Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

which some have dubbed

Either it's called it or it isn't. If it is, it should be written as "also known as". If it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. I don't particularly care which it is. CNN refers to it as climategate. They haven't dubbed it as such. Newsweek similarly refers to as climategate. ABC news too. With all the dubbing going on, I think I'm watching a foreign film. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer that this stupid, jokey "gate" nonsense was purged from Wikipedia as unencyclopedic; however, that fact remains that some sources (though by no means all) have adopted this retarded term for the incident. The usage is particularly prevalent in the US, where crawling information bars and "chyrons" have limited space. "Climategate" is not an encyclopedic term. At best, it is simply a moniker; therefore, "dubbed" seems appropriate (although I would prefer "which some refer to as..."). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think that dubbed sounds very encyclopedic, even though climategate is a stupid name. Instead of foreign films by the way, I was thinking that it should be called Sir Climategate of East Anglia. Ignignot (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using "Climategate" and "Climategate scandal" as alternate titles that redirect here. There's a strong tendency here in the Colonies to append the suffix "-gate" onto the name of any scandal, and so the term is gaining traction. Just trying to help. And calling it a "hacking incident" in the main title assumes that it was the result of hacking, so the word "hacking" should be removed. (P&W immediately covers his head with his arms, and flees from the Talk page in a zigzag pattern.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate already existed as a redirect, I added in Climategate scandal as another redirect. The hacking in the title thing is a huge can of worms that should be discussed in the appropriate talk section. Ignignot (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct someone way up there above, "CRU gate" has actually 690,000 hits -- here. (CRUgate, one word, around 6,000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs)

As I'm sure most of you know, the number of hits Google generates is only loosely connected with the number of results it turns up. In this case, it runs out at 469 (and precisely zero of the 9 hits on that page are about climate). Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I like "which some have dubbed". At this stage, it isn't a "thing", it doesn't have a name. But some have named the issue. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's recap something that I mentioned when we were discussing the inclusion of "Climategate". If people want to argue that "CRUgate" is in use they need to refer to reliable sources - not blogs - and a general Google search is next to useless in that regard (see WP:GOOGLE). Google News finds just six sources, five of them blogs and one an opinion piece, which use the term. [6] So it clearly is not in any general usage among reliable sources as opposed to the blogosphere. Second, it is original research to use sources as examples of usage. You need sources which specifically speak of the term's usage, rather than sources which merely use the term. Hence - for example - the Reuters source cited after "Climategate" says that the affair was "already dubbed "Climategate", and our article reflects this wording.

Turning to Atmoz's comments, "also known as" is problematic because, first, the existing wording specifically reflects the source, while that wording does not - it's one editor's own spin on it (hence OR). Second, "also known as" makes it seem that the alternate term is a general term for it, which it clearly isn't (hence also OR and rather POV). The term is not in general use like "Watergate"; it was specifically coined by anti-science activists to promote the incident as a scandal, so it is loaded with POV connotations. Given the very partisan way in which it's used we need to be careful about how we present it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources which refer to this as "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". You're argument is disingenuous at best. -Atmoz (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You will also no doubt find that there are "no sources" which refer to "Rathergate" as Killian documents controversy or "Attorneygate" as "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy". Those names are used because of Wikipedia's policy on article naming and our avoidance of "gate" in article titles. (I wrote the relevant sections of those policies a very long time ago, so I know what I'm talking about here.) Wikipedia is not news: we deliberately avoid non-neutral article titles, and we make an effort to find descriptive article titles. Yes, "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is longer and clumsier but it has the huge advantages of (a) neutrality and (b) telling you something about the subject. "Climategate" tells you only that it's something about climate which someone considers a scandal. I'm not saying that "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is necessarily the best title (I didn't choose it!) but it's significantly better than a lot of the alternatives. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident", it's a descriptive phrase. Because it isn't really a "thing", it doesn't have a name. Just a descriptive phrase for the article title. Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to go on record as saying that this has has to be one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lamest edit war ever. Why not just say "widely referred to as "Climategate"" or somesuch? That would be entirely accurate. Evercat (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple. 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. Then there's the third group who just wants to write a good article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that if someone can find a source to support it. As I said, merely finding examples of usage isn't enough - what we need are sources telling us how the term is used (widely? narrowly? who uses it?). Otherwise it's OR and weasel wording. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this do as a source? [7] Evercat (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? A list of Google search results? What did I just say about "merely finding examples of usage"? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. It's not just an example usage, its an indication of how wide that usage is, which is what you asked for. Nobody looking at that link can deny that the term is widely used. About 600,000 hits contain both "Climategate" and "Climate Research Unit" [8] indicating that there's a substantial use of the term in this context. Evercat (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is pure original research. It's an argument that's not made in reliable sources. I don't mind including the term, but if we're going to say anything about how the term is used it needs to be sourced. And you should know that Google tests are heavily caveated/deprecated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not original research. I didn't do the research, Google did. Google is a fairly reliable indicator of how widely a phrase is used on the web. I think it's obvious you're trying to use the letter of Wikipedia policy to object to an edit that you know would be perfectly sensible and accurate. You don't actually deny that "Climategate" is being widely used, do you? [Edit: but see my comment below...] Evercat (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't deny that it's widely used. But the point stands about using a Google search as a source in an article to make an argument that doesn't appear in any reliable source. You can't do that. If you don't believe me, go over to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm afraid you're wrong about "Google doing the research". You created the list of search results from Google's database snapshot at that particular time. It can't be reproduced because the database is in constant flux and the results vary wildly. Google isn't even a fixed source, let alone a reliable one. This argument about using Google search results as a source is one that's come up time and again; basically, it can't be done because of Google's inherent instability and the general unacceptability of making novel arguments without reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'About 600,000 hits contain both "Climategate" and "Climate Research Unit"' - actually drill down and you'll find that "600,000" resolves to only 675 pages. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's odd. Have I really been misled into thinking that Climategate is widely used when it in fact isn't? I suppose this is possible... Evercat (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. But with regards to results, see Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Google_unique_page_count_issues and the reference cited therein. Google doesn't actually count pages that match your query. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it's beginning to be referred to as "hackergate" it seems [9]. Might be a bit too early to rename the article but perhaps we should add that to the list in the lead section. NB.
—Apis (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 News called it "emailgate" the other day... Itsmejudith (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is the single most common name for the incident. No other name has stuck. I don't actually care much what the title of the article is, but "Climategate" should be introduced without disparagement and the which some sources have dubbed Climategate wording is dismissive, therefore POV. It isn't serious encyclopedic language, either. Let's use neutral language with a more serious tone, the way articles normally use it: also known as Climategate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" has two problems. First of all, it's a very US-centric moniker that is little-used outside of US and US-influenced media. Secondly, it carries the implication of guilt on the part of the CRU, when in fact the guilt lies with the individuals or group who conducted the data theft. A fairer approach would be to say something like "which some media commentators have referred to as 'Climategate'". -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You've given a good reason not to use "Climategate" as the article title, but none of those are good reasons not to neutrally note that it is a name very, very frequently used. It isn't just used in the U.S., either. Here's a Google News search limited to UK sources, showing results from many prominent sources. [10] (I did the search to show prominent sources.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still not ubiquitous enough to label it without a qualifier. "Some media commentators have referred to it as..." or "Some media outlets...", etc. Wikipedia itself must not apply this label, if you get my drift. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

also known as Climategate isn't "Wikipedia itself" saying anything other than that it's a name that's been used for it. No more, no less. Neutral. "Some media outlets" using the term is always assumed because it's obvious. Using a "qualifier" is Wikipedia itself making a statement about use of that term, which would be fine if there were something special about the term, but in this case there isn't anything special about it. If it's worthwhile, we might cite some source discussing the term and possible objections to it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but using the term "also known as" would need a qualifier. "Also known as" by whom? Either you stick in a festival of corroborating references, or you simply say "some media commentators" and throw in a couple of representative references. There should be no doubt whatsoever that it isn't "Wikipedia's voice" using the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of "some" corrobation. Search the article for Climategate and you find there are already a half-dozen references which use the term. Go through the article's versions in other languages for more non-US-centric examples. Actually read the sources if you need more. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AKA Climategate (as in, the name everyone uses) would need a qualifier, but "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident," which no one, anywhere, "knows" it as, does not?Drolz09 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody? I doubt it. While Google claims 30 million hits for "climategate", it only turns up 730 of them when you look through the results. Surely this issue has attracted a lot more than 730 distinct hits. Or has it? I think I perception of the size of the internet is grossly inflated by these silly stats Google likes to throw our way. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What other wikipedia projects are calling it isn't relevant, nor is how they refer to it in other languages. Other language wikipedias might have different policies, and likely they want to reflect the name used in their local language media.
—Apis (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that everyone thinks of the issue as "Climategate" is obvious if only in light of the effort people go to to re-brand it, and how awkward they look doing so. Drolz09 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone" does not think of the issues as "Climategate", and Wikipedia relies on a neutral approach to topics supported by NPOV, rather than a sensationalistic, emotionally-manipulating approach that is promoted by the media. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it going to take to change the "some sources have dubbed..." to "which has been dubbed as". I don't believe that wording will carry the implication that Wikipedia is authoritatively coining the term. Additionally, to go on saying "some sources", carries the implication that the incident is going by other nicknames. As far as I've seen, just about every major media outlet has used the term Climategate or Climate-gate. For those undo'ing edits to drop the "some sources" - please list some examples where a different moniker is being used. Static623 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, "global warming" only yields about 730ish hits before Google posts the irrelevant/redundant results link.76.105.74.127 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better idea: In order to reflect the actual content of the article, change the name to "Climate Lobby's Response to Ambiguous Incident Involving Criminal Hacking and Possibly Other Crimes." Drolz09 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to confuse the issue - there is no other short-hand for this incident other than "Climategate". Static623 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FOI subsection restored

I've restored the FOI subsection which had previously been removed with the objection that it was somehow a BLP violation. Discussion at WP:BLPN showed otherwise. See WP:BLPN#Use of blog to source allegations of criminal wrongdoing by named individuals. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, here's the diff showing what we're talking about: -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i don't agree with your reading of the comments on that board. Its a WP:SPS and it doesn't come under any of the exceptions to the rule (ie. he's not an expert). And since it is BLP material that we are talking about, then there has to be some very good reasons for ignore wikipedia rules. Find better and reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no other way to read the comments at the BLP board. He isn't self-published, as is made abundantly clear by the section on the BLP noticeboard, which I'm surprised you didn't notice. The blog is published at the Science magazine website. Using italics doesn't make your argument for a BLP violation any better: It's been discussed in numerous publications by now and an inquiry has begun. The source is as reliable as they come: a journalist from a reputable publication where both he and his editors can be expected to be well-versed in libel law. And as for sourcing, the journalist himself uses sources: a British lawyer familiar with FOI and the British agency that handles FOI law. You didn't really read the BLP noticeboard discussion, did you? All this information is there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My, my, Kim, you actually participated in the BLPN discussion. I'd forgotten. All of your objections have been answered there, yet you repeat them here. Perhaps you'd forgotten those parts of the BLPN discussion in which your objections were answered with evidence. Again, please review them. It would save us the trouble of repeating them all here, although by this point, I think I might just cut and paste previous responses. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough there are only 2 (uninvolved) comments to that BLP request, one is ambivalent with a nod towards "No", and the other is positive. Thats not nearly enough to assert that it went in the way you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please address the actual issues, which you failed to do in the BLP discussion. Please address the actual points I made here (after I already made them there). You objected on the basis of BLP and self-published sourcing. I've already shown that there is no BLP violation and the sourcing is not self-published. Do you have any other objections or any further BLP objections that haven't already been knocked down? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with this aspect of the matter. Were any emails actually deleted? If they were, then absolutely it should be in the article. If they were not, then it all becomes speculative stuff from a blog that should not be in the article, per WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the BLPN discussion conveniently linked at the top of this section. All your points should be answered there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "yes" the emails were deleted, or "no" the emails were not deleted is all I need. The discussion you refer to does not seem to focus on the salient point I am getting at. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Your point is slightly off topic: the section is not about whether or not FOIA was violated but whether or not that is a possibility, based on what Jones said in some of the emails. The point that the journalist was making, a point made by other reliable sources as well, is that this is an area where Jones wrote some suspicious statements in the emails, and if emails or documents were deleted in the face of an FOIA request, there are legal consequences involved. The point is not whether or not anything was actually deleted -- something we have no way of knowing. This is an issue that many reliable sources have brought up about this well-known person, so there is no BLP violation in WP bringing it up. If you look at the BLPN discussion, this will be very clear, very quickly. Again, sorry I wasn't clear about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you have made clear is that you want to write about something that didn't happen. Some iffy-sounding emails that offer no proof of anything, that a few blogs and other sources have picked up on. Regardless of the outcome of that BLPN discussion, it does not seem as if the long-winded exposé that is currently being edit-warred in and out of the article is appropriate. If it gets mentioned at all, it would seem that WP:WEIGHT demands it be a one-line mention, or something of that level. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't discuss this civilly, I'm going to ignore you. I asked you to familiarize yourself with the facts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been perfectly civil. I am coming at this from the perspective of being an experienced Wikipedia editor, not an expert on climate change. The information you seek to include is about a nebulous "maybe" scenario, so it is clear that it does not warrant the enormous chunk that has been proffered thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, edit warring of this section must stop. Until there is a clear consensus for inclusion of this controversial section (on this talk page, not some other meta page), it should not be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anybody still think it's a BLP violation to bring up possible FOIA violations? Apparently the University of East Anglia thinks it's a subject worth discussing: [11]

LONDON - The British university at the center of what climate skeptics are calling "Climategate" on Thursday named an outside reviewer and detailed what would be investigated. [...]

The university said Russell would also review: [...]

"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."

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is a BLP vio. My assertion is that it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT because too much coverage is given relative to the rest of the article, violating the neutral point of view. Clearly, we need to establish a consensus for what (if any of it) should be included. That is a discussion that should occur here, and not elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I think you misunderstand is that the problem was with the source, and that criminal allegations are subject to WP:BLP. You cannot source that material from a blog, even if that blog is hosted by science (compare with a column in a newspaper).
—Apis (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just wrong. There is no problem with the source, since the source doesn't make an allegation. Your idea that we don't or can't rely on reliable sources to state the obvious with regard to legal liability is without any foundation whatever in policy. And it's not just that source, of course, but all sorts of sources. To cut and paste from the WP:BLPN discussion that you're ignoring:

• See also: The Guardian news story from 11/23 [12] it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests. Jones has been called (by a writer in the Daily Telegraph) without doubt, one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming [13] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• [...] here are two more, so we have at least four reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA:
  • The Daily Mail in the UK: Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests. (11/25) [14];
  • Daily Telegraph story: Thousands of documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) also seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics. (11/24) [15]
  • Here's what Phil Jones wrote in one of the released emails (09:41 AM 2/2/2005):

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] 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. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• And why not have The Financial Times of the UK [16] join the party (registration required, but it's free) -- referencing the very blog post that's the supposed BLP violation: Lesson 2: Don't evade Freedom of Information requests. As noted in the Science Magazine link above, many of the e-mails discuss how to destroy documents in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests. That's a criminal offense in the United Kingdom (where the CRU is located). IT folks should be aware that an increasing amount of data (particularly scientific and research data gathered via public funding) is subject to FOIA. They should work with researchers to ensure documents are stored and organized with that in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual spin-doctored, scare-mongering version of the facts with special bold bits that were the same bold bits Glenn Beck showed the other night. The simple fact is this: there is no evidence that any emails or data were actually deleted. They are allegations, not confirmations. The only actual criminal offense was perpetrated by the hackers who stole the information. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mention of news reports about claimed FOIA violations would be in order so long as undue weight is not given. Debating the meaning of individual primary sources (i.e. the emails) is WP:OR.

WP:BLP should not be a problem so long as wide-circulation media outlets are the source. Blogs are not sufficient because moving info from a (low-readership) blog to (high-readership) Wikipedia makes Wikipedia the publisher of said info and liable to court proceedings if the claim is not provably correct (because people can 'sue in England').

The publisher needn't be especially noteworthy, mainstream or even reliable, assuming proper contextual info is provided, so long as it has reasonably broad readership.Dduff442 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"The publisher needn't be especially noteworthy, mainstream or even reliable" Um....no. Sources must be reliable. Readership is irrelevant. We have specific policies and guidelines about this: WP:V and WP:RS and they are not negotiable on this talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are quite a few WP:RS that report deletion of emails in a way that suggests it's significant. The Telegraph covers it [17] and includes a comment by Michael Mann: "Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders. "I can't justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that's clear."" They also cover it further [18] where they refer to it as one of the most contentious emails: " Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public" and again [19] when Nigel Lawson says "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act" (Lawson is firmly in the "climate change isn't as bad as it's claimed in terms of the policy changes that are required" camp). Phil Jones himself directly addresses it in The Guardian: [20] "We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that". The Wall Street Journal mentions it here [21] " In one email, Dr. Jones asked others to delete certain emails, apparently after some data were requested by a climate-change skeptic under the Freedom of Information Act", and Science mentioned it via one of their news editors [22], where a link between the law and FOI and deleting emails is made (and again [23]) Brumski (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the Michael Mann quote should be included, given that he is an "expert," directly involved in the scandal, and it's in a trustworthy source. Drolz09 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate and CRU Hack as separate articles

I am not a wikipedia expert but it seems to me that these are in fact two separate issues. It's entirely possible for one person to be vehemently opposed to both hacking and scientific malfeasance.

The two issues really have no relation to each other; that is, whether or not the emails were obtained legally has no bearing on whether they reveal corruption. The opposