against consensus. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You people are obsessed with consensuses. It's 4-2. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope so. Thanks for the compliment. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is not a professional in the computer security arena. He is just a climatologist. It is very strange to see how people who are (for a good reason) fighting against including quotes on climatology from statements by people unrelated to the field, turn around and fight for an inclusion of a completely non-professional statement into an article. Delete it. Computer security is just as complex a field as climatology. Dimawik (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Van Ypersele is vice chair of the IPCC, the IPCC is the organisation that is the first, primary consumer of all the research that CRU does. It was the CRU that got hacked. This is going up the food-chain, to people whose job it is to find out what's going on here. Their views are based on an informed top-level overview. This is not comparable with the views of the CEO of some security company that didn't get the job of investigating the hack (as we had until a few days ago) or the views of other people who would have liked, but never did get, a job at CRU etc. (as a lot of the other noise here is based on) --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A statement from Ypersele on this subject at this stage is important. There's no way it's going to be removed from the article. Arguing that Ypersele isn't an expert in field X or Y is missing the point that he is an expert in the opinion of the IPCC at this stage. --TS 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a very serious problem with the sourcing policy in this article. What is going on is basically analogous to treating the Nixon administration as the only reliable, official source in Watergate. Even though none of you believe that the data actually reveal fraudulent activity in the climate science community, you can't possibly prove their innocence by treating them as unimpeachable official sources and experts. Drolz09 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't apply. You're treating the entire scientific community as a single, monolithic entity, which is patently not the case. You're also treating this purely as a political rather than scientific issue. Your argument is essentially that of the most extreme anti-science activists, i.e. that because a few scientists have been accused of (completely unproven) wrongdoing then the entire scientific profession is discredited. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire, the Nixon analogy applies quite well. In this particular case, Ypersele represents IPCC, not the "scientific community". IPCC is in the very center of the scandal, just like the "Committee to Re-Elect the President" was in the Watergate. Dimawik (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means offer context, but it is bizarre to suggest Ypersele's remarks are not relevant. If his statements are speculation then he surely must have drawn some fire in the media. Track that down and you're set.Dduff442 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, he has a vested interest in CRU being cleared of wrongdoing. A reasonable person could conclude that he is not a completely reliable source on the matter. Also, there has still been no answer to the question of how the hackers' nationality is relevant in the first place. Drolz09 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I remarked earlier, Ypersele is a reliable source for the tenor of IPCC thinking at this stage. His opinion on the matter is relevant. --TS 09:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another great article from Monbiot

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public is full of links to case studies, books and websites that show what we're up against here. The first half of that article is about this e-mail incident, then we have links to four case studies (US coal companies targeting specific socio-economic groups with sound-byte denialist quips they can use, Patrick Michaels getting paid 'lavishly', the Heartland Institute with its list of 500, and the Bush presidency working with oil companies). There are also books about it all (The Heat is On, Boiling Point and Heat) and websites devoted to the subject (http://DeSmogBlog.com and http://exxonsecrets.org). --Nigelj (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What we're up against on wikipedia is NPOV editing by people whose opinions have overcome their objectivity, not some crack team of exxonmobil spin doctors or outsourced meatpuppetry. For God's sake don't make it into more of an us vs. them than it has already become. Ignignot (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As encyclopedists, we're all opposed to attempts to misinform the public. --TS 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We're simply here to report back what reliable sources say about the subject without introducing bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting article, but does not provide much help in this story. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV issue is people frantically trying to exclude anything that suggests malfeasance on CRU's part, while trumping up the hack element of the story to detract from the issue people actually care about. Drolz09 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof of any malfeasance on CRU's part, but there is plenty of proof of the hacking incident. So I'm afraid you have the neutrality issue backward. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the CONTROVERSY. A person who came to this page to understand what Climategate meant could reasonably conclude from it that Climategate is a scandal revolving around computer security, which is ludicrous. Climategate is notable SOLELY because of what it does or does not reveal about the climatescience community. Drolz09 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this point of view. There are two facets to the notability of the issue. In terms of newsworthiness, the issue of the scientific scandal is paramount though issues like who organised the hacking etc are very important. The criminal investigations etc are the other facet -- less prominently reported but more important in many ways in terms of the public record. Eds may conclude the emails don't undermine climate science and they may be correct, but the scandal is genuine as Monbiot very correctly points out.Dduff442 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are actually wrong there, Drolz09. This is a hacking incident and some reaction to it. If you are here to try to bring down the whole of global warming science (or the whole of science, etc), that will be why you are having so much trouble. The science has not changed - glaciers are still melting and people are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Luckily, world leaders are also still at Copenhagen trying to get agreement to do something about it, otherwise, as you were told above, billions of innocent people could die in the next 100 years or so. Try not to argue for the impossible. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

<snark>Yeah, we're hobbled by our verifiability policy, our policy on biographies of living people and the fact that we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. It's a terrible burden.</snark> Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Nigelj has summed it up far more eloquently than I ever could. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, you can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century, but not that there is controversy over the content of the emails. Makes perfect sense. Drolz09 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We can say with absolute accuracy that billions of people are certain to die in the next century, just as billions of people have died in the last century... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't think this immortality thing is going to pan out? Silly scientists and their incompetence at making such basic breakthroughs :-( Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Had a similar thought, but then realised it probably wouldn't help. See [7]. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors: immune to context. Drolz09 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans von Storchs comment and comparision with the German Forest die off hype is worth while a read. I think it should be inserted here. --Polentario (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What context? You're the one who said 'you can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century' which we can say with extremely great certainty would be yes. If you had wanted to say 'can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century due to climate change' you should have said so. Don't blame us because the question was inherently silly. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, I would be inclined to reject this opinion piece by Monbiot because it doesn't fall into any category of expert commentary that I regard as acceptable for inclusion in this article. Everybody has an opinion in this matter, and Monbiot is just another man with an opinion. --TS 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, it seems a bit odd that we included one of his comments and not the other. Many insisted on including the first comment though, and perhaps one could say that was more influential? but I haven't investigated it closer. I'm not all that familiar with Monbiot to be honest, but as I've said before I think we should be able to motivate why someone is notable and relevant enough to have his/her opinion included. Right now he has his own section.
—Apis (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also argued for the removal of the other Monbiot comment (and have actually removed it at least once). He's a pundit, and the press is plagued by pundits. He doesn't bring any facts or expertise to the table, only his opinion. --TS 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Wiki rules on this, but I'm a Monbiot fan. Expertise is the plague of the modern world. Monbiot is not afraid to do what any good barrister does: pick up a brief in short time and make a good job of it. He argues the facts and I admire his intellectual courage in weighing into debates in widely different fields. Yeah he's a pundit, but he's a specialist pundit. I only admire a tiny handful of journos in the world and he is one. Point me to places his courage lead him into error and I might revise my opinion. My 1c (there's a sale on).Dduff442 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Weart interview (cont.)

That quote by Weart from The Washington Post looks like inaccurate hyperbole. In saying that the hacking incident is "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science" Weart forgets about the existence of Lysenkoism.Chelydramat (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this quote is a bit over the top, particularly if the "hack" is really a "leak". If I were a rules-lawyer, I would quote WP:UNDUE to disqualify this. With dozens if not hundreds of quotes to choose from, I think we should all try to avoid the most extreme statements. Madman (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not really true for this particular quote. Lysenkoism is an inapt analogy - that was an attempt by a state to control and suppress science for ideological purposes, rather as happened in Nazi Germany (where Einstein's theories were disparaged as "Jewish science") or under the George W. Bush administration with regard to climate change or stem cell research. This case is an instance of (presumably) private individuals attacking and attempting to discredit an entire field of science for ideological purposes. It's more comparable to the terrorism carried out by animal rights activists against medical researchers. Animal rights extremists have always been a tiny minority, though; Weart is making the point that the anti-scientific campaign against climate researchers is of a kind and a scale which we've never seen before. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between governments and individuals is solely one of magnitude. At the roots of each are attacks on science on ideological grounds. -- Chelydramat (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The piece on Spencer Weart, who is an expert in the history of science, is under the "Other expert commentary" section. Speaking for myself I have no professional expertise in either science or history. If anybody reading this has relevant expertise comparable to Weart's and has an opinion distinct from Weart's, they are welcome to contact the Washington Post or a similar source and publish a critique which may be considered for inclusion in the article. Someone on the internet saying Weart's comment looks suspect doesn't really cut it. --TS 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eds are welcome to find contrary opinions but the notability of Weart's views is hard to dispute.Dduff442 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, isn't it premature to turn to a historian for comments on a still-developing event? Much of this incindent hangs on the content of the hacked files, which Weart apparently hasn't looked into because of the nature by which they were made public. -- Chelydramat (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Historians don't only talk about the distant past. The key skill is the long perspective. --TS 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article

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)

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 "Climate 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. Prefer excluding year, fine with term 'controversy', fine with including term 'documents' MarkNau (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

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

If we miss out the hacking, then we've missed the point of the article. 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)

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)

'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)

Death Threats (WP:UNDUE)

I challenge you to give me a single reason that anonymous death threats have any relation to the controversy. The only reason that sentence is included is because it makes the entire skeptic side look bad. This is obviously ridiculous, because prominent people from all sides receive death threats all the time. Noting it here is just prejudicial. Drolz09 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the cited source, which is highly noteworthy: "Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world. No further information can be revealed about these particular threats at present because they are currently under investigation with the FBI in the United States. Many other CRU scientists and their colleagues have received torrents of abusive and threatening e-mails since the leaks first began in mid-November 2009." [8] This means that there are now two criminal investigations taking place into this affair, one on each side of the Atlantic. That is very significant news. The harassment of scientists by anti-science activists is also indisputably a sigificant part of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At most, harassment is part of a broader narrative on the global warming issue. It has no specific relevance to this controversy unless you can provide evidence that the threats were made by someone with a tangible connection to either the hackers or the skeptics who are quoted in this article. You don't see me adding that climateaudit is routinely DDoSed. Drolz09 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Audit's alleged DDOSing clearly isn't relevant to this issue. But as the cited source notes, there is a direct link between the file theft and these threats: they "have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world." It may make you unconfortable to acknowledge it, but the people sending these threats are global warming sceptics. If you consider yourself to be in that category then I'm afraid you're sharing it with some very unpleasant people - indeed, criminals. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are nuts on every side of every debate. The fact that some of them took this particular scandal as an opportunity to make death threats does not "link" them to the scandal. They are no more relevant to it than eco-terrorist nuts on the other side. There's no reason to mention them here except to make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association. Which, it seems, is your intention. Drolz09 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The theft was perpetrated against the CRU, and they are the victims of this crime. It is entirely appropriate to describe the crime, including all aspects pertaining to it. It's relevant, topical, and significant. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, it is the theft of the data that is the most significant detail of this entire incident, and should constitute the bulk of the article. Much of the fuss that has followed has been based on speculation and opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some of them took this particular scandal -- at least you are now admitting that it was a consequence of this particular scandal, contrary to your immediately preceding absurd contention that it was not. And of course that is what is relevant here, making your original objection moot and a big waste of a lot of people's time. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you and the FBI part company on the matter of whether the death threats to climatologists are to be taken seriously. --TS 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking death threats seriously has nothing to do with whether or not they belong in this article. I'm not denying that they happened, but the fact that they did has no relevance to the question of whether there was fraudulent activity at CRU, or whether the hack was legal, etc. Drolz09 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony and Chris are quite right - this is directly connected with the story. This doesn't appear to be a random coincidence. Or rather, since our sources see them as connected, we need to treat them as if they were connected and not substitute our own opinions. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to how some in the anti-science activist community have responded to this incident, as well as to the personal consequences for the scientists whose e-mails were stolen. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case they belong in another section of the article, and it needs to be phrased in a way that doesn't basically imply the threats came from leading skeptics. Drolz09 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that much is clear from the context. --TS 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if things like this are going to be included from either side; that is, "reactions" that do not actually have any relation to the veracity of issues at stake in the controversy, the article needs to be broken up into multiple sections. Since you refuse to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter, they should at least have their own section in the page: Something like Hack/Analysis of Emails/Reactions from Concerned Parties/Fallout (which is where death threats belong, if anywhere). Drolz09 (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations of bad faith against other editors. --TS 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack. It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. Drolz09 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. This article is a joke. It reads like AGW activists wrote the damn thing.JettaMann (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see our policy on personal attacks. Making accusations like that against your fellow editors is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not transparently obvious to everyone -- most rational people think otherwise. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Please, let’s avoid the characterizations, and return to the discussion of the article. ChrisO, I thought we had broad consensus that edit beyond trivial copy edits would be discussed and some semblance of consensus reached before inclusion in the article. I see no discussion of the addition of the death threat sentence. I think it is quite arguable whether it belongs anywhere in the article, but it most certainly does not belong in the lede. (Of course the FBI is investigating, that's what we pay then to do, but absent some evidence it is credible, it isn’t as important as a hundred other issues we’ve chosen not to include.) Please remove it, then propose in this talk what wording you suggest and its placement. We can then discuss it.SPhilbrickT 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As the death threats were reported and a direct result of the leak, I'd suggest the incident merits inclusion though not very prominently.Dduff442 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys mad? Criminals hacked into a university server and then caused a massive breach of privacy by publishing loads of emails. As a result, (1) climate sceptics had a large body of text from which they could cherry-pick what seemed to confirm their conspiracy theory, causing confusion right before an important conference; and (2) the scientists became the targets of death threats. And then we are supposed to discuss the speculations coming from (1) in detail, but downplay (2)??? Hans Adler 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, and Yes.SPhilbrickT 16:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To the first question: not generally, but there do seem to be specific instances. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats have been covered by several reliable sources, so it belongs in the article. As for amount of coverage, we're supposed to determine weight based on its prominence among reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the death threats information into the reaction section, out of the Hack and Theft section. Given the rationale for their inclusion in the first place (i.e. they show the reaction) it seems indisputable that they belong in that section if anywhere. If anyone has a reasoned argument otherwise, please state it. Drolz09 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously ridiculous

Indeed your statement is obviously ridiculous -- death threats were issued to people whose names appeared in the emails, as a direct consequence of the emails being made public. Even from your cribbed perspective that it's only the content of the emails that is relevant and not the fact of the theft, the death threats flow from the content -- it's because those big bad scientists pulled a massive fraud on we the people that their lives are in danger, eh. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can make out, this is an argument for their inclusion in the article, which they still are. In the reaction section. With the other reactions. Drolz09 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Death threats are criminal acts, currently being investigated by the British police and the FBI, arising from this affair. As such they're an integral and very important part of it, should be covered in the lead, and should have a prominent section of their own alongside the section on the hacking, so that readers looking for a rundown of the important events of the affair will read about them there without having to rummage through the section about "reactions" (ie statements of opinion, not criminal acts), a location which doesn't make sense at all unless we were to decide that a death threat was a reasonable reaction to the leaking of the documents. --TS 09:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I very clearly explained why the death threats, which are said to be a reaction to the publishing of the emails were moved to the reaction section. The mere fact that they are under investigation does not mean they belong in the Hack and Theft section, because 1. That section does not specifically deal with things "under investigation" and 2. The death threats are not being investigated as part of the hacking incident. No one has provided evidence that the hackers made the death threats or are linked to them. Putting death threats in that section, however, implies that that is exactly the case. Unless you have evidence of a link between the hackers and the threateners, you need to undo your edit and put that bit back in the reaction section, with other reactions. Drolz09 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While it's a "reaction", it's not exactly the sort of reaction that the section on reactions is about. We've got a timeline of actions - theft of files, distribution of stolen files, death threats. And we have reactions - what people said in response to the theft / content of the messages. Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So your contention is that the death threats are unrelated to the content or theft of the emails? If that is the case then there is no reason to include them in the article at all. Drolz09 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While technically "comments" or "reactions", they are also illegal acts being investigated by the authorities. I think it makes more sense to have them in the hack and theft section dealing with similar matters.
—Apis (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The hack section deals with how the data was acquired and released. It is only incidentally about criminal investigations. The death threats are entirely unrelated to this section: they are a reaction. Drolz09 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"So your contention is that the death threats are unrelated to the content or theft of the emails?" Nope. Not saying anything of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Given the following:

• The overwhelming amount of coverage by reliable sources has been about the content of the e-mails and reactions to these e-mails
• Significantly fewer reliable sources have focused on the death threats

Does anyone else besides myself think that we're giving undue weight by featuring the death threats so prominently in the lede? Obviously, it belongs in the article, but does it warrant mention in the lede? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I have been saying, which is part of why I had moved them down to the reaction section. Drolz09 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Um no, that's not what AQFK is asking about. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't actually have a lead. We have a chronology which starts in the first sentence. The material above the TOC really isn't a summary of what's below the TOC. Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does belong in the lead. The case involves a series of (apparently ongoing) criminal actions against the CRU and its staff which have sparked at least two criminal investigations in the UK and US, plus the reaction to those actions. Since the harassment and targeting of these scientists before and after the theft is a key element of the story, it's essential to mention it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

like AQFK, i also think at this point it is undue in the lead. maybe in few days if more news write about it. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC in Australia has just published two lengthy articles on the subject: [9],[10] -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats are a very major part of this affair. They're being investigated by the British police and the FBI as criminal matters. Weighing up media coverage and the like is beside the point, and should never by itself determine the weight we give to an event. --TS 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

really? does that always apply when determining wp:undue? or only sometimes? if a non-mainstream media reports on FBI activity and police criminal activity (in regards to some other article/topic), should we also give it a due weight in leads of articles? or do we need to always wait for mainstream media to report on these FBI/police inquires? what has more weight -- FBI activity, or the type and amound of media coverage it gets (mainstream/non mainstream)? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead should summarise all the major ideas in the article. Since the death threats are a distinct issue, not an expansion on some other issue, they should be in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know there are death threats and there are death threats. We pay our policing functions to err on the side of caution and take all seriously, but until someone is actually charged with a crime, there is zero evidence that these threats are anything more than the mindless bloviation of cranks. I'm not convinced that the thin information presented to date even deserves inclusion in the article, but I'll bow to the consensus that mention is appropriate. However, they do not presently come close to justifying inclusion in the lede.--SPhilbrickT 15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your opening point: "lead should summarise all the major ideas in the article". That why I oppose inclusion. There are far more credible death threats against Obama [11], and those don't make the lead. --SPhilbrickT 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

These are death threats against scientists (all US presidents get death threats, especially Democrat(ic) ones). This is an article about an incident and its ramifications, and now those have extended to include death threats to individual university workers. I don't see how that could be more relevant. Now, if this was an article about a point of scientific theory (which it isn't, but I think many AGW sceptics and deniers wish it was), then maybe it wouldn't be so relevant. So, which is the article about? --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The "relevance" claim is a strawman. I don't see any groundswell arguing they aren't relevant. The issue is wp:weight. The lead should have the most important issues. It is truly astounding to claim that poorly specified death threats rise to that level. Sorry, when I see editors concerned about the state of this article, I see this as evidence for their case. Perhaps we should do a survey - not whether the death threats are relevant,t hey surely are, but whether they are such an important aspect of this incident that they deserve elevation to the lead.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, this issue has nothing to do with the death threats. It's just their lame attempt to play the victim. If this investigation pans out and reveals something, then fine, it can stay in the article body. It certainly doesn't belong in the opening summary. Removing, and keep it removed. No reversions. (I'm looking at you Guettarda). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, that's BS and you know it. These scientists were caught red handed and now they're pulling out this "death threat" business to play the victim. Someone probably wrote to them that they wish they would go extinct or otherwise and they see this as their chance to gain some sympathy. It's a joke that you think it belongs in the summary, it's barely worthy of being commented on in the article unless something from the investigations actually pans out. In the POV article on Wikipedia it has an undue weight clause, which you are violating here. JettaMann (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So far we have dealt with just about any speculation and allegation in detail. I don't see why this particular one should be "swept under the carpet" and others stay.
—Apis (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason why "Following the release of the e-mails, climate scientists at the CRU and elsewhere have received numerous threatening and abusive e-mails." is because before that they weren't in the news and their email addresses were not found all over the net. Every public figure (including Sesame Street characters and Telletubbies!) gets threatening and abusive e-mails. Public figures who suddenly become much more well known and who at the same time have their email addresses revealed are bound to get an increase in threatening and abusive e-mails. Just because they got a bunch of newspapers to write about said increase, that doesn't make it notable. Notable implies something that is different from what always happens to all public figures. Mentioning it in this case and not on the pages for Britney Spears or Rush Limbaugh (both of whom get a lot of threatening and abusive e-mails as documented in several notable sources) is not being neutral. 75.84.238.18 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

These death threats are being investigated by the FBI and the UK police. If the creators of the Tellytubbies, Kermit the Frog, and Dora the Explorer have received death threats that have been investigated by law enforcement, we should probably mention this in appropriate context in their respective articles. It really isn't a run-of-the-mill occurrence. --TS 09:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hack Unproven

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 FAQ Q5. We report the facts from reliable sources.

---

The simple fact is that there is currently no proof a hack occurred. I didn't bring this up before because I always assumed that one had. However, it looks increasingly likely that this is not the case. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/ This is a professional sysadmin's opinion on the issue, and he believes that the structure of the file makes a hack very unlikely. I don't claim that this is probative by any means, but the salient fact is that no hack has been proven. In absence of proof, this article should not state explicitly that a hack occurred. At most, it should note the investigation. Drolz (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The blog doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Most news use words such as hack, stolen or theft. Some news articles have even had details on the hack actually, but since there is an ongoing investigation it's still a bit thin...
—Apis (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See this link. Drolz09 & Co. are pushing Conservapedia talking points (they call them "takeaways") in contravention of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. So, if a conservative believes something, it can't possibly be accurate. I never heard of "Conservapedia" before now. Regardless, my point here speaks for itself. Drolz (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just keep open ears about this. Some editors would like to close out this discussion, but the topic keeps coming back up, even redundantly in multiple concurrent discussion topics. Drolz09's cited source might seem outside credibility b/c of the domain name and barebones page formatting, but the information is quite good - the author's expertise in unix server administration speaks for itself (I'm qualifying the source from my own professional experience). It's far more qualitative than any press releases from the MSM that I've seen so far. So even though a lot of news reports are claiming hack/theft, their information isn't justified by any actual analysis. Static623 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't intend to use the article as probative evidence. The relevant fact is that there is no proof a hack occurred, or even reliable evidence indicating that one probably occurred. You guys are maniacal about source quality whenever someone posts something that you don't like, but you're happy to rattle on about this hack for which you have no evidence. The most you can say is that CRU claims they were hacked, and that news outlets have reported this claim. Drolz (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have heard it was a leak by a whistleblower...in that case, the term stolen does not apply. Zooktan (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

— Zooktan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user created their account at approximately 07:57, seven minutes before posting this message.

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.

Hack Discussion Not Finished

"A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia", and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair." This is not proof that a hack occurred. There is no proof that a hack occurred until someone is convicted of hacking, or at the very least, the police say "So and So hacked CRU." What the police say here means: "Data got out when it wasn't supposed to, and we are investigating." It does not preclude that data having been leaked by an insider, or even confirm that any criminal activity took place. Drolz (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are speculating. Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. --TS 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not speculating because I am not drawing a conclusion. YOU are speculating by assuming that a hack occurred without proof. I am saying that we don't know whether or not a hack occurred, which is manifestly true. Drolz (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your point is that we cannot say that a hack occured until someone is convicted, but you have no problem with saying that an insider leaked the information. I think you have it the wrong way round. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I say that. I am saying that you cannot say either. You can say that data got out where they didn't belong, because that has been factually established. The absolute bottom line is that there is no WP:RS source for the claim that a hack occurred. The most you can say is that an investigation is ongoing, but I think even that is very dubious, except as mentioned in passing. It certainly should not be a huge part of the article as it is now. Drolz (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz, you say "there is no WP:RS source for the claim that a hack occurred". This is categorically false. Both UEA and RealClimate have reported hacking incidents directly associated with this incident. Those who say it could be something else are speculating. They have absolutely no evidence. --TS 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an RS for the claim that a hack occurred. Drolz (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The police are investigating. The statement is reliable. If the known facts change, we will report the changed facts. --TS 08:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"The police are investigating" =/= "The police confirm that a hack occurred and are investigating." Drolz (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since reliable sources overwhelmingly speak of a hack, that is how we refer to it. The UEA is after all in a position to state definitively what happened, since it owns the server that was hacked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Given that they have a vested interest in the outcome of this controversy, they are not a reliable source. 2. Determining whether a hack occurred is a matter that requires expertise, and it is not clear that they performed any investigation which would conclusively rule out other explanations for the breach. 3. Reliable sources are speaking of an alleged hack, which is exactly what we should be doing. There's just no justification for the categorical claim that a hack occurred when neutral language better fits the confirmed facts and really doesn't take anything away from the article anyway. Drolz (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:BOLLOCKS. 2. They have stated explicitly that their systems were breached. 3. "Alleged" is a weasel word; there is no significant dispute that a hack occurred. And as for your "neutral language", I noticed that you also attempted to delete references to the files being stolen, a fact about which there is no dispute since the UEA is the owner of the files and the only party competent to comment on their status. You're blatantly POV-pushing. This has all been discussed before and you have no consensus whatsoever for such sweeping, unsourced changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An interested party claiming that they were hacked does not constitute proof. It is absurd for you to jump to the conclusion that they were hacked and furiously remove neutral language that accurately states they claimed as much, while concurrently injecting massive rebuttals into the debate over whether the emails reveal fraud. You are turning this article into CRU press release. It's absolutely deranged that you call me POV while you do it. Drolz (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I do not agree with you when you say there is no significant dispute about whether or not the files were hacked. Insisting the files were definitively hacked is premature as has been acknowledged several times. Static623 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is one RS making preliminary suggestions that it may have been a leak: "In the UK a police investigation is underway to uncover how the material was hacked or leaked" [12]. Very preliminary, but worth keeping an eye on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The UEA has said definitively that the files were not accidentally released.[13] -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Interestingly that article also speculates that it might have been a leak (by which they seem to mean a deliberate release by an insider). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The key word there is speculates. Anyone can speculate; let's stick to the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, as long as we recall that facts are defined here as the balance of what reliable sources say. My point is simply that we have between us turned up two RS articles indicating that it may have been a leak rather than a hack. This remains a minority position, but if we find many more it will become a significant minority view that should be incorporated in some way. Recall also that statements by the UEA are primary sources and cannot be considered definitive, although it is no doubt useful to include them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If we ever get a reliable source indicating strong evidence for an accidental leak or an act of whistleblowing, then we discuss the weight to give. Until then, it's a hacking incident. In fact the evidence for hacking has grown since the article was started. We have credible evidence for two illegal hacking acts, and absolutely no (zero, nada) evidence to justify speculation that there was no hacking. --TS 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is pure POV pushing and you should know it! It is not a hacking incident, it is at best an alledged hacking incident, alledged by people who from the emails and the bogus Russian state connection are clearly highly paranoic and obviously don't have the first clue about computer security, (I probably have to spell that out: in the unlikely event it was a hack - who let the hack happen?) so you can't even claim they are experts on the subject, the only article I seen by anyone with any right to claim expertise suggests it is very very credible that it was intentionally released from inside - but as this article seems to be written by the climategate gang themselves I'm not going to waste my time finding the link because it is a waste of time! 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a person reading this article would have absolutely no clue that the hacking was not a 100% verified fact. There is no justification for treating it as though it were except that a hack supports your POV. You have a source claiming that they were hacked, and you have police saying they've investigating a security breach. Going from that to the categorical tone of the article is personal research. Drolz (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan's link comes from the Guardian, which is speculating that it could be either way. I think some of the editors are being too selective of which sources they're willing to listen to.Static623 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Selective? You mean like avoiding the use of creationist sources in an article about evolution? At what point does balance become unbalanced? Does balance mean giving equal time to both sides, even when the other side is irrelevant? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are using climate scientists as unimpeachable sources in an article about an event that is notable chiefly because it casts doubt on the reliability of climate scientists. If your intent is to prove that this doubt is unjustified, then you need to find external sources. In any event this is irrelevant to the question at hand--even if they weren't under suspicion, the claim that they were hacked does not prove that that is the case. Your insistence on writing the article as though it were categorically true that a hack occurred is undisguised POV. If the relative strength of evidence for a hack and a leak were reversed, and someone edited the article to say "a leak occurred at CRU..." you would scream bloody murder. (Kind of like you do when I edit the article to be NPOV, except that you would be right.) The level of bias that you are injecting into this article without even (as far as I can tell) being aware of it, is unbelievable. Drolz (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We're using the Norfolk Constabulary, RealClimate and the University of East Anglia as reliable sources for the hacking. All three have made factual statements, not statements of opinion. There is no reason to doubt their veracity and, so far, absolutely no evidence to support the speculation about an accidental or unauthorized release by insiders.

Finally, please stop making ad hominem attacks and insinuations of bad faith. --TS 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The police said they are investigating a security breach. I've submitted this for commentary where I expect your POV will be very obvious to many. Drolz (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be useful to do a survey of reliable source wording? I know I've seen many that use words like hacking and theft without caveat, but I've seen other that take a more responsible attitude and caveat with alleged or other wording. My guess is that more sources take the easy route and just assume it was illegal, than those that are being more careful. It isn't clear to me what one would do if one had numbers. Obviously, 100% on either side is a clear discussion, but if 75% used no caveats, and 25% used a caveat, I would think we ought to err on the side of caution, until more proof comes out. If the consensus of this group is that anything over 50% would allow the stronger term, I'd say that thinking is flawed, but I wouldn't bother doing the survey.--SPhilbrickT 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The police are calling this "criminal offences" and they're reliable on this matter. Even if 98% of all press articles said "possible criminal offences" would it count for nothing that the police, who are pretty hot on this kind of nuance, said "criminal offences"? I think not. The press only report what they're told. The police can compel disclosure by force of law. --TS 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd just like to pick up on the UEA as a reliable source. UEA is not "climate scientists" - the university has many schools and faculties other than the CRU. It would be very strange if we did not treat the official statements of a UK university as reliable. And UEA as a whole is not really a party in this, CRU is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you view the UEA and the police as primary or secondary sources? Andjam (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not an issue, as the UEA's and the police's statements have been reported as fact by secondary sources. --TS 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael McKenna?

Does anyone else think that mentioning the views of Michael McKenna a redlink and some random lobbyist is unnecessary even if it was mentioned in the New York Times? How about we remove the McKenna quote, and put the Daily Telegraph and NYT part in the same paragraph? If we do want to take something from the NYT article, Lawrence Rothenberg unfortunately also a redlink but at least "an environmental politics expert at the University of Rochester" would probably be a better person to quote (in the expert section I guess). Rothenberg is also quote much more extensively in the NYT article then McKenna (who's only quoted twice). The best quote would probably be ""This will help confuse or muddle the debate in ways that the public then says, 'I don't really know, I'm not sure". There's also Joseph J. Romm but while some of his points are interesting they're not that directly related to the incident. Some may feel this removes any view from the other side, something I'm not unsympathetic too but if we do want to have something, can't we find a better example then some random lobbyist? Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing the entire "Miscellaneous media" section because it is prone to random additions like this. The media coverage itself, including opinions by paid lobbyists, shouldn't really become part of the story in an affair like this (unlike, say, events such as the George W. Bush military service controversy where the media coverage did become a highly significant part of the story.) --TS 10:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in the end, if it turns out this was planned to cause confusion and distrust before the Copenhagen summit, then the media coverage might be a major part. But we will probably have to wait before we know more about that.
—Apis (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

You forgot to mention that there are no reliable sources that support the alternative hypotheses - they're are only blog speculation. Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In your summary you have grossly mischaracterized the statement of the Norfolk Constabulary, which says they are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia." Both the UEA and RealClimate have categorically reported separate hacking incidents directly related to this issue, and as the site operators they have access to the logs. There is moreover no (zero, nada, zilch) evidence supporting speculation by some parties that there was an unintentional leak or a deliberate leak by an inside party. --TS 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This description is so misleading it's downright dishonest. You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any evidence (barring speculation) to the contrary. Equally, there's little evidence hacking occurred, though I'd bet any money this is what happened based purely on the intensity of the buzz -- insiders know more than has been published so far.

The police statement regarding hacking does not confirm an offense has taken place; they would in any case refer to 'alleged hacking' until any court proceedings were concluded.

On balance, I don't think referring to a hack as an established fact is completely fair at this point. Those who suspect hacking, as I do, shouldn't get too hung up about it. Time will tell -- maybe in the very near future the police will confirm an offense has taken place.Dduff442 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's plentiful evidence in the shape of the statements from the victims of the hackers. You can't simply ignore those. The people who own the servers are the only ones in a position to tell us what happened to those servers. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My familiarity with these issues is slight. I'd be wary of feeding paranoia by treating the antis more reasonable claims the same way as their wholly unreasonable ones. Having had my say, I'll leave the final decision to those better informed than I am.Dduff442 (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought a look at existing policy and guidelines might be useful, so I took a look and found Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (WP:N/CA). My intense dislike of the concept of "notability" aside, there are some useful criteria there. In particular, the following:

Notability of criminal acts

"Criminal act" includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority. For example, the disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.

We seem to be well within the criteria here, although we're really trying to settle a different question: whether we should refer to this as a crime. Because the police say they're investigating criminal offences we can refer to this as a criminal case. Should we at some point find a reliable source reporting evidence of an inside job or an accidental leak, we can add that reliable source under due weight, but meanwhile we're correct to refer to it as a hacking case. There is plenty of evidence in reliable sources to support this characterization. --TS 14:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think even if it is a leak, it is probably a crime, if nothing else, copyright infringement. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is a civil tort, not a criminal offence (with certain specific exceptions related to commercial pirating of music, etc). On the other hand, even if the person performing the unauthorized access were an insider, it might well still qualify as computer misuse. There may also be some relevant aspects of Data Protection law, but I haven't examined that yet. --TS 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Hack" seems to be most widely accepted because:

1. The term "hack" is ambiguous.
2. Computers were involved, so computer terms can be used.
3. Nobody other than the person who copied the files knows the techniques and motivations.

So until more is known about the method or motivation, ambiguous descriptions are being accepted. This may change due to investigation, or when someone's autobiography is published in 40 years. For the article, we either accept ambiguous phrasing, replace it with RS phrasing, or omit it. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has been in the computer and specifically IT business for more than 15 years, I can assure you that this is not a case of "hacking". Actual "hackers" (the correct term is actually "cracker" when someone has broken the law, but I won't insist upon getting that technical here,) get busted for their crimes on a routine basis. Anybody who hacked into the servers at the CRU would have had their IP address logged multiple times when they connected and copied the files, and regardless of where they copied them to, would have left a pretty clear trail that would have been traced, with apprehensions made and a media frenzy within days if not hours of the files becoming common knowledge. The fact that the files were deposited on a Russian server is meaningless: that's the first place anybody would deposit such contraband and the Russians will be no help in tracking IP addresses. It's the nature of the beast.

On the other hand, the files could be leaked from inside without leaving a meaningful record at all. People are always telling me that "my email was hacked, blah, blah," and "my account was hacked, blah, blah," and it ALWAYS turns out to be a situation of them copying or moving files to a place that they forget about (ie. they lost the files,) or somebody in their very own household or office messing around with their computer, or employees messing with the server. Not ONCE in 15 years have I ever seen a case of someone "hacking" into a server or machine past a firewall and copying or deleting files. It's just not that common.

The CRU is clearly using the term "hack" in the broadest sense to attempt to distract attention from the content of the files, and the crimes they themselves are implicated in committing. And crimes were committed here, if none other than blatantly attempting to conceal information in violation of multiple FOI requests. And now, I leave you with my IP address. 97.125.18.72 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, I highly resent anybody referring to "hacking" or "cracking" as "ambiguous terms."97.125.18.72 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You claim to have worked in IT yet you display a staggering ignorance of the use of proxy chains and tunneling to hide the origin of a session. Extraordinary. I'm not surprised that you have opted not to reveal your identity--your employer should ask for his money back! --TS 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, that's quite inappropriate. This is a page to discuss how to improve the article, not take cheap shots at editors trying to contribute.--SPhilbrickT 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I didn't mention ANY technical details, for the sake of brevity. First of all, tunneling doesn't hide anything, it merely allows code to be encapsulated in order to run through machines with a different architecture, and open proxies don't prevent the need for logging into a server to obtain its contents. Doesn't it strike you as at all curious that nobody has mentioned any of this in their conversations with the media? Finally, I'm highly sought after in this state across several counties, and being self-employed, there isn't anybody to fire me. If someone thinks I'm not doing a good enough job they don't rehire me. It's not a problem for me.

Sphilbrick, I agree, this shouldn't be about attacking the messenger. My point here is that it would be fairly easy for someone with full access to the CRU's servers to plug a thumb drive into any workstation and copy the FOI2009.zip file onto that, which seems to be what happened. After the files got into the wild, I have no doubt that Prof. Jones cried, "I've been hacked!" but an internal investigation probably very quickly determined that the files had been copied by one of the 4,000 or so other faculty and students who had access to that particular server. Time will tell.

In the end, this isn't a story about "illegal hacking," though many people seem to be attempting to make it into just such a story. This isn't a case of Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA agent before the general public, where the exposure was the whole story. This is a story about professional integrity in academia, or lack thereof, and its implications in international relations and government. As a "hacking story," this story just isn't notable enough to stand alone. 97.125.18.72 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you embarrassing yourself with all this bilge? This isn't about attacking the messenger, it's about questioning your self-declared and--from what you've written here--extremely patchy, professional knowledge. --TS 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are off-topic, and only serve to make you look petty. I'm trying to help make Wikipedia a more even-handed source for information here, and you are merely trying to create a distraction. Although I'm not surprised to see any individual take sides on this issue, it's sad to see Wikipedia as an institution taking sides. The heading of this section indicates that an editor requested comments, and I submitted some information from my experience dealing with customers for many years who claim to have been "hacked," and you are contributing nothing useful to this conversation. 97.125.30.93 (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing "e-mail" from the title

I think there is general agreement that not only e-mail was involved in this issue, but my previous suggestion got buried under other title discussions. I think we should remove email from the name of the article, and change the first line to match. Thoughts? (please, please, don't bring up hacking vs not hacking! get your own section) Ignignot (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed here.Dduff442 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier expression of agreement to the suggestion of changing it to something like "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." --TS 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd submit that the word "hacking" might even be presumptuous, as there is speculation it may have been leaked. "Climatic Research Unit data exposure" or something like that seems pretty neutral to me. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter for weight of reliable sources again. I have to admit that when I Google for this, I find something like 'CRU e-mail' usually gets me quickly into the right area. I think the media have, so far, focussed on the e-mails - it is what defines this incident in a great many reports. TS's proposal just sounds a little vague to me, putting all the emphasis on the hacking, and none on the subject of most media discussion. I propose we keep the existing title for the time being. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In deference to Ignignot's request, we should try and keep the hacking and email issues distinct.Dduff442 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with nixing the word "e-mail" if removing the reference to hacking as well is too controversial. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can stay with the current title too, as Nigelj's comment that "the media have, so far, focussed on the e-mails" has a lot of truth. It's not just the media: the expert commentaries have all focussed heavily on the emails. --TS 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one exception to that - many of the articles reference HARRY_READ_ME.txt Ignignot (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. So far I've only encountered the reference here, on Wikipedia, and I have read the document and am a programmer of some several decades experience, much of it with Fortran and much of it with the entire spectrum of languages from assembler to Lisp. If we're missing a commentary on that document from a reliable source, I've not been made aware of it--indeed most on-wiki references have been in the form of innuendo from people who, it seems to me, wouldn't know a Fortran program from a shellscript.

But if there are reliable sources, let's see them. --TS 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Harry, whoever he may be, comes off as the most sympathetic figure in the pilfered computer annals of East Anglia University, the British keeper of global temperature records. While Harry’s log shows him worrying about the integrity of the database, the climate scientists are e-mailing one another with strategies for blocking outsiders’ legal requests to see their data." NYT (not blog) He is explicitly talking about the text file. Ignignot (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone, and I mean everyone, is calling this climategate, and with the latest revelations proving that there are serious problems with the data[14] these events aren't going to fade into history. The article name is doing a lot of harm to wikipedia because it looks like a mouthpiece for those involved in the events rather than a NPOV encyclopaedia. What is more, the hack is clearly POV and clearly unsupported because it now looks increasingly likely the information was gathered internally and then released rather than "hacked". [15], so change it to whatever you like, because the neutrality of wikipedia will be judged by whether it is given the name everyone knows it by or the one the "climategate gang" would prefer it to be known by. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: the second link, I don't believe it's disputed the file (or a similar file that was maybe edited after compilation) was compiled within the CRU. CRU compiled the information for FOIA purposes -- that fact has no bearing on whether the affair resulted from an internal leak or the result of hacking, however.

With complex issues like this, progress becomes impossible if the different strands are permitted to run one into the other. It would help to try to make remarks in the most appropriate segment of the page.Dduff442 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Picking up on Tony's suggestion, and Gigs observation, what about "Climatic Research Unit data incident" ? (If specific charges are filed against hackers in the future, I'll go on record as supporting a change to Tony's suggestion.)--SPhilbrickT 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, one thig that wasn't hacked was the data, i.e. the climate data. So that just muddies the water, I think. (yes I know e-mails and source code and other docs are data too, it's just that the word already has an important meaning 'round here) --Nigelj (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think people will see data and assume it means temperature data? "Data" is a nice, neutral term, encompassing the emails, the programs, the Word docs and whatever else was in there. and I don't believe anyone think a reference to data means every scrap of data. Good grief, we have an enormously misleading title at the moment. Let's come up with an improvement. It was an incident, it did involve data, and it did happen at the CRU. People will not be mislead, as they are by the current title.--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion of "CRU data exposure" doesn't have that issue. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this suggestion does not have consensus, somehow. Ignignot (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for derailing it. I suggest that there may indeed be consensus to remove email from the title... after all, it's factually incorrect! Gigs (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Email preface

Why does the Emails section have a preface that is meant to color our perceptions of the scale of this incident? It clearly looks like AGW apologists are trying to downplay the incident in an obviously POV way. I vote to remove the entire preface and just say something totally NPOV like "Some of the noteworthy comments found in the are listed below" or words to that effect. The AGW activists here on Wikipedia are clearly trying to spin this incident their way and have thrown the NPOV rule right out the window. JettaMann (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems factual and neutral to me. The bulk of the released emails were indeed mundane and not very controversial. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, factual and accurate. Just like the description of the Debeeers diamond mines says, "vast majority of contents are mundane, worthless rocks". Oh wait, it isn't described that way. Factual, accurate, and enormously misleading. Absolutely right, this preface is pure spin. The right approach is to write it neutrally.--SPhilbrickT 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: How did you surmise that? Did you go through all 1000 emails? I have them downloaded on my computer and was looking through them, and pretty much every email had a few things that jumped out at me. The hackers didn't upload all the emails, they selectively took emails that were somewhat implicating. Not every one is a neutron bomb of a revelation, however, like the kind the media picked up on. Many talked about funding, conferences, etc... All interesting stuff and slightly damning in their own way. JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"How did you surmise that? Did you go through all 1000 emails?" That's what just about all reliable sources who have commented on the matter appear to have said. We can't "go through [them]" ourselves. That isn't our role. Well, of course we can, but we can't use that research in our article. See WP:NOR. Guettarda (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The other statements in the preface were also unreferenced, yet for some strange reason you don't seem to be objecting to them. ;) What we can do is link to some articles that contain the union set of quoted emails in order to determine how many have been heavily played in the media. Or perhaps there is an article that summarizes the statements that received multiple quotes in the media.JettaMann (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't do that. It's not acceptable, per policy. This isn't about not being referenced, it's about falling afoul of our core policies. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh what a shocker! Of course you think that we can't go reporting actual numbers in a NPOV manner. It comes as no surprise to me that you want every facet of this article to be contaminated with your AGW activist spin. Please do tell what "core policy" is being violated by NPOV reporting on the actual numbers?JettaMann (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell you? I already did. In my first comment. Up there. "See WP:NOR." Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you are a laugh riot! Original research? How in the hell is "There were xx emails stolen..." easily verifiable. I think 1000 is what most are reporting. And then follow up with quotes that have been most used. How do we determine which email quoes were used? Easy, we add at least three references to each significant quote. That is a FAR CRY from original research. You know, it's hilarious to me how you AGW activists let all kinds of crap slide if it supports your side, yet even the simplest most basic facts are rejected because you don't like the facts. Pathetic. JettaMann (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, read the policy. You'll see that it clearly excludes just the kind of thing you're proposing. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the entire section, it seems to be missing mention of the various emails which talk about how to hide from FOIA requests, and expressing a general concern about FOIA type requests. Including those would make the section more neutral, but the preface to it seems fine. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Gigs. You seem like you legitimately are interested in facts. I agree, that section misses out on many of the prominent quotes that were picked up by the media, so it looks like some of the AGW activists here are trying to suppress information. As for the preface to this section, I think what we could do is try to use less wiggle words like "vast majority" and "small number of emails". Instead, we should use specific words to summarize the contents of the emails, such as "There were xx emails. Of those, approximately xx of the emails received significant coverage in the media."JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source for those numbers? Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I haven't tried but it should be easy to identify the emails that get repeat play, and also identify an article that mentions the total number. JettaMann (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason I like to WP:NOR above. We need reliable sources. We can't go out and do our own research into "how many emails get repeat play". Seriously, it's important that you read that policy document. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not original research. See above.JettaMann (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Read the policy. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I did and there is no violation of it. Everything is referenced and factual, not a hint of original research.JettaMann (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I removed that on Monday because it was simply a cherry-picked quoted with no supporting context. A quote that is cherry-picked because it makes Jones look bad fails BLP. If it's in there, it need to be thoroughly discussed. It doesn't "speak for itself". Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be original research if we published counts of how often various quotes got mentioned in the media. But it isn't original research to base the coverage in the article on how much coverage each quote is getting. This is the thrust of our policy regarding undue weight; amount of article coverage should reflect the amount of coverage in the source materials.

As for the raw count of the number included in the release, I think FOI2009.zip could be considered a primary source, and could be cited for basic facts and statistics, the same way that we cite TV shows as primary sources of their own plot summaries. This would have to be done very carefully, however. We can easily say that there are 1073 files in the email directory in the leaked ZIP file, just by popping it open and looking, however because of quoted emails, incomplete conversations, etc, we can't say that there are 1073 emails without doing significant original research. Gigs (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't use FOI2009.zip as a source, so all that is moot. Sources must be referenced, and we cannot link to it for legal reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The first part of my comment is not moot either way, since it's about undue weight, not sourcing. Regarding the second part, I don't know of any requirement that we link to sources. Our external link guideline does indeed prohibit linking to copyright infringements, but there's nothing in our referencing guidelines about it. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't reference the CRU archive because it was never published. While the veracity of what was presented hasn't been challenged, nobody knows for certain whether it has been altered or not. It's a primary source (regardless of validity), but we work with secondary sources in any case. Dduff442 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) I cannot conceive of a way that you could refer to the content of the zip file as a primary source without referencing it directly. I am pretty sure you would need to discuss something like that with administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To Dduff, we do also reference primary sources for certain non-controversial facts. However your point about it never being published, and trouble ensuring integrity is relevant and a point well taken. I think it would be best to avoid citing it as a source, as you are correct that we should primarily rely on secondary sources. ;) To scjessey, it's community consensus that determines such things, not administrators, but I accept Dduff's arguments against citing it, he makes some good points about why it would be a bad idea. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We can link to the Palin emails on Wikileaks in Sarah Palin email hack, so why not link to Wikileaks - Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 in this article? -- SEWilco (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice. It's OK to cherry pick a single sentence out of a single article, but we can't use the word 'controversy' in the article title even though it's supported by dozens of reliable sources. [16] [17]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Timothy F. Ball

Tim Ball

Tim Ball

Organisations: Friends_of_Science and Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project

Friends of Science

From: Friends_of_Science

Friends of Science claims that they do not receive any direct funding from petroleum or related companies although the now retired CEO of Talisman provided initial funding for the video. Proponents of anthropogenic climate warming have criticized the Friends of Science as an Astroturfing organization[4][5] with close links to the oil and gas industry.[6] Their funding sources are unclear; Canadian Member of Parliament (MP) John Godfrey, a Liberal who represented the Toronto riding of Don Valley West, had said in 2006, "Financial links between the petroleum industry and climate change skeptic groups in the United States are well documented... We need more transparency about who is behind this campaign in Canada."[7] The Friends of Science say their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from “big oil”.

Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project

From Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project

The NRSP has been criticised on the basis that it is an industry-funded body which presents itself as a grassroots organization, an activity referred as Astroturfing.[1] [2] Harris rejected this criticism but refused to reveal the sources of NRSP funding.

Conclusion

This is why I wanted to establish a precedent with Myron Ebell. Ball *does* have some notability in the climate science field (see his wiki page) but he's a murky and dubious source. Dduff442 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: Why does it matter where the funding comes from? If they have the credentials (which Dr. Tim Ball does) then their funding source is irrelevant. You AGW activists just want to use scientists belonging to various government science organizations such as the UN because they (surprise!) support more funding for more research grants into this AGW doomsday premise.JettaMann (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop referring to fellow editors as "AGW activists" immediately. Assume good faith and learn some civility, or you will almost certainly be blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't refer to fellow editors as AGW activists, only those who are AGW activists.JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How classy of you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue was covered in detail in the case of Myron Ebell. The relevant policy relates to information suppression: "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value" violates NPOV. Dduff442 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen on Climategate would be a great addition to the Reactions section of this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

He has impeccable credentials from MIT. Is everyone in agreement on this, or are we going to violate Wikipedia standards some more and continue this gate-keeping practice of only allowing "reactions" from people who already supported AGW?JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fringe scientist covered by Murdoch Street Journal. Nope. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Oh my, how shocking that yet another AGW activist only wants to see sources quoted from other AGW supporters. Color me surprised! Tell me, what is this magical formula that allows someone to be quoted in this article? You keep saying they need to be scientists, yet these two men are clearly climate scientists. But on the other hand, lots of non-scientists are quoted so long as they support AGW. Funny how that works, isn't it? You are clearly violating Wikipedia's rule of Gatekeeping an article. Stop it or I will report you and you will face penalties from Wikipedia admins.JettaMann (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The "magical formula" is easy to understand. Ask me if it is okay. If I say no, it isn't. If you cannot get hold of me, ask one of my fellow leftist cabal members.</sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Saudi negotiator

I've removed the following qualification from a citation of the opinion of the Saudi negotiator: "who has demanded that wealthy nations pay compensation to oil producers if oil consumption is cut to combat global warming".

Mohammad Al-Sabban's main qualification on this issue is that he been chosen to represent his country at Copenhagen. His statements may well reflect his personal opinion, but on this matter he is stating a political position that can be attributed to his country. --TS 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's stating a country's position, shouldn't your edit have changed "who" to "which", so as to refer to the country rather than the speaker? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions here are completely unjustified

I consider this CRU-gate article to be waaay below Wikipedia standards - much more biased than even the most biased articles I've come across! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.244.43 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What has happened to Wikipedia? It never used to be like this. 76.111.71.133 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A few million people started watching our every move. Gigs (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And in this particular case we got an influx of people who think that Glenn Beck is a scientific authority. Words fail me. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A subset of articles are always like this, and attract a lot of comments and edits by people who don't mind making POV edits, or don't realize their edits are POV. I like to think that it balances out because other people are drawn to the conflict and enjoy the resolution, although this looks like a particularly tough topic. We'll tame it eventually. Ignignot (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, your comment implies that only scientific authorities are acceptable as sources. That wouldn't be true even if this were purely about the science. This article is tangentially about the science, it is more about process and politics. I am not arguing that Glenn Beck's opinions deserve to be included, but your rationale is flawed.--SPhilbrickT 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is very much about the science. With very few exceptions, the e-mails cited in the controversy are all about scientific issues - the "Nature trick" (which is a scientific method), "hide the decline" (which relates to a method of measuring temperatures by proxies), Climate Research (which relates to a peer-review scandal at a scientific journal), the quality (or lack thereof) of "the other paper by MM", the "travesty" of not being able to "account for the lack of warming at the moment" (which relates to inadequacies in monitoring systems). All of these issues are being spun in a particular way by lobbyists and anti-science activists and commentators. I'm certainly not saying that "only scientific authorities are acceptable as sources", but the fact is that scientific authorities are inherently more reliable than non-scientific sources on such questions, simply because of the disparity in expertise. The media are notorious for getting science wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something. What editing restrictions apply to this article that don't apply across the entire encyclopedia? --TS 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is under semiprotection. Ignignot (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that all the IP editor meant? Maybe he hasn't heard of scibaby. --TS 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously protected so that about five hardcore AGW activists will have completely control over it. Drolz (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who has registered an account between 2001 and early December, 2009 can edit the article. The semiprotection keeps out the banned trolls at the expense of requiring new editors to wait a few days. --TS 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And how could a few, unrelated editors wield such power over all the others? Ooooh, because we have all the WP policies on our side. It's not a conspiracy; it's not a matter of opinion; just up above we were begging JettaMann to try to find WP:RSs to back up his claims. If you edit by WP policy, your edits will stick. If you want to add biased, baseless, bonkers tosh, it will be immediately deleted, Shimples. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's called a WP:CABAL. There are only a handful of active editors here who are actually trying to follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you by any chance citing that famous climatologist Professor Meer Kat? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the last time I came by this page it wasn't just semi-protected. It was locked completely. I was logged in, but locked out of editing. I didn't note the day, but it was about a week after the scandal broke online; which matches the OP's post. I frankly was appalled that established editors were locked out. It looked really bad. That's the opposite of what made Wikipedia great: openness. Greenbough (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignignot, the editors who control this article are happy to cite WP:NPOV when it comes to material they believe backs their point of view, but are the first to toss it out the window when it comes to their own edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. Guys like ChrisO and Guererra (misspelled probably) are nothing but AGW activists.JettaMann (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous citations and readability

Here's what part of the lead section looks like now:

Blah blah blah lorem ipsum [10][11][12][13] and blah blah blah again [1][10][14][11][15]

(I've modified the words slightly to enable us to focus on a non-verbal issue)

The problem here is that we're massively overciting parts of the lead section, and there's no need for that. More to the point, we're making the lead section of the article harder to follow.

Could we reach an agreement that no more than, say, two citations are required for any fact? If we have just one reliable source, surely that would be enough, but two is okay. --TS 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically if the WP:LEDE section is simply a summary of the article as it should be, there's limited need for citations anyway. Try taking a peek at some random FA and see for example Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, "citationitis" is an indication that there is stuff in the lede that probably shouldn't be in there. Reading it through again, it seems a wee bit too detailed and specific in some areas. Perhaps we might be able to simplify the lede a little bit more so that we can cut down on the number of cited references? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out one source that pre-dated the incident by months and didn't belong in the article in the first place. I'd suggest that we look at the sources and see if they really need to be cited or if they are just redundant. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I like ScJessey's idea.

Suggested rewrite:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is a data breach at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia which has resulted in much public debate, criminal investigations related to the breach and to death threats received by some writers of the released documents, and to investigations of alleged scientific misconduct.

How's that? Captures the facts in a way that is hard to argue with. --TS 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't say that the incident "resulted in" death threats against the scientists. You have no basis for the claim that they would not have happened anyway. Drolz (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can, since the threatened scientists were those named in the e-mails, the threats followed the publication of the e-mails, and the cited sources draw a direct link. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is blatant original research. You are synthesizing a report that death threats mentioned the scientists into a totally original claim that there is a direct causal link between the two events. Drolz (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote: "the cited sources draw a direct link." That's not OR. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, Climategate needs to be included in the lead, if for no other reason than that people know what this article is about. Drolz (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good Tony, though I think it might be useful to mention "climategate" somewhere. Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reject It appears to be yet another attempt to bypass WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Barebones summary of the two primary issues without including any POV or slant.

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ("Climategate") is a controversy surrounding computer files stolen from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Debate over allegations that the files show evidence of scientific misconduct, and criminal investigation of the security breach are ongoing. Drolz (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some mention of the blowback against deniers is in order, IMO. The reaction to the attack on science has been marked as well. The event has caused some to speak of an orchestrated campaign against climate scientists or words to that effect. Agree about the clutter of cites.Dduff442 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is covered in "Debate over allegations." The sentence takes no position on whether allegations are correct, and it's not necessary to go into specifics in the lead. Drolz (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ("Climategate") is a controversy surrounding computer files stolen from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Debate provoked by allegations that the files show evidence of scientific misconduct, and criminal investigation of the security breach are ongoing.

That makes it so that the debate isn't just about the truth of the allegations, but other ensuing complications. Drolz (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel quite strongly that the perception of an attack on science belongs in the lede. If my PC was hacked, the police wouldn't launch a major investigation -- their interest in the CRU case is precisely because of the significance of CRU's research. The alleged attack on science is of great significance; see the Monbiot article linked to on this page for the claims of an orchestrated campaign. The hacking merely extends the front lines in a war that's been going on for years. Dduff442 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"criminal investigation of the security breach" is more than sufficient for the time being, especially considering that there is no evidence that the death threats are part of a coordinated attack "on science." The death threats are already tangential to the thrust of the controversy. If they are included in the lead then the opposing claim that corrupt science has been going on for years etc. has just as much right to be there. It's better that in the quick summary, neither of them are. Drolz (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion veered off the original topic, but in any case as discussed I've gone ahead and trimmed the massively redundant use of citation from the lead section. I hope that makes it easier to read. We do need to improve the content of the lead, though. --TS 08:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it went "off topic," unless by "off topic," you mean "proposed an alternative to the sentence I would like to use." Drolz (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You've misunderstood my words. I myself was one of those instrumental in driving the topic away from the original subject of superfluous citations in the lead. I've no complaints about the discussion that followed, just providing an explanation for anybody wondering why I pop in the middle of it to make an apparently unrelated comment. --TS 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion of a quote by Raymond Pierrehumbert

In the Reactions sections some quotes are clearly out of place. In particular, look at this quote:

One of the IPCC's lead authors, Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago, expressed concern at the precedent established by the hack: "[T]his is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth ... this illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist (and I don't think that's too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models? Or at the next level, since the forces of darkness have moved to illegal operations, will we all have to get bodyguards to do climate science?"[61]

Now, Raymond Pierrehumbert is supposedly an expert in climatology. His statement, however, does not have anything to do with the climatology, or any science. It appears that there is not a single scientific argument in it, just raw emotion. Raymond also does not have any practical connection to the incident; his name is mentioned in the emails just twice. I am planning to delete the paragraph unless there are arguments on why Raymond is an RS on the subject of computer and physical security. Dimawik (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

His comments aren't about computer and physical security per se. I do agree that some of his remarks are a bit over the top, but we paint what we see. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris, didn't you object to "over the top" statements by skeptics? It seems that if a person is skeptic, a single over-the-top opinion disqualifies the person, not just the statement. All I want is a level playing field and no loony alarmist quotes in Wikipedia. Dimawik (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?" is not about computer security? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Only secondarily - his concern is with future technical attacks on climate researchers. Considering how technology-dependent they are, you can understand why they would be concerned about attempts to sabotage their computers. The examples he gives are rhetorical, the gist of his argument is about the general threat rather than the means. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

his concern is with future technical attacks - yes, precisely due to his theorizing about things that have not yet happened in the field he knows nothing about he should not be quoted. Dimawik (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is rather akin to stating that we require all remarks on shooting deaths to be made by ballistics experts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, police is usually quoted as a source of shooting reports. Second, Raymond is not even reporting on anything, he is just speculating about the future in the field he is not an expert in. Third, didn't someone just argue that for the quotes in climatology admitted into this article the author has to be an expert in the field? Once again, this is a pure speculation coming from a non-expert; shall be deleted. Dimawik (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's not speaking of computer and physical security: he's expressing his concern about escalating harassment of climate scientists. Since we've already seen death threats and "torrents" of threatening and abusive e-mails sent to climate scientists around the world, it's hardly a theoretical concern. He is quite clearly competent to speak of an issue affecting his profession. The quote is therefore highly relevant and to the point. (And re Boris's remarks, we've already seen terrorism directed against scientists in other professions, particularly medical research, so it's not much of a leap of imagination to see future physical threats to climate scientists.) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Raymond's comments are exclusively about the security. He does not discuss either emails or data on merits. He is not a professional in the security field, so his words about the security should not be quoted in the article. Adequate quote on the need of bodyguards shall come from the police (I do not expect this, BTW), not a spooked scientist. Dimawik (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-read his comments. He is a leading member of a profession which sees itself as under attack from radical extremists. He says that he sees the attack on the CRU as "a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth". He expresses his concern about this - "ominous and frightening". He goes on to give rhetorical examples of the kind of threats that he fears. It is all relevant to how climate scientists are interpreting the incident. He does not pretend to be a security professional; he's speaking as a member of a group which sees itself under threat. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The quotes you've isolated are brief and punchy. They isolate what make these remarks stand out in the torrent of info on this issue. The quote as it stands in the article, OTOH, comes across as hysterical, is wordy, and strays into speculation. Maybe we can achieve consensus on "a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth" and "ominous and frightening"? Dduff442 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Raymond in this quote gives rhetorical examples of actions that did not yet happen in the field he does not understand. His emails were not leaked, so he is not "victimized" either. His quote does not belong in the article. Dimawik (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's one of the victims of the crime who's concerned about further victimisation, concerns about how this stuff will affect his life and work. Very relevant. Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is he a victim? If you accept that any emotional statement from a person who have been mentioned few times in emails automatically qualifies him/her as a "victim" and allow quoting him for the article regardless of other merits, a lot of skeptics will qualify as "victims" :-) Dimawik (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It really is a very long quote. A bit hysterical also, IMO. As with Monckton, I think his comments do as much for his opponents as his own side. Some modest editing would help credibility. I would hang on to his comments about pressure on scientists if I had to choose.

It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth ... is pithy and punchy. Less is more, guys!Dduff442 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion died down with none of my points refuted. Going to delete. Dimawik (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete. His views on the effect on the practice of science are relevant, whatever about the rest. I'd support a major slimming down of the quote, but not deletion.Dduff442 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you also happen to think that being a scientist requires a bodyguard - and all of this due to the leak of someone else's emails? To me this quote is an incoherent rambling. Dimawik (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's coherent, just speculative and a little bit hysterical. I've trimmed it down for brevity. Dduff442 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And I've restored it. What you think of the quote has no bearing on its relevance, and it is entirely appropriate for this article. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There *was* consensus to trim down the quote once participants in the conversation had dwindled to myself and Dimawik. As Dimawik wanted to delete, I compromised by trimming it down. Do you really feel you should revert just because you can? The article is getting bloated; my only interest was in punch and brevity.

What I think of the quote goes towards establishing consensus. Dismissing others opinions is really just pointlessly irritating.

Why proceed robotically, auto-reverting perceived hostile edits? If you wrote the entire article yourself, do you think you'd find space for that entire quotation? Dduff442 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PS did you even read the last half dozen comments before posting? Pay attention if you're going to edit.Dduff442 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no valid reason to trim down or delete one of the most relevant quotes to the article. Please present a single valid argument for doing so. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Viriditas, Let me recollect:

1. Raymond is a supposed expert in climatology, nobody claims him to be an expert in security
2. The quote contains no statements about the climatology, it is 100% comment on computer and physical security. Therefore, the supposed expertise of Raymond is not applicable
3. Raymond discusses the events that did yet not happen in the field he does not know. This is pure speculation
4. Raymond is practically unrelated to the incident. None of the emails leaked were written by him; his last name is mentioned in the emails just twice
5. His statements contain highly emotional wording ("forces of darkness"), and truly ridiculous suggestions ("will we all have to get bodyguards to do climate science").

With these facts in hand, please tell me what makes you to say the quote is relevant? Dimawik (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dduff442, relevant but slightly "over-the-top" if quoted in full. Also I see it good to limit the lenght of quotes in general, when possible. --J. Sketter (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is best practice is the exact opposite. Whenever possible, we quote in full context with as much detail as we can. This is because of editors who selectively quote to push POV. If a quote is simply too long to quote inline, our alternatives involve using a pull quote or a footnote. Selectively quoting is always discouraged, especially in controversial articles. It should also be obvious that what we consider "over-the-top" has no bearing on quoting. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, as-is, the quote is a hysterical speculation on events related to computer and physical security that did not yet happen written by a non-professional in the security field who is practically unrelated to the incident itself. Try to disprove at least part of this description. I agree that the quote shall not be trimmed; it shall be deleted as a whole. Dimawik (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was to strike a compromise between Dimawik's declared intent to delete and the prior consensus existing before the other eds dropped out of the conversation. The number of participants had dropped to two and consensus had been achieved before this revert without prior comment or argument. This kind of effort to 'do some good' is killing the integrity of the editorial process on Wikipedia.Dduff442 (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, discussion has died down with no arguments on why the quote (or its author) is relevant to this article. Going to delete. Dimawik (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote seems relevant, because in effect a prominent member of the scientific community is saying "the important part about all this is the criminal act!" And the fact he thinks that is the most important part seems important and relevant.

- No signature above -

Once again (please read the discussion above!), Raymond is a climatologist. He is not a policeman, a prosecutor, or a security / computer crime expert. If he were talking about the hockey stick graph, his words could be considered. Here, however, he is speculating about the hypothetical events (that might happen, in his opinion) way outside of his field of expertise. In other words, his words are completely irrelevant and will be deleted. You need to provide at least some explanation as to why his opinions on the computer security and physical protection of the scientists are more relevant than opinions offered by random people on the street. Dimawik (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your points have been refuted and you do not have any consensus to delete. You're just in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode, which is why people aren't bothering to respond - it's because you give the strong impression that you have nothing worthwhile to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, my points have been listed (and even numbered 1 to 5) above. Would you mind to point to any refutation of these in this discussion? I think you are the one not hearing the arguments. Dimawik (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the quote in the context of the article, it seems out of place. Dimawik's points seem strong to me. The only reason the scientist has credibility for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry is as an expert of climate. He's not speaking to that issue here. MarkNau (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's a scientist and is speaking of the emotional impact this hacking has had on himself and his colleagues. That's a very big part of the story. There are serious death threats. --TS 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats are a tertiary issue. The section that quote was being included in deals properly with climate reactions to the meaning of the data uncovered. An emotional reaction to threats has no place. MarkNau (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall any reports on death threats to Raymond reported anywhere. It seems that Raymond is simply speculating on potential problems way out of his area of competence. He is within his rights to do so, of course, but why do some editors feel the need to put his ramblings into encyclopedia? Dimawik (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pew Center analysis

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.

---

Pew Center analysis rejected on the grounds that it relies heavily on Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia depends on reliable independent references.

---

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has issued a detailed analysis of the stolen e-mails: [18] This might be worth mining as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but note that Pew's writeup draws very heavily on our own Scientific opinion on climate change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. But it is properly attributed (see last page). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It points out the reach of Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So, finally, a full circle. Wikipedia will quote Wikipedia under a guise of an RS? Dimawik (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's long been recognized a potential problem. See WP:CIRCULAR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 10 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.

A Reasonable Person looking at this article to find out what climategate meant could conclude:

I. It is largely notable because of criminal hacking.

The first section in the article mentions nothing about the document contents. It includes superfluous detail about what countries various IPs originated from, etc. The impression is that everyone is up in arms about some conspiracy of hackers.

II. It secondly notable because of the death threats against scientists that were apparently directly caused by the hack. As in, because of these hackers, the lives of scientists are now in danger.

It's very easy to read this as though the investigation into the hackers and the death threats are one and the same.

Not only death threats, but "abusive emails are mentioned."

III. The files themselves are largely innocuous. Those that aren't have been authoritatively explained. This is "over."

Jones: Skeptics made a vague allegation of manipulation, which is not explained, nor is anyone quoted. There are then four quotes attacking the unquoted skeptics. You might as well just remove the allegations entirely, and leave in the rebuttals.

Mann: Quote of the email followed by explanations. No opposing viewpoints.

Jones: Same.

Trenberth: Same.

Looking at this section, it is impossible to guess at where the controversy came from in the first place. Why have people been going on about "Climategate" if the whole thing was over four emails that were apparently immediately explained, and that no "skeptics" ever bothered to respond to?

IV. Calls for inquiry: One short paragraph of a couple such calls followed by five times as much space spent dismissing the need for inquiries. When anyone says something that could be construed as supporting one, there is a tidal wave of qualification.

V. Massive, unreadable section on climate scientists.

This article is structured in a way that makes it impossible to understand what the controversy is about. It needs to be broken up into "Skeptics say" and "AGW People say" sections so that people can get an idea of what the positions are. It's not important that any of you agree with these positions, because this isn't an article about the truth of global warming, it's about a public debate. The way it's covered now is like if you described a presidential debate and used bullet points for one candidate, while quoting the other in full, and supporting him with outside sources as well.

Once the whole thing is settled, and people stop going back and forth on it, some sort of crystallization will probably be possible, but that is totally premature at this point. Drolz (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The files themselves are largely innocuous" - That appears to be the case. I don't recall seeing any reliable sources that argue otherwise .
• "It needs to be broken up into "Skeptics say" and "AGW People say" sections" - no, it most certainly does not need to be broken up like that. We are supposed to avoid that style of writing as much as possible. Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't recall seeing any reliable sources that argue otherwise" - Then you haven't even looked into it... regardless of the many HIGHLY incriminating email-s, there's also been a lot of buzz about the temperature modifying source code for some of the models that CRU had been using. Without citing over 100 sources, I'll just let you make your pick from the vast array that Google provides when searching "Cimategate code". -MrGuy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.22.16 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably want to read (or reread) our verifiability policy and its related reliable sources guideline. One reason why Wikipedia makes the internet not suck is that, unlike Google, it carefully assesses sources by reliability. --TS 08:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen much discussion of the code in reliable sources. I suspect it's probably too technical for the mainstream media to have much interest in it. It seems to have excited bloggers but not made much of an impact elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

To the neutral editors

We have three groups of editors here. One group wants to maximize the damage of this controversy as much as possible. The second group wants to minimize it as much as possible. The third group just wants to write a good article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. We've been able to deal with the first group though various forms of blocking. However, we have not be able to address the issue of the second group. Thus far, repeated reminders about policy (particularly WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE) have not worked. What can we do to address the issue of this second group? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for a neutrality check, in the hope of getting some fresh perspective. I'm pretty new to editing though and I've no idea how well that tends to work. I would very much like to see this article be a description of an ongoing debate rather than an explanation of why one side has already won that debate. Drolz (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "minimizers" rely on wikipedia policies whenever they mildly support their position, and every time they do not, they fall back on "consensus." Apparently, because there is no "consensus" for changing the page to an NPOV form, it must be left in its POV form? Drolz (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately I think the article somewhat dances around the central issue at this point. If you ignore the right-wing pundits and the true believers' screaming, at least. The credibility of a few of the foremost climate scientists has been damaged. Not by the revelation of some wide scale data doctoring as the right claims, but by the revelation of the extent that they were willing to go to to try to avoid their legal obligations under freedom of information laws. The real implications this will have going forward will mostly have to do with transparency and ethics in science more than anything else. Many of our sources support this analysis of the events, and I think we should make sure to give that particular issue due weight. Gigs (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone just removed the Jones email about avoiding FOIA, apparently because his own words are not in keeping with BLP standards. Am I the only one who has noticed that when "consensus" is discussed, it's always that there is no consensus for including things that reflect poorly on CRU, and for excluding things that reflect positively on it? Drolz (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a legitimate concern. I'll take a look at the edit, but it's not a WP:BLP violation if cited to a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, there are only two groups. One group wants to prove that science is a hoax while the other group wants the story to be reported accurately. There is no third group. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a False dichotomy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dear FD, I think you are getting a bit personal here. Very few (none?) of your opponents think that the science is hoax. Arguing that the current state of the climatology requires some serious fixing is not the same as disregarding the science in general and even climatology in particular. Most of your opponents are scientists, in fact. Dimawik (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To Drolz: Please try to assume good faith. While I agree with your sentiment, these sorts of accusations aren't helping build any real consensus, it's just polarizing people further. Anyway toward the end of including more coverage of the FOIA avoidance issue, here is a potential source: [19] "When you have a bunch of scientists going out of their way to prevent Freedom of Information Act requests to get source documents you get people hiding something," Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) Whether these accusations are baseless or not isn't really relevant, there's plenty of them flying, and plenty of coverage of them. Gigs (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it's possible to attain any semblance of balance while the article remains protected. If people who were just dropping by could edit it, there would be a lot more reference to the actual debate etc. As it stands now, about five extremely committed people have complete control over the article, and aren't afraid to threaten anyone who disagrees with blocking. Drolz (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I really can't see why I should assume good faith when the same three people have threatened to get be blocked repeatedly, each time that I add something that is not in keeping with the article's current POV slant. Drolz (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took a look at the edit.[20] It's cited to the article, A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? by The New Zealand Herald. The New Zealand Herald is a reliable source so it's not a WP:BLP violation. It should be restored. But we should probably also add a couple more sources to be on the safe side. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more reliable sources we can use for this content: U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap (Update4) A global debate heats up A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think a good first step would be simply removing all explanation and construal from the emails section. It is currently a press release about why we shouldn't read the emails. Either make the emails section nothing but the plain text, or make it plain text + accusation, and then follow that section with a rebuttal section. I think the second idea is better because it gives a clear understanding of who is saying what, and why "Climatgate" is a word people are using. Drolz (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article needs more deletion than addition at this point. Drolz (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting the hand-picked quotes out there by themselves would violate NPOV more than the article does now. The quotes are by nature biased... they are the worst things out of a domain of thousands of emails. I support adding back the quote that Quest for Knowledge just mentioned, but it needs to have commentary along with it about what people are saying about it. Gigs (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The controversy surrounds particular emails; it is not based on the claim that a certain % of scientific emails show malfeasance, and the fact that many more emails do not reveal malfeasance has no bearing on the current controversy. Drolz (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We should provide context. In determining content, the main question we should be asking ourselves is, "What do reliable sources say about the matter?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, nobody proposed to "hand-pick" quotes. We will use quotes already picked up by the RSs. Dimawik (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the relevant context that X number of emails and documents leaked, and Y number of them indicate malfeasance? Drolz (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to block some of the more overt AGW activists like Guettarda and ChrisO? They are as bad as the first group you mentioned and deserve similar treatment. I've been very happyu with editors like A Quest for Knowledge and Gigs. Both seem to be on a genuine search for truth and I wish we could rely on them to settle disagreements. JettaMann (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of WP:AGF is that based on, JettaMann? The WP:NPA part? Assume good faith, and discuss improving the article content, not the other editors. --Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't rule out improving the other editors. --TS 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotation issue

As Gigs rightly points out, the statement is damaging to Jones' credibility. And that's the problem, that's why this is a WP:BLP issue. There's an implications of wrongdoing. But implications aren't good enough. We need sources that discuss the significance of the statement, and we need to present what these sources say in a balanced, NPOV fashion.

At the heart of BLP is "do no harm". This quote harms Jones, deservedly or undeservedly. The less context there is, the more harm, since people will assume the worst. For example, if people assume he followed through with the threat (as many will) we will do Jones undeserved harm. Which violates the BLP policy. We don't present "the facts" and "let people make their own conclusons" - we report what reliable sources have to say about notable issues. As policy requires that we do. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, well here are three reliable sources we can use to cite this material: A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap (Update4) A global debate heats up A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the actual WP:BLP page and it clearly supports the inclusion of this quote.

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

The only relevant question is whether or not there is WP:RS for the claim that the quotation is accurate. The fact that people may draw negative conclusions from the quote is not relevant. "Do no harm" is quite obviously not the heart of BLP; the heart is "We must get the article right," as the page itself says. Since this quotation is unquestionably accurate, and there are reliable sources backing the allegation against him, the inclusion is warranted. Not including it is blatant POV. Drolz (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No inclusion is the default position; it is not POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz, do take care to read the whole policy and get the general sense of it. Wikipedia policies are not legal documents - you cannot cherry-pick a couple lines and use them to argue against the core aim of the policy. Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the whole article and as I said, nothing in it recommends against the inclusion of this piece. I think it's about time that instead of just spamming the talk page with WP:BLP WP:NPOV etc., you and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes et al. you don't want included in this article. Drolz (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you read the policy and still think that we can include cherry-picked material that is damaging to the subject, simply because we can reliably source it? Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"[Y]ou and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes". I already did that. In this section. It has a 3:07 time stamp on it. Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean explain why it violates your made up summary of the BLP page, or your unsupported claims that we do an don't do certain things. Secondly, if Jones wrote the email, and someone else took him at his word, how is anything that results "undeserved?" And how is "undeserved harm" a violation of BLP again? Stop making stuff up and find something in the actual policy to support your claims. Drolz (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Guettarda is upholding policy, and you are the one making stuff up. Perhaps if you weren't a SPA focused solely on promoting one side of the issue, you might have some credibility. You could always turn over a new leaf. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• [I]f Jones wrote the email, and someone else took him at his word, how is anything that results "undeserved?" Well, a lot of people have used that email to conclude that Jones deleted the files in question. The truth is that the files were not deleted. Simply presented, without context of discussion, some of our readers will leave with the impression that Jones deleted the files. Similarly, there's a question of why he did not want the files released. Most people will read that and conclude he had something to hide. But if you read more of the background and context, it's likely that he didn't have the right to release the files, since he didn't own the data and wasn't permitted to release it. We can't present information that improperly smears a person. And if the information properly smears a person, we need to make sure that (a) we have a reliable source to support that meaning, and (b) we need to determine that the information is really necessary in the article. That's what's expected of us.
• [H]ow is "undeserved harm" a violation of BLP again? Thought you said you read the policy. If you had, you'd know the answer to that question. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The only mention of 'harm,' deserved or otherwise in the BLP page is:

The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

That emphatically does not mean the potential to do harm prevents inclusion. The article says nothing about information being misconstrued by a reader--its overwhelming thrust is libel, which this clearly is not. Again, find actual support for your claim. Drolz (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The only mention of 'harm,' deserved or otherwise in the BLP page is - As I said to you before, you can't read Wikipedia policy as if it were a legal document. You most certainly shouldn't search the page for a keyword unless you know exactly what you're searching for. Now go back and read it. If you read that page and think it's no big deal to harm a person's reputation...then you really missed the point.
• its overwhelming thrust is libel - no, it isn't. Our standards are considerably higher than that. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is such a cowardly argument. You are telling me that there are no specific guidelines controlling this issue, but just looking at the article with some sort of wholistic view will inevitably support your position. If the standards are higher then libel, why did they specifically mention libel and not the highest standard? Why would you enumerate a lower standard but not the highest one? Moreover, since "undeserved harm" is such a simple concept, why would it not be included if it was disallowed? Find textual support of any kind before posting again. Drolz (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are telling me that there are no specific guidelines controlling this issue - Nope, never said anything of the sort.
• [B]ut just looking at the article with some sort of wholistic [sic] view will inevitably support your position - Nope, nothing so simple. Policy is complicated, and policy pages are not legal documents that can be interpreted out of context. You could listen to the advice given to you by established editors (Viriditis and I have over 10.5 years experience here between us), you could ask questions at the various noticeboards...but instead you have chosen to insist that you know more than people who've been dealing with this policy (not always happily) as long as it's been in existence.
• If the standards are higher then libel, why did they specifically mention libel and not the highest standard? Libel is mentioned, because it's a legal standard that you must steer clear of. But the policy doesn't simply say "don't libel people" - it spends time discussing all sorts of other issues. Which you would realise if you read it as a whole.
• [S]ince "undeserved harm" is such a simple concept, why would it not be included if it was disallowed? Um, that's what the policy is about. Not causing undeserved harm to people's reputations. That's what the whole "getting it right" is about. That's why it says that you should consider the possibility of doing harm? Just for the fun of it? No - because you should avoid it. That's why it says that "[m]aterial that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". "Special care" doesn't mean "special care to harm their reputation", it means "special care to avoid harming their reputation". That's why the Foundation statement talks about things like human dignity. That's why it references Jimbo's statement that "[z]ero information is preferred to misleading or false information".
• Find textual support of any kind before posting again. - Oh, how precious. Guettarda (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing issues and methods

Thank you for that post, Quest. I believe I have tried to improve the article in a NPOV, just-the-facts-ma'am way, but I feel completely outnumbered.

On one side there are the folks, seemingly new editors, who insert large poorly sourced sections or paragraphs that reflect badly on the CRU folks. In response, the "this looks bad" side rely on rules lawyering and outright deletion to remove anything they don't like. If this second group were truly interested in improving the article, they would try to improve the poorly sourced &/or poorly written insertions instead of completely deleting them with a blurbish edit summary.

Who's with us? Who can work with Quest and me to improve this article and make it an example of how Wikipedia should work? Quest has some good sources. How about if I put together an NPOV list of material that cries out for inclusion? Madman (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably won't help because they will say that there is no "consensus" for the inclusion of these sources, and then spam revert you while threatening to get you blocked. Drolz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Madman, a list sounds like a good idea. If you could put it in wikitable with columns for "pro" and "con" (or for and against), that would enable editors to comment directly on it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Can you give the Cliff's Notes version for those of us who have gotten sick to death of this whole thing and haven't been following closely? Also note that declaring oneself as "neutral" and others as biased can arouse skepticism -- more at meta:MPOV. (Not saying this necessarily applies to you; just that the perspective is a common one.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cliff Notes version can be found in my summary of events above. I'm not trying to be sassy, but I'm unsure what areas you're unclear on.

You can check my edits on the Main page and my Talk pages. I've been wanting to streamline the article and remove a lot of the WP:weasel words and I do think that more emails should be quoted, so some folks would think I am therefore in the sceptic camp. I am, rather, trying to build a better article so that anyone who links in from Google news will be impressed.

Check out my mediation work here. Madman (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would settle for them being able to get some vague sense of what this CRU press release of an article was written in response to. Drolz (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have an alternate theory regarding the "rules lawyering". The reason there is a lot of policy discussions could be because a lot of editors do not understand basic policies such as WP:RS and WP:OR. The editors who aren't familiar with these are also often the ones who refer to themselves as "AGW sceptics" or to others as "AGW supporters" and such. Thus it could appear as if there is one side that is being "wikilawyered" but the assumption that they are being wikilawyerd because they are "sceptics" might not be correct. I think Boris' comment and the one about false dichotomy above is worth a thought.
—Apis (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. AQFN's intro, and much of the tone in the section as a whole, totally ignores the principle of assuming good faith. It's also replete with violations of our policy on personal attacks.

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia, and AGW is mainstream science. When it comes to drawing a line, the "centre" accepts AGW. If you don't, then by all means you're willing to contribute. But people need to realise that their position is a fringe one, and it cannot be given equal weight with the mainstream. Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again you reveal a complete failure to understand this article. This is not an article on whether AGW is real (and even in that case, skepticism does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a fringe or pseudoscience). This is an article describing a public debate, which has been aggressively edited to erase one side of that debate, while giving extreme weight to ancillary issues (the hack, death threats) that serve only to draw attention away from the fact that there is any debate at all. The notion that you are protected by WP:AGF is outrageous. Drolz (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, public debate has little to close to nothing to do with this article. The reason you and others are trying to promote that skewed, extra-topical perspective is because it is one based solely on opinion generated from op/ed's and anti-AGW climate lobbyists. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with the article, what are the dozens of "experts" you have quoted responding to? For that matter, what is the article about? Drolz (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the release of the e-mails and other documents, what this material says about the authors specifically and climate science rigor in general, and the effect that this material has had on the climate debate. Er, right? Madman (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd leave out the middle clause as it requires us to reach a conclusion or make a value judgment (whether positive or negative). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this: "The article is about the release of the e-mails and other documents, what Reliable Sources say that this material says about the authors specifically and climate science rigor in general, and the effect that this material has had on the climate debate. Madman (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources thing is inaccurate, or at least misleading. If an "unreliable source" says something about the emails which garners widespread attention, to the extent that "reliable sources" and "experts" are responding to it, is that not worthy of inclusion? This article (or at least part of it)is describing a public debate, and the role of wikipedia is to make note of what was said, not what was said correctly. In that sense, a "reliable source" is anything that was verifiably said, and the second requirement is notability, which is really a matter of how much impact it has on the behavior of others in the debate and the general public etc. Drolz (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First, the part about the reliable sources is not only accurate, it is essential to the creation and maintenance of articles on Wikipedia; This is not the place to argue about it, as your opinion on the matter is at odds with how Wikipedia works. You are free to take your concerns to the RS noticeboard, and I encourage you to do so. Second, this article is not about a "public debate", nor is it accurate to say as Madman has said above, that there is a "climate debate". There is no such debate. What there is, is a vocal group of partisan pundits and commentators generating massive amounts of heat concerning the politics of responding to climate change. While that is certainly a valid topic, it is not the core of this article, and attempts to make it so is a form of coatracking. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you really just claim that there is no climate debate? Wow, dude. That's pretty intense. Macai (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climate debate" is an ambiguous, almost meaningless term, and it can be easily misused to mislead. On Wikipedia, we don't use such terms, and tend to favor unambiguous terms. There is a debate about political reactions to the conclusions reached about climate change, conclusions which are not under debate. There is a debate about reactions to this incident, which again say nothing about the climate science. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate Viriditas' point: reliable sources are essential. Seriously Drolz, if you're going to argue policy, you need to educate yourself about policy. Guettarda (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand me. My point was the the WP:RS standards for this article are simply verifiability. This standard has been perverted to mean that only "experts" are reliable sources, which makes it so that it is essentially impossible to post one side of the controversy. RP:RS simply means that there is a reliable source to support the claim that something was actually said. Drolz (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

inb4 "we can't quote every pundit on everything" strawman. Macai (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, "There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." This clearly indicates that a blog is a reliable source for what someone says. Per the BLP page, "Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say." That is, a blog is not an RS for "this is what happened," but they are an RS for "this is what XXX says about the event." Drolz (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz, please stop taking policy and guidelines out of context. You are welcome to use the RS noticeboard for any concerns. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is a remarkably well argued position. Drolz (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the heading. If you have concerns about how to interpret the RS guideline, the proper place is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Otherwise, you are just generating noise. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You can spam the WP:RS magic wand at every quote you don't like, but I can't post a reasoned and sourced explanation of why it doesn't apply. That is certainly convenient for you. Drolz (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RS applies, and you are disrupting the talk page with your misinterpretation of policy. I suspect that is your goal. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article and debate

Actually, there is quite a significant debate about climate science. Where are you getting this idea that there is none? Macai (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this incident has nothing to do with any "significant" debate about current climate science. Where are you getting the idea that it does? Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The only reason this incident is notable at all is because some people think these emails are damning evidence of bias about AGW in CRU and the scientific community at large. Most articles about Climategate, by far, are in part or in whole about how AGW skeptics are going "Ah hah! We told you there was bias!" publicly. This article is made eligible for inclusion by Wikipedia thanks to AGW skepticism. This article has everything to do (hyperbole, okay?) with a significant debate about current climate science, just like the communism article has everything to do with Karl Marx. Macai (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first mistake is appealing to "what most people believe". If Wikipedia relied on that criteria, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia; We would have what would amount to a comic book, written and drawn by preschoolers, attributing good luck, weather patterns and disease to supernatural forces. So, what most people believe isn't something we concern ourselves with here. Granted, there is a place for that in the anthropology, psychology, and sociology articles, but the sources are written by experts in their field, definitely not "most people'. Second, op/ed's are not an indicator of what "most people believe" but rather an attempt to stuff the ballot box, manipulate public opinion, and argue with emotion and rhetoric. We don't do that here. Third, there is no "significant" debate about climate science, only what to do about the conclusions that it has reached, which means it has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed that Wikipedia should assert the perspective of AGW skeptics as objective fact. Nice try at the strawman, though. You don't need to assert opinions as facts in order to discuss public opinion. This article is evidence of that. Are you suggesting we should try to get that article deleted, or are you going to admit that discussing public opinion is acceptable on Wikipedia? I mean, you can't have your cake here and eat it, too. Also, define "significant", since you keep throwing that term around. Give me an objective set of standards for what makes a debate "significant". Macai (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Macai, what is this article about? In your own words, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be about everything notable pertaining to Climategate. That is to say, all significant positions. My definition of a "significant position" is a position that is held by a large portion of the general population, a position presented by at least one mainstream news organization, or a position that is presented by a source that is considered authoritative by the government. I use the words "should be", because as it stands right now, the article does not present all positions that meet this criteria. Macai (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Macai, only 14% of American adults believe in evolution. Should we adjust the scientific coverage of this topic based on their non-belief? Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the topic of the page somehow made that number go down, you'd probably want to mention it, yeah. Drolz (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I assume you think, for example, that the Piltdown Man Hoax should be glossed over, because it might shake faith in the science of evolution? Or perhaps you would say something like "It's the burying of the head that's the story here! Not the decades of scientific acceptance of a hoax!" Drolz (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Veriditas, that above comment reveals an incredibly myopic POV. Drolz (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe it is an accurate assessment, and nicely describes the problem. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Try again: "The article is about the release of the e-mails and other documents, what (according to Reliable Sources) notable sources say that this material says about the authors specifically and climate science rigor in general, and the effect that this material has had on the climate debate. Madman (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't use ambiguous terms. What is "climate debate"? If you mean debate about the climate science, there is no significant debate. If you mean debate about what to do about the conclusions reached by climate science then you are in the realm of political debate, which is based on opinions supported by, well, nothing more than self-interest. Obviously, this is not the place for such a discussion, although it can be briefly mentioned. Manipulation of public opinion is not the same as evaluating evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you mean debate about the climate science, there is no significant debate." That is unbelievably wrong. So unbelievable, I'll presume you meant something else, like AGW, in its broadest sense, is well-accepted in the scientific community. I would agree with that. But to characterize climate science as having no debate is absurd.--SPhilbrickT 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you forgot to mention the illegal act which led to the private e-mails and files being posted on the Internet. In fact that might be a good summary: "The article is about the illegal act which led to the private e-mails and files being posted on the Internet". And then the rest follows from that (e.g. the discussion about the e-mails, the allegations and so on).
—Apis (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hacking generally implies illegal act, does it not? While you may argue that its broad definition also includes so-called "white-hat" hackers, the term as used colloquially seems to imply an illegal act. I'm just not sure that adding a word that is primarily redudant will help clarify the lead.jheiv (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break, guys. I'm not trying to write a dissertation or a legal document. I said "the release of the documents" which I had thought encompassed everything related to obtaining and releasing the documents. Instead of "climate debate" we can use Global warming controversy if you wish.

I think we now have a general outline of what this article is about. Thanks, Madman (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall Impression and Structure

The impression given by the structure and wording of the article is that the incident is primarily about the removal and dissemination of personal emails from CRU. This aspect of the story is clearly not the item of primary importance in the incident. The fact that the article is structured and written the way it has been is clear evidence that the current slant is significantly not adhering to NPOV. Ask yourself this: if there had been no allegedly damaging information in the emails, would this even be an issue people were aware of an want information about? Clearly, clearly not. And yet the article leads with and revolves around the hacking/personal emails issue, obviously straining to paint the incident a particular way. I'm going to take a crack at showing what a NPOV arrangement would look like, fully expecting it to get reverted by someone whose agenda is to minimize any potential damage this incident might do to the cause of fighting anthropogenic global warming.Mark (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about "minimizing potential damage"; your edit had nothing to do with NPOV. If you had read the previous discussions on the talk page you would have seen that all the issues you "addressed" have already been discussed at length. You removed reliably sourced information about the hack, added weasel words to cast doubt on it, and relegated the death threats to "reactions". They're not statements of opinion, they're criminal acts. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments here - everything that could be said about this has been said already. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The "alleges" were super-bad word choice by me, yes. The summary should not have "various allegations" posed against specific quotes by "prominent scientists." That's laughably POV. The current place where the death threats are placed seem to be done so as to specifically paint a particular picture of the incident: Scientists are a victim of criminals. While I agree that this is data that should be presented, it is not the main thrust, and the only reason it has been structured this way is to give a particular impression.Mark (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We're very close to a more natural structure now. An anomolous item is the inclusion of the "death threat" passage at the bottom of the "Hack and theft" section. The natural structure is to discuss the hack/theft, then what was taken, then what the fallout of the incident has been. Death threats seem to fall under the category of "fallout." And yet I agree that they are not well-placed in the "reactions" section. MarkNau (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

These are all arguments I made at length, which nevertheless had no effect on the "consensus" represented by ChrisO, TS, Guerudata, and Viriditas. Drolz (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Has the basic form of the article actually changed? I hadn't noticed. Our argument with Drolz09 was, if I recall correctly, on his wish to exclude all mention of death threats and then, as a fallback position, to exclude death threats from the lead section. I've proposed both a lead section mention and a separate section of its own on the death threats, which currently seem to span scientists on two or three continents and investigations in several law enforcement jurisdictions. --TS 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Request additional SPI

Since protection was lifted from the talk page, we have a brand new set of SPA running around, violating policies and edit warring. I suggest that a new list be made from the most recent archives and current talk page and submitted as evidence to the scibaby archival page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible additions to the article ??

As I offered, I've put together a list of material that could improve the article (although I didn't put it in a table format). Feel free to add your comments concerning these proposals sections:

FOIA

The article talks twice about Freedom of Information Request concerns, but there is no email quoted. Here are some e-mail quotes:

""The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone ... We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."[21][22]

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."[23]

More on Climate Research

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!

"So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[24]

The Nature editorial Resolved

See here.

Something about public perception

Perhaps something from polls. I find this interesting.

"This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely. "

I agree something about public perception might be interesting but I'm not convinced about the poll. I think it was to early to make such a poll in order to see what effect the e-mails/files will have on public opinion. And I find such polls a bit dubious to be honest, they are often biased, and it's really hard to draw correct conclusions from them. It's also a bit U.S. centric.
—Apis (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Something about the other files

There are also a lot of the files in the package, and a few of these have received some attention.

Remove some of the reactions

It seems to me that since the protection was lifted, we've had several "this is the most awful act in the world - whoever did this was a terrorist" reactions added to the article, exclusively. We should either trim those down or add some different views.

Anything else? Madman (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason those negative reactions have been added to the article is that quite a number of very prominent scientists have independently made such comments. We don't trim them, obviously, though we might trim a similar comment from a lab worker or an associate professor. --TS 07:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures Resolved

A lot of 'incident' articles have photos of the key players and locations. Would it be worth adding corresponding ones to this article, when they are available? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be a tricky one. We don't yet know who the hackers are so a photograph of them would be difficult to procure. Photographs of those who wrote the emails might look like a "rogue's gallery" and thus trigger BLP concerns.

Somebody stuck up a picture of a building at the University of East Anglia at an early stage, though I'm not sure whether the work done in that building was related to the Climatic Research Unit. Perhaps an appropriate picture of a building might work. --TS 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The image wasn't of the CRU's building. I've been trying to get hold of a suitable image, but no luck so far. If the weather stays fair at the weekend I might simply go up to Norwich and take some pics myself. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, I'm trying out the skyline image from the Norwich article. It shows the location of the university in the distance. --TS 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to the Nature editorial to the Media subsection. --TS 10:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to insert a summary of the Nature ed. but I think your version is a little better, thanks. The picture is also nice imo. :)
—Apis (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I added one of the FOIA references in chronological order (as looked to be the standard) and also added mention of your linked poll to the "Public opinion" section of the Climate change consensus article.jheiv (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some more...

• Le Page, Michael (2009-12-04). "Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails". New Scientist. A long and good article that has already pointed out here.
• Biello, David (2009-12-04). "Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy". Scientific American. Also this press conference by M. Mann, G. Schmidt & M. Oppenheimer (with Joseph Romm & Suzi Emmerling) has pointed out here before. Full transcript of the press conference at CPA site (if RS): http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2009/12/av/scientistscalltranscript.pdf (Questions by NYT, National Review, CBS, NTR... about Climate Research, JGR letters, peer-review, email deleting, public confidence & tranparency, no chances in scientific picture etc etc.)

Not sure of the relevance of the next ones, but anyway:

• The Guardian (2009-12-07). "Copenhagen climate change conference: 'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation". The Guardian.An editorial published 7.12. by 56 newspapers around the world. "The controversy over e-mails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based."
  • "The editorial mentions the recent row over leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit which climate sceptics allege show scientists manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming. But while acknowledging that the controversy has "muddied the waters", it said it ultimately failed to dent the mass of climate change evidence." UKPA
  • And fyi WSJ's rather mocking writing about the release: Taranto, James (2009-12-07). "The Big Cutoff". Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal. "
  • Good, but old :( Reuters collection of assesments from both sides regarding the impact of the incident: ANALYSIS-Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer, Reuters 23.11.2009

--J. Sketter (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Gigs (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists

In the "Scientific organizations" section, there was a statement by the UCS, which has many lay members and it's a science advocacy group rather than a professional science organization. While they're entitled to their opinion and their words will surely be welcomed by many scientists, they're not really in the same business as the others.

I've tended to argue that we should avoid quoting pundits and advocates, and so I don't feel comfortable arguing that this should go elsewhere in the article. I've just removed it altogether. --TS 06:39, 10 December 2009 UTC

Agreed. UCS is a very political group. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. --SPhilbrickT 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 8 July 2004 - "MM" issue

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.

---

Resolved

---

The email quote for this section says: "The other paper by MM [Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre] is just garbage...", then the here's-what-they-say about it says: "Both papers mentioned in this email—Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004)—were cited and discussed". If the MM were McIntyre/McKitrick, then the publication of McKitrick and Michaels wouldn't be responsive. However, the bracketed "[Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre]" didn't appear in the original email, doesn't appear in the cited source, and it's not clear where it came from. I'm inclined to just delete it... --Blogjack (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. My vote on just putting what the email actually says. Macai (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, somebody obviously got the M&Ms mixed up. --TS 06:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, take out the "[Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre]". Guettarda (talk) 07:05, 10 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.

Primary versus secondary sources

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.

---

Resolved

---

Does everyone understand what the difference is between primary and secondary sources? If not, we might be talking at cross-purposes. Andjam (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a section on Wikipedia's usage of these terms at WP:PRIMARY, which is part of the No original research policy. --TS 14:14, 10 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.

Reaction by John Daly's widow

There's an article on the reaction by John Daly's widow to Phil Jones' schadenfreude here. (Note that this is a Tasmanian paper, not the user-generated content examiner.com) Andjam (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community

This looks interesting:-

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. [...] Yes, there have been cases of misbehaviour and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehaviour of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community. [...] The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. ...[25]

Perhaps this deserves an entry into the article?Isonomia (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While Petr Chylek's credentials are not in question, it would not be unreasonable to say that his motives might be. The statement does not seem to "have the pulse" of the community as a whole. Few in the field are using strongly-worded language like "betrayed" with respect to this incident. I am concerned that we are too quick to quote various individuals (on both sides of the debate) before the scope of the incident has been fully understood. There's an awful lot of recentism going on here. Even if this letter were to be quoted, it would be better if that quote came from a secondary source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it's kinda "guilt by association", but have you looked at the main page of that site? Anyone who uses a graph like that isn't a good-faith participant in the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, we can afford to sit back and see if this has much of an impact. Entering a single opinion which at this time is an outlier may unbalance the article. --TS 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm making these comments here in a general sense because I agree about the need for Chylek's remarks to be drawn from a secondary source; this offered me the opportunity to comment in a general way without getting into individual cases.

I think the point has been reached where attempts to minimise the scale of the controversy merely undermine the discipline further.

A question that needs to be asked is why the deniers seem to be gaining more traction with time. Misinformation has been a feature of every topic of political significance since the dawn of time, so that's not new. IIRC, the original 'big' was 'Big Tobacco', which pumped out propaganda for decades but still lost the argument.

The deniers' tactics aren't new, so why do they seem to be having more success than the Tobacco companies? Why are (some) climate change sceptics respectable commentators while nobody would touch a lung-cancer sceptic with a barge pole? IMO, the difference lies in the credibility of their opponents. Lung cancer researchers' integrity was never seriously cast into question.

Efforts to put a brave face on matters are counter-productive. Those with impeccable AGW credentials (Von Storch etc) who nonetheless have levelled serious criticism at their own discipline have done it the greatest service, IMO. Those who have engaged in well-intentioned propaganda have done the most harm.

Most people have neither knowledge of nor interest in scientific debates but do have a keen eye for dishonesty. When they hear a choir singing with one voice they get suspicious. That scattering of discordant voices from the back (Von S etc again) are the ones making the biggest contribution to quelling that suspicion IMO.

I would also caution AGW proponents here from maximising editorial influence at the expense of credibility in the eyes of the sceptics. It's possible to change people's minds but only by gaining trust.Dduff442 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm just trying to keep the article reasonably neutral until the results of the inquiry and the criminal investigations come in, at which point, we will actually have data to work on. ---TS 14:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to say that any scientists, however "impeccable" their credentials, who deny the evidence of AGW represent a fringe view. As such, their statements (and opinion derived from those statements) should not be afforded anything like the sort of weight than those of the mainstream view. To be frank, they fall into the same category as "Birthers" and their ilk. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones email of 2 February 2005

Discussion of text

I just ask, what is the rationale to add this quote? It has been quoted by WSJ, but why? And with this I mean: is there any reason to include in article just random quotes from emails, if the RS hasn't connected any allegation/interpretation to them? --J. Sketter (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are widespread allegations that the scientists avoided their legal obligations under FOIA and otherwise demonstrated a lack of transparency. There's extensive discussion about adding more coverage of the FOIA/transparency issue above. There seemed to be rough agreement that we do need to have context next to the quote, so feel free to add what people are saying about it in RS. Gigs (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We can and should discuss it, but we can't simply throw up potentially damaging quotes without content. The email itself is the least important to include. Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. It fails WP:BLP. This has been discussed. I don't see any way that the bare quote is OK. We can't imply wrongdoing, we can't throw up an ambiguous statement and "let the facts speak". Not when we're talking about something that has the potential to damage the reputation of a living person - as this clearly has. We can't throw up the bare quote and imply that Jones deleted the files, when reliable sources clearly say he did not. We can report what reliable sources say about this issue, but we can't simply throw the quote out there. Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, simply quoting the email without discussing it also fails WP:NFCC. The quote is not free content, and the only justification for using it is fair use. It isn't fair use to share the quote without discussing it. Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, at the bottom of this section, you asked us to start the debate by looking over the statements of the last two days,. So i am doing so. This series of objections seeems excessive. You can't continually throw up objection after objection to well-sourced, credible materials based on moralizing nuances which you alone perceive. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see this as a game. I noticed another problem, so I raised it. I didn't write the rules (OK, I had a hand in shaping some policy, but I can't claim credit for either BLP or NFCC), but we're all obliged to work within them. Especially rules like these that exist to protect the project from infringing the law. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, what exactly do you mean??? What makes you say that I see this as a game? There is no basis for saying that. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the rules which precludes the text which you are continually objecting to. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're accusing me of not playing fair: You can't continually throw up objection after objection. But this isn't a game. I don't have to "wait for my turn". The fact that I missed the obvious earlier - that WP:NFCC applies to all non-free content - doesn't mean that I can't raise it now. Because...it's not a game. It's a project to write an encyclopaedia that abides by project and Foundation policies. Regardless of whether you think it's "my turn" or not. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, I see. you're the one treating this like a game. try to make your responses a little less personal, ok? thanks. If you want me to clarify, I meant editors should not keep throwing up contentious objections if a wide group of good-faith editors have already clearly explained the logical reasons for an item's inclusion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that there's a limited window in which you can raise fresh concerns. That's not the way it works here. You can send an article to AFD because you think it fails notability, fail to get consensus for deletion, and delete it the day after the debate closes if you discover it's a copyright violation. You can think that's "unfair", but that doesn't mean we can host copyvios. Same thing here. Because it's not a game. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're becoming contentious. Quoting rules and procedures does not mean that someone considers this a game; quite the opposite in fact. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quoting rules and procedures"? You? No, you were arguing against applying policy because doing so "seeems [sic] excessive". Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of editing methods

I added it back with a brief discussion of its significance in the controversy -- just because you don't like the material doesn't warrant it for exclusion. In fact that RS 'has' connnected allegations to the quote. Guettarda, next time, instead of removing content, why not try to improve it? It is now discussed (albeit briefly), and unless there is another issue it should be improved, rather than removed. jheiv (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to add more commentary as well. I agree we don't want the naked quote. Gigs (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gigs, and with regards to it "failing WP:BLP", this is a specious argument unless you reference a specific conflict with the guideline (which, as I'm sure you know) will have exceptions by definition. jheiv (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please work it out on the talk page, not in an edit war. Is there a consensus to add the quote at this time? Which sources are being used to support it? When in doubt, we default to exclusion. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm appalled by the continued removal of pertinent, reliably sourced, significant content with the excuse that it "violates WP:BLP". If only every addition to Wikipedia was this policed... Here are some reliable sources -- [26], [27], [28], [29] -- do you need more? jheiv (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read any of the past discussion? At the very least you could try addressing the concerns that have already been raised. Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hint: This issue isn't whether the quote can be sourced. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, I was answering Viriditas' question: "Which sources are being used to support it?" -- please answer my question about specifying the conflict. jheiv (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[P]lease answer my question about specifying the conflict. If you've read the discussion, why don't you start by addressing the points that I raised? Guettarda (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apis O-tang, you just removed the content again. First of all, despite what you said in your edit summary the February 2 email has not been discussed thus far. Also and more importantly, please cite a specific conflict with WP:BLP or I will, again, add the content to the article. jheiv (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's false. This has been discussed at length. There is certainly no consensus for its inclusion in this form. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As Guettarda said, cherry-picking quotes from emails in order to imply Jones has committed a crime is not something we should do according to WP:BLP. Maybe we should mention more about the FOI allegations, but if we need to add this quote then there should be a context to motivate it. I suggest working out an acceptable wording here on talk, and then we include it. And please give others a chance to comment first. We are working on an encyclopaedia article, not news, so there is no need to hurry, better to be safe in this case. (And yes it's been discussed before many times.)
—Apis (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The news item currently being edit-warred (grrrrr!) in and out of the article actually comes from an opinion piece from an unnamed nobody that is circulating around California. I think it should be standard practice to exclude anything from an unknown source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and discussion

In fact, the opinion piece appears to come from MediaNews Group, although I am still unable to find the writer's name. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Incredible. It is posted as a news story in the Vallejo Times-Herald,[30] but is actually an editorial.[31] I've been around the block a few times, but I have never seen this level of deception at work in the media. This is a first for me. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with an opinion piece. I added a source from MSNBC and Bloomberg that discusses that email and the official investigation, which revolves primarily around the FOIA/transparency issue!

• "The university will also conduct an independent review, which will address data security, an assessment “of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests" [32] (This article quotes the 2005 email as well, and talks about FOIA/Transparency)
• "Sir Muir Russell ... Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data." [33] Gigs (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, could you (or Guettarda, or anyone) please provide the specific conflict you suggest warrants its removal? A conflict that cannot be overcome by its unquestionable importance and significance to the article? jheiv (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean other than the ones that have been discussed over the last two days? Why don't you start with those. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not I re-read everyone of your comments on this page -- I'll respond to those that I thought were relevant to this.

*"we report what reliable sources have to say about notable issues" -- I believe I did that with the inclusion of the intro regarding accusations of intentionally concealing data.

*"So you read the policy and still think that we can include cherry-picked material that is damaging to the subject, simply because we can reliably source it?" -- I disagree with this being "cherry picked" -- while it may be "cherry picked" in the case that it is one of many released the emails, it it not "cherry picked" in the case that it is some obscure fact. It is getting significant attention from RS as many editors have pointed out. Using your logic, there would be nothing worthy of inclusion, as every event is "cherry picked" from the entirety of events over someone's lifetime -- admittedly taking it to the extreme, but should the election of President Obama be removed from his WP page because it is an event that was "cherry picked" from his life? Given that the event was not arbitrarily "cherry picked" as you suggest, then the rest of the argument seems moot.

* "Let me reiterate Viriditas' point: reliable sources are essential." -- It would seem that I and other editors have provided more than enough, is this what you disagree with?

If I'm missing it, please be courteous enough to enumerate them, rather than have me search the page again for what you think applies to this discussion. jheiv (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the main point, but let's start with one of the points you raised:

• I believe I did that with the inclusion of the intro regarding accusations of intentionally concealing data

  So you included the allegations of wrongdoing, but leave out the counterarguments presented in his defense. I think that creates problems of WP:NPOV, much less the far more conservative WP:BLP? Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2005 Email FOIA

Someone suggested editing it here on the talk page, so fine, here it is. I'm not sure where the "smear innuendo" part of it is, so if someone could edit that out, I'd appreciate it.

This looks like non-expert media comment. If the matter has been seriously discussed (that is, not just by journalists looking for an angle) then we should include it. If it's just a newspaper story, it doesn't belong. --TS 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of it? Gigs (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a paper, it's an editorial deceptively pretending to be a news story. The editorial was published by MediaNews here. We can't include it. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed all references to that source in the copy below. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The NZ Herald article has some important bits, including the fact that nothing actually was deleted. Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good source. I have integrated the Davies quote below. Gigs (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what's important here is that we treat this like any other Wikipedia article. 1) The quote isn't the central part of the section. Like any other non-free content, it's included because it's being discussed. It's inclusion is not an end in itself. 2) We write NPOV - balanced coverage of notable views, always with an eye to WP:UNDUE. 3) We aim for completeness and context. If we bear that in mind, then the BLP issue pretty much takes care of itself, although we do need to keep our eye on the fact that "[m]aterial that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to build up commentary around a section when it's being reverted in seconds. This compromise of editing it on the talk page seems to be working. I'd appreciate any further input on the section below. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another issue - the Pew report (pp 2-3) says:

The CRU is barred by non‐publication agreements with some countries meteorological services from releasing to the public a small amount (less than 5%) of the weather station data the CRU uses to estimate land‐surface temperature trends. The university has confirmed that the CRU is legally barred from releasing these data. A few commentatoused this situation as a basis for accusing the CRU of suppressing data[34]

While they don't come out and say this these are the files that Jones is speaking about, it seems pretty clear to me that they are. So, from the perspective of completeness, from the perspective of not causing unwarranted damage to Jones' reputation, we need to track down the discussion of this issue. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be tracked down, but is it reasonable to infer that this was the reason? Also, is it reasonable to say that the restriction of such a small amount (less than 5% as noted) of data would prevent the release of the remaining data? If the discussion were about the restricted 5% of data, I would expect that to be made more clear. Regardless, it seems like a stretch to make that inference -- certainly that would be an impermissible inference if it were to implicate someone or deepen their involvement.jheiv (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c, jheiv be careful not to delete people's comments when there's an edit conflict) It's a pretty speculative analysis. There are other emails where they do debate about whether to release data based on the country and pay-for-data agreements, but I have not seen any mainstream coverage that suggests that all of Jones' comments can be completely explained away by that. Indeed if that were the case, then I don't know why CRU wouldn't have just come out and said that in the first place, rather than holding an investigation into FOI practices. Anyway, find a good source on it and we can go from there. Gigs (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, I apologize! No harm intended -- thanks for pointing it out. jheiv (talk)

There is also this (warning, some obviously biased language-- that should obviously be cleaned up):

"When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on." -- WSJ: Global Warming With the Lid Offjheiv (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that you use direct links rather than ref tags on this page? It's easier to follow if you don't have to click 'edit' to see the link, and ref sections come and go.

Good idea, I fixed my most recent reference. jheiv (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to your point - yes, I agree this we should focus on the issue, not on one email or another is isolation. We should be doing that for all of them, actually. But we have to start somewhere. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a stretch, but depending on how much you want to cover, there is this quote: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise." Which may or may not relate to a FOIA request -- not really committed to seeing this added, but I've read reports suggesting a link between this email and the 2 Feb 2005 one. jheiv (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I thought you were willing to work in good faith to build consensus for the section. I see you were not.[35] Rather disappointing. Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The version he readded did reflect the various input people provided on the talk page, as I have been updating it as people raise concerns. The only part that doesn't necessarily have consensus is the inclusion of the Schmidt email. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. "Jones' reluctance to provide data Jones' reluctance to provide data as a result of Freedom of Information Acts is later highlighted"? Got a source that he was "reluctant to provide data"? He was unwilling to provide certain data. Why? Well, the Pew piece suggests that he was unwilling to provide data he had signed an agreement not to divulge. Calling that "reluctance to provide data" is putting quite a spin on it. Fair → smear in just a few words. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the new part about the Schmidt email that I said may not have consensus. The first part should be fine. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the schmidt part and reduced it to what we had discussed prior here. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have apologized under your note on my talk page and I will again here, I'm sorry for prematurely adding the content -- it was a good-faith edit that I thought had consensus -- I was wrong and it was not my intention to derail the otherwise impressive dialogue going on on the talk page. jheiv (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)When discussing the issue on what data that is/was available i seem to miss that the Pew comment is based on this press-release [36]. And there really is nothing new in this, climateaudit in July 2009 commented on the exact same thing[37] as well as all the way back in 2007 [38] - the only data that isn't available is covered by confidentiality arrangements. Now people here may want to doubt that reason as correct (that would be personal POV), but it is 100% consistent with what the CRU has been saying for a long time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones email of 2 February 2005

A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.[39]

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at CRU, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure".[40] In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act".[41]

Earlier version + Jones / Schmidt email

A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

Dr.Jones' reluctance to provide data as a result of Freedom of Information Acts is later highlighted in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies where he wrote,

"The FOI line we're all using is this, IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we ... possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at CRU, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure".[42] In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act".[43]

"This article is not..."

I see this phrase (or variations of it) repeatedly in the talk page here: this article is not about the scandal/controversy/backlash/purple dinosaur regarding the science that may or may not have been impacted by the actions of the Climate Research Unit. The title makes that very clear, actually: "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is definitely about the actual hacking incident. If the article were about something else, it would be named something else, right?

But I wonder: why is there not an article named something else? Should Wikipedia not be covering the other angle, perhaps in another (appropriately named) article? Instead of a redirect at "Climategate," perhaps an actual article on Climategate--as opposed to an article that seems to be focused only on the alleged computer crime targeting CRU?

...But, then, I just pulled this copypasta from the bottom of the article:

Categories: Climate change assessment and attribution | Environmental controversies | Climate change | Global warming | Environmental skepticism | Ethics of science and technology | Computer security | 2009 in science | 2009 in England

Strange that an article focusing entirely on cyber crime and not on the political or scientific impact of these events is filed under these headings instead of under something relating to cyber crime or technology.

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Archer884, this is the trick used on all climate articles. The name is selected so that it refers only to the part of the story the cartel of editors who control climate articles wish to discuss. The sources for those articles are then strictly controlled so as only to include the sources which reflect the view they wish to include, and if anyone contrary to their views is stupid enough to edit the article or create a new one, they will get some friendly admins to lock down the article, or use the 3RR rule to get people banned. It's clearly the same principle used to lock down the peer review process in climate "science", and to exclude delegates who might argue from conferences - so there's clearly a single "mindset" involved. 85.210.48.2 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point! Recommend we rename article to "Why 'Climatic' and not 'Climate'?" -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple: let's name the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking controversy". That's what it is about. "Climategate" would also be OK, if that's what people call it. GregorB (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Let's recap. Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid, as is "controversy", and should not be used in article titles. Climategate is a redirect to this article, so users typing that in the search box will be directed here. Whatever else this article is going to be called, it certainly won't end up being called "Climategate". -- ChrisO (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But I'd say that "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (i.e. a "controversy") describes it rather well. GregorB (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't use 'Climategate' as the name of the article because of WP:AVOID. However, we can use the word 'controversy' if it's used by reliable sources. The following reliable sources all use the term 'controversy': 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, Reuters, 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 and BBC News

So, I suggest 'Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy' or 'Climatic Research Unit documents controversy'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You could be even more neutral and simply call it "Climatic Research Unit documents incident", since the "controversy" is still an undesirable word. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

To me, 'incident' implies a one-time event, whereas this subject is actually an ongoing story. Also, someone else brought up the precident of Killian documents controversy. But this isn't an issue I feel too strongly about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like either "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". "Documents" avoid the concern over the option "data". And while it will be an ongoing story, as far as we know the story emanates from a single incident. So I could accept either "incident" or ""controversy".--SPhilbrickT 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a hacking incident. Attempting to hide that fact of the hacking, and the criminal investigations that have resulted, won't succeed. --TS 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again pointing out the bizarre contradiction between your vehement opposition to a fork and equally vehement opposition to the inclusion in this article of anything which detracts from the "hacking incident." Drolz (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. POVFORKS are discouraged, and accurate titles describing the topic are encouraged. Please offer your informed opinion on the title of this article, rather than the positions of other editors. This isn't a debating club. We're only here to improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After having read WP:POVFORK, it is clear that you are using the term incorrectly. POVFORKs occur when one perspective on an event is given its own article. This is not what has been advocated here; the suggestion is that one aspect of event be given its own article. If someone wanted to make an article called "Skeptical Response to Climategate," this would indeed be a POVFORK. "Debate over CRU Documents," on the other hand, is completely neutral.

For example, "Watergate Burglaries" is a separate topic from "Watergate," because the burglaries themselves are a distinct topic from the ensuing coverup. On the other hand, in the Pentagon Papers page, there is no separate article for the leak itself, which is covered only briefly in the main article. This article needs to either be split into two, or the hack portion needs to be scaled down so that it does not compete for attention with the controversy section. Drolz (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed per BLP

We do not report speculation regrading living people where that could adversely affect them. I have removed[44] the section regarding the Jones email of Feb 2. If the section can be rewritten to avoid reporting speculation as to identities, and it is found to be relevant to this article, it can go back in. Until then, the section remains out of the article.

I am horrified and ashamed of Wikipedia editors for allowing such base smears into an article. I will enforce BLP. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First time I've seen a puppy administer a spanking rather than receiving one... But I do agree. Is there actually any confirmation, as opposed to speculation, that "the two MMs" refer to McIntyre and McKitrick? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - Madman restored that? Sure, no one is required to agree with me, but I can't just restore a BLP violation - or an alleged BLP violation - without bothering to join the discussion and build consensus for your edit. Shockingly bad behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be a little more specific. There have been death threats. We're not going to be a party to this. Real life harm is possible. This is beyond "hurt feelings" or even "destroyed career". HTH. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, hadn't even thought about it in those terms. Yeah, death threats does raise the bar, doesn't it? Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're damn right it does. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First of all, please elaborate on how the removed content violated WP:BLP. Secondly, your argument regarding death threats is not a logical argument, but rather a fallacy, an appeal to emotion or fear. The enormous amount of reliable sources for the removed material (not to mention to extremely short amount of time that the passage existed in the article) suggest that if death threats were made, they were not as a result of a Wikipedia article. Saying that "death threats were made" and that that somehow changes what is topical and relevant to the article shows extreme bias. Address specific concerns rather than broad, waive-of-the-hand violations. jheiv (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While the "OMG death threat" argument seems a bit overblown, it seems clear that the identities of the MMs are not well-established in the least, and are pure speculation and therefore have no place in the article. MarkNau (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically: WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, WP:BLPNAME. I remind all editors that when dealing with BLP the default is to do no harm: to not include. To edit war over something removed p0er BLP is a block-on-sight offense and I cannot believe you are taking this so lightly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting a little. McIntyre and McKitrick are hardly low-profile individuals. The statement is not negative toward them. The statement isn't unsourced. If this were a negative, unsourced statement about a low-profile individual, I'd be with you 100%. But that isn't the case. Yes we should err on the side of being conservative, and you make a strong enough argument for removing the content, but it isn't quite as clear cut or outrageous as you are making out. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a WP:BLP violation if we cite reliable sources. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Wallstreet Journal, MSNBC and Bloomberg aren't reliable sources? In any case, as a compromise why don't we simply drop the sentence "The two MMs are suggested to be ... later emails." and leave the rest of the paragraph intact? This addresses your concerns, does it not? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. We can violate BLP while citing RS's. I will leave to discussion amongst other editors as to whether your suggested compromise is acceptable. But don't remotely think I won't block if "suspected" names or other speculative BLP content is put in the article, regardless of where it is sourced. Remember, the default is to omit, not include, such information. You have to gain consensus to include. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, WP:BLPNAME and I don't agree that they apply to this particular situation. However, I'm fine with removing the contentious sentence just to be on the safe side. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AQFK. The policies in question are intended to prevent the spreading of rumors or libel. Something the subject of BLP wrote himself is facially exempt from either claim. Moreover, reporting allegations which were made by reliable, reputable sources is explicitly encouraged, even if the subject objects. Drolz (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua is correct. Attributions of negative connotations in this article can have very serious consequences, and yes, the death threats do make the BLP more important here. We also must bear in mind that we can spend months, even years writing this article. This isn't a newspaper and we have no deadlines. We can wait until we can get it right. --TS 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin quote

The use of copyright material in articles is governed by WP:NFCC and fair use. Please note that simply reproducing copyright material in an article, without any discussion, does not meet the requirement of fair use, nor does it meet our requirements for the use of non-free content. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an excerpt of less than 100 words. The usual guidelines I've seen for fair use suggest a maximum of 150 words. This is well under the limit. I suspect that it's the content, and the name of the author in particular, that's really drawing so many objections. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Fair use does not mean that you can simply reproduce copyright material of <150 words, it needs to be done for "such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship". Simple reproduction of a quote, without discussion of its significance or meaning, does not meet that requirement. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly commentary and criticism, Guettarda. Sarah Palin is eminently notable, the Washington Post is eminently reliable, and the comment gives voice to the climate change skeptics. If you don't mind, I'm moving this from my User Talk page to the article's Talk page, where it belongs. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to provide our own commentary. So we need to have someone commenting on Palin commenting in order to qualify for fair use of a quote that extensive. A very small quote would be different. Gigs (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about five or six words from Al Gore? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his comments are relevant either, but at least he as some semblance of credibility in this particular field. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What?? Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work on this subject. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be including an editorial commentary in an encyclopedia entry. It's also not clear to me how prominent she is on the global scheme of things, so it's difficult for me to say that she's clearly prominent enough to warrant inclusion of her reaction. MarkNau (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The most recent poll shows Palin as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Every time she opens her mouth in public, some reporter in the United States is writing about it. Furthermore, there are editorial commentaries in about half of Wikipedia's politics articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Sarah Palin is notable as being both a failed VP candidate and as a governor who quit mid-term so she could make some big bucks selling books to sheep. She is not even remotely qualified to offer her opinion on any aspect of this incident. The newspaper has been vilified for giving her a platform to spout her fringey nonsense. I can conceive of no possible way that a single word of her op-ed will make it into this article, quite frankly. It would be the grossest possible violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think she's prominent on the issue. Inhofe is prominent, even if he seems to be wrong on just about everything. Gibbs is speaking for the US President, Ban Ki Moon is speaking as UN Secretary General - they're opinions are notable. Palin is a private citizen (at this point), she's not an authority on the subject, and she's not a person with a history of involvement in the issue. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Eminently untrue, Guettarda. Palin sued the federal government for placing the polar bear on the Endangered Species list. She has been involved in numerous disputes as governor, involving issues related to climate and conservation. Scjessey's usual disparaging remarks about anyone to the right of Howard Zinn are duly noted. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Sarah Palin on the subject of climate change is like quoting Orly Taitz as an authority on citizenship law. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, let's examine both notability and the section header. Running Nexis searches on Palin and Taitz yields about 20 times as many hits for Palin, and Taitz has never been elected to any office. The comparison is ridiculous. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to give everyone some background information about this article - In an effort to cut back on POV-pushing and to address WP:UNDUE, me and several other editors have argued that we should avoid mentioning opinion pieces unless they've also been covered by a third-party reliable sources. In a case such as this, it shouldn't be a problem to find third-party reliables sources which have covered this op-ed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Al Gore quoted at MSNBC? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, now you're "in." A section that talks about the differing reactions between Gore and Palin seems fitting with the rest of the section. To be honest, Palin rides in on Gore's coattails. MarkNau (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just generally opposed to quoting politicians, since they rarely know what they are talking about. They lack the technical understanding to comment on the data theft, and they lack the scientific understanding to comment on the climate change issue. All their hot air contributes to global warming, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why not delete the entire section? It's supposed to be limited to comments from politicians, but somehow Ban Ki-moon finds his way in there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon isn't just a politician, he's the sponsor of the IPCC and the current climate change talks. He's a key figure in the politics of climate change. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gore is an exception to the "lack of knowledge" thing. He actually knows his stuff, not just the talking points. But I still think it's premature to bring him in. When this grows into an actual article, as opposed to a collection of quotes, then we need to re-assess things. But as long as it's just a dumping ground for quotes, I don't see the value in adding him. Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore, like George Monbiot, is essentialy a pundit, an advocate. If we keep the pundits at arm's length and focus on reactions within the sphere of professional scientists, elected politicians, governments and other relevant experts, I think we get a good look at the facts. The more we look at the words of pundits--even quite clever and well educated ones, I feel the more we're seeing a reflection of the self-regarding, self-feeding press coverage that has made the facts so difficult to isolate in this affair.

I think it's a pity that Palin resigned. As the governor of Alaska her opinion might have been interesting and influential. --TS 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that she's a politician, and I'll repeat that she's the current front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. So why are we limiting commentary to current office holders? Is it because that conveniently excludes comments from a lot of very prominent skeptics, such as Lawson and Palin? And why are we including the comment from the RealClimate blog, but blocking any comment from someone who may be the next president of the United States? Currently the ratio of comments is (roughly) 21 apologists to 3 skeptics. Furthermore, the quotes from apologists are generally a lot longer than the quotes from skeptics, so the ratio of total commentary (words) is roughly 20 to 1. It's difficult to imagine a more biased selection of comments. Any thoughts on how we could correct this imbalance? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we limiting to current elected officerholders? Because they are thereby qualified to act on their stated opinions. Office makes a difference. Of course every politician in the world has an opinion on this so we do have to apply a sensible limit.

Why so few sceptics? Because, in the field of climatology, there are very, very few global warming sceptics. On this very page we've had people fishing around for retired geography lecturers, and representing them as prominent climatology researchers. It isn't an imbalance, it's the way it is. --TS 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologists? We have quotes from apologists? Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that proponents of the scientific mainstream are being called "apologists". Should we also refer to "evolution apologists"? "Germ theory apologists"? "Round earth apologists"? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

UN SecGen Prominence

I would like to hear the serious argument that the SecGen of the UN is not a highly prominent figure, particularly on a global issue, and particularly given the direct pertinence of the Copenhagen summit, which is a UN event. MarkNau (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The name of the section is "Politicians and governments," formerly "Elected officials and governments." Ban Ki-moon is not a politician or an elected official. The UN is not a govenrment. Running a Google News or Nexus search on the names of Ban Ki-moon and Sarah Palin produces three times as many hits for Palin. If Ban Ki-moon's comments belong in this section, then Palin's certainly do. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The UN is an inter-governmental organisation, the BIG one. It's close enough. Guettarda (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And Ban Ki-moon was elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations, so you could argue he is an elected official of sorts. Palin isn't anything at the moment. Probably won't be anything, either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If Obama keep plunging in the polls -- currently below 50% and only one point higher than Palin, who's rising in the polls -- she could very well be elected president in 2012. It's clear that you find her politics distasteful, but I prefer to deal in facts, not feelings. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So former governors cease to be politicians? How... original. I've no problem on Ban Ki-Moon being quoted but removing Palin on the grounds that she's not currently holding office is not justified. TMLutas (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Ban Ki-Moon quote is OK with me as well. The UN is a major player in the politics surrounding this issue, and is governmental enough. Gigs (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Good point, though I don't think Sepp Blatter's opinion should be quoted, if he expresses on. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me lead by saying that I'm all for the "no politicians commenting on anything they are not experts in," so my #1 preference would be for section deletion. That aside, here's a litmis test for inclusion and ordering: If you were to grab a random wikipedian who wants useful info on this topic, and say "I'm only going to give you one reaction quote on this incident. I've got the SecGen of the UN and I've got the Saudi climate negotiator," which quote would the wikipedian want? MarkNau (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'd want both. Perhaps from a practical point of view the Secretary General might have more influence, but the view of the Saudi would be a good illustration of how oil producing countries are reacting to the affair. --TS 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The context was an editor who was seemingly insistent upon a position that posited the SecGen wasn't significant, and the Saudi should be at the top of the list. Seemed absurd, and I wanted a way to illustrate that. I agree with you that if I could get both, I would. Although the Saudi is quite marginal IMO. MarkNau (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, only one oil producer. I haven't seen responses from any other OPEC nations. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors read WP:RS please

This edit featured "scandal" language and sourcing from "climatechangefraud.com". I reverted it. I doubt there will be any objections. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Any objection to using this source instead? Or perhaps this one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not it comes with the disgraceful color commentary JettaMan added. I cannot see how Nigel Lawson's opinion is relevant, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you completely ignored my comment about Nigel Lawson. Recommend you self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Without that edit, the commentary we've quoted is overwhelmingly in favor of whitewashing Climategate and having the hacker sent to prison. That violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Personally, I'm in favor of including both the Palin quote and the Lawson quote, since that would balance this section out nicely, but I'll settle for one or the other. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously nobody is saying that hackers shouldn't be prosecuted for their crimes. That isn't the same as whitewashing the incident--quite the reverse. As for the "Climategate" fuss, it's too early to say whether it will have a lasting effect on the politics of global warming. --TS 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After a thorough review of all the "reaction" quotes, including the climatologists and so forth, it's easy to see why the article has a "neutrality of this article is disputed" template. It would be hard to imagine a more biased selection of quotes, gentlemen. More quotes from climate change skeptics and less from the apologists are in order, from the world of climatology and the world of politics -- since this article is at the intersection. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest some comments on the matter from appropriately qualified sceptics. Everybody and his dog has an opinion on this issue, but informed comment is needed to draw out the facts of the affair. --TS 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's talk about Dr. Tim Ball. An eminent climatologist and climate change skeptic, former colleague of Jones and Mann, confirms that his views have been suppressed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean this fellow? What has he been saying about the affair? He is, I hope you realise, a retired geography lecturer. --TS 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But Tony, as someone said here yesterday, apparently he singlehandedly invented climatology or something! Entirely on his own. In his garage. I think he was trying to put bubbles into beer or something. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll put in my 2 cents in for nonprosecution because nobody's bothered to demonstrate that there's been a crime. They might never be found but if found, there might never be a prosecution because of prosecutorial discretion, whistleblower protection, or the same doctrine of necessity that got those greenpeace powerplant protesters off recently on charges of physical vandalism, etc. Crimes are a matter for the relevant jurisdiction's legal code and prosecutorial staff. Allegations of criminality without any sort of prosecutorial statement or actual charges need to be considered in light of WP:BLP. Right now a criminal investigation is ongoing. That deserves mention but no jumping to conclusions in advance of the prosecutors would be a prudent policy. TMLutas (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Q5. --TS 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a FAQ? Oops, I missed it. Maybe it should be set to "expanded" by default? Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Norfolk Constabulary statement does not mean that there was a theft. It means that they think that there was a crime committed by somebody. Alleged theft is appropriate at this stage of an investigation. There have been no charges, no John Doe warrants, no statements or conclusions other than they are looking into the events. The FAQ should be modified as it asserts as settled what is not settled. I've seen the howling mob in the Duke rape case. There were convictions in the end, but in an entirely unexpected direction with the prosecutor being disbarred and charged. And even at the height of the howling mob, media was constrained to say "alleged rape". We have much fewer facts than we did in the Duke case but people are confident saying it is theft, it is hacking, etc. Disgraceful. TMLutas (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, this is a silly argument. The UEA has stated definitively that it was a theft. It is the owner of the stolen files. It is the only party in a position to say whether the files were taken with its consent. That's an either-or proposition: either the files were taken with consent or without. If without, as the UEA has said, then it was a theft, as the UEA has said. Reliable sources have consistently described this unambiguously as a theft. If this was a bank robbery, do you think people would be disputing whether the bank's money had been stolen? Of course not. The only reason there is any dispute of any sort on this issue is because some people have an ideological interest in denying the fact of the theft. Though I suppose if one is intent on denying big things like mainstream science, denying small things is easy to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

• 1,700 UK scientists back climate science, Associate Press, Raphael G. Satter. -Atmoz (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Already in the article, under "Climatologists". I added it last night. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to revert the removal of the duplicate header, since 1,700 X 2 = 3,400! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since last night?!? GNews says the article is only 4 hours old. I demand that you recuse yourself from this article because you clearly have inside information and a conflict of interest and (insert list of other non-relevant policies here)! Plus, it's 1700 in the UK. If you add US scientists, I'm sure you'd get more than 3400. (That's my little original research for today.) -Atmoz (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't trust Google News' publication times. :-) It was published in this morning's Times, which went up on the Web around 00:30 this morning in the UK (just before I went to bed). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the Durban Declaration of climate change. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of, and probably worth mentioning elsewhere as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Times article seems to exist in various forms, with one version [45] as of now saying "One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change." Another version says "One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said." Messy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we'd better wait until The Times gets its story straight. --TS 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly keep an eye on this. Given the speed with which these names were assembled there are bound to be some oddities among them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely not in favor of including this in the article. We don't know much about the provenance of the list, and the signs are not good. It does not at this stage represent a reliable report of support for the CRU scientists, because there's as yet no way of knowing how voluntary the signing was and how qualified each person was to make the statement (I imagine most were not much above doctorate level and few had any experience of climate research, but that's a pure guess). --TS 00:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate bloggers' comment?????

Are you serious? You really want to open this article to commentary from bloggers? If that's the case, why not include commentary from Free Republic, Debbie Schlussel, Hugh Hewitt and World Net Daily? Do you see that you're opening an enormous can of worms by including a climate change apologist blog? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS. Not all blogs are created equal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So what is it that makes RealClimate the only blog whose comments are allowed in the article? Does someone somehow believe that the number of apologists' comments is insufficient? Currently the ratio is (roughly) 21 apologists to three skeptics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that they're the only blog allowed here, it's just that they happen to be highly qualified climate scientists. If there are other blogs by climatologists, we'd be just as happy to include their relevant opinions. RealClimate was also one of the sites hacked in the incident, so their reports on this affair are going to creep in now and again even on the hacking side of the story. --TS 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, as Tony says - they're among the victims of the crime, both as individuals and as a website. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it more than a little disturbing that a Wikipedia article about an event which clearly undercuts the credibility of "established science on the subject" is overwhelmingly dominated by shucking and jiving from the very same community of scientists whose credibility has been damaged. Some balance in the commentary, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"[C]learly undercuts the credibility"? Only with people who "always knew it was fake". Guettarda (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They're obviously a reasonable primary source for the subsidiary story of the hack attempt on their blog, but using thm more generally is less defensible, unless you're going to open up to, for example, [46], [47], and [48]. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that any of those blogs has quite the standing of RealClimate. MarkNau (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that we would be wise to attempt to make such distinctions. Using RealClimate with great caution (except where it's directly relevant) would therefore seem wise. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The quoted article on RealClimate is signed "group," which strongly implies that it has the backing of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, both of whom are highly qualified and reputable to speak on the issue of the meaning of the email excerpt. MarkNau (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

'an event which clearly undercuts the credibility of "established science on the subject" ' Oh for heaven's sake, that's what a few old warhorses like Lawson have said. It's not what they're saying in Copenhagen. --TS 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Clearly undercuts the credibility" is an overstatement. Likewise, to insist that the focus of the story is on the hacking crime and their victims is not supportable. The main issue of this incident is: What does the leaked information show, if anything, with regards to the methods of, and resultant data from, CRU. MarkNau (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's the story, because if it were it would have pretty much run its course. The only story that may exists here is whether they treated the whole FOIA issue improperly. The rest is all light, no heat. I'm guessing that the story is more about how long the deniers will continue to spin this, and whether the hackers will succeed in their attempt to undermine Copenhagen (and public support for science, in the longer term). Guettarda (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, that doesn't seem anywhere close to a reasonable interpretation of what someone who comes to this page is looking for information on. You clearly want to dismiss the skeptics. I'm not debating whether they have a point. I'm saying the dispute is currently clearly over the meaning of the leaked information. MarkNau (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, the questions that have been raised about methods and results have been answered. Doesn't mean more might not come out, but for our purposes, at this point in time, that looks pretty settled. All light, no heat. The questions about the theft, the spin, and the impact, those are still developing. That's all I meant. Guettarda (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to judge whether they have a point. It's our place to follow what the reliable sources are saying and right now, the reliable sources are saying that the climate change skeptics have gained ground, and the apologists have lost ground. The commentary should reflect what the reliable sources are saying. Instead, what we have here are (roughly) 21 lengthy comments from apologists saying "move on, nothing to see here, the criticisms are all rubbish" and three little snippets from skeptics saying "hold on." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The only facts the reliable sources are reporting at the moment are:

• 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.

Those are the facts that a reader should go away with. I think we're doing a pretty good job of that so far. --TS 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue of RealClimate's reliability at the WP:RSN. [49] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TS, your understanding of "fact" is way off. It is, for example, a fact that there have been widespread allegations of scientific misconduct relating to the emails. It is a fact that something called "Climategate" is being discussed in the media. It is a fact that "Climategate" has gotten more attention than the death threats received by some scientists, or the investigation into the security breach at CRU. It is a fact that there are specific arguments as to how the emails indicate misconduct. All of these facts warrant inclusion in an article about current events. If you don't want to include them, then you should just delete this entire article and not put it up again until well after the topic is established history. Drolz (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Death Threats

Do you know about the death threats on Woodward and Berstein? Can you give me any details about them? How about death threats on Don Imus after he made his Rutger's remark? No. Know why? Because they are rather incosequential to the main stories. They existed, and yet nobody knows any of the details of them because the clear consensus among humanity is that they are at best secondary to the main stories. I just picked two random examples off the top of my head. Controversies like this are full of crazy ripple effects, but those ripple effects do not constitiute the main story (unless something significant happens.) Nobody is coming to this page to research the death threats. They want to know what was in the info, how it was gotten, who got it, and what they should make of that info. MarkNau (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did the police or the FBI announce that they were investigating the death threats in question? Of course if they were serious, and were investigated, they should be in the Wikipedia article. Why do you want to remove this? These death threats, being investigated in multiple jurisdictions across two or three continents, are the most serious consequence. Scientists are in danger. --TS 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your plea of "scientists are in danger" encapsulates why I think it has no place. This is not the place for a "cause," not the place to wave the banner, to issue a warning or a call to arms. The primary information pertinent to the subject is: "What happened, who did it, what is in those data, what does that mean, what is the state of things?" The lede should accurate summarize that to the best of its ability. The death threats are clearly not the main thrust of this incident. This seems crystal clear to me, and I look at other examples to verify that, to try to keep an objective perspective. MarkNau (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, these death threats are being presented as a consequence of the incident. They've attracted real world police investigation. They are both relevant and notable, at least at this point in time. Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a useful and informative exercise to try to think of similar cases and see what happened in the wikipedia articles in question. I haven't done this yet, but it might be a way to help us resolve this. MarkNau (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead makes this linkage clear enough - the university expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised", which indeed it was, and the consequence of that compromise was that extremists started abusing and threatening the individuals named in the e-mails. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there's no consensus for your change, MarkNau. Guettarda (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but add that there is no consensus to add that information to the lede either. Continued discussion and good will! MarkNau (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's rather interesting how certain parties seem to want to whitewash this part of the story. I guess it gets in the way of presenting the scientists as villains. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear at all why Marknau would want these particular facts to be omitted. I'm also rather disturbed by the rhetoric being used to downplay the death threats. Are there some crimes that are of no consequence? Does the profession of the victim make a multi-continent crime investigation less important? --TS 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently yes, if the targets are people whom a certain ideological group disapproves of. Think of abortion doctors for a similar example. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a distasteful comparison, as would a comparison to the death threats against animal researchers. Those people are scientists too, so they obviously don't count if the climatologists don't count. Perhaps we should find some real people to compare them to. --TS 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nasty batch of incivility there, guys. As a rule of thumb, if an outside observer of your edits can tell what your personal opinion is on the contentious part of a given topic, then you should doubt your own objectivity. Your personal positions are quite transparent. My own, I would wager, is quite mysterious. I suspect those on each side suspect me of being on the other. MarkNau (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, did you just make 4 reverts in the last 3 hours? You are aware of WP:3RR, correct? [50][51][52][53]. Please quit your edit warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I predict the edit warring on this article has stopped until 12 Dec. -Atmoz (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he can be reported to WP:AN3 but I'm not sure I know how to do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's stopped until 25 December, since it's now been fully-protected again. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The 14th, but I was figuring that some well-meaning admin was going to unprotect it before that. The tag is from the old sprot, and needs to be updated. -Atmoz (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing, it really needed to be protected for longer than that, not least so that some problem editors can be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But you're one of the problem editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit pointless blocking me now. I was the one who asked for the article to be protected, because of the edit warring. --TS 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You had the page blocked to prevent yourself from edit warring? Why not just simply stop reverting other people's edits? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not stop removing content because you have a POV disagreement with it? The fault is yours, not Tony's. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's in violation of WP:UNDUE and you know it. Wikipedia is the place for WP:ADVOCACY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)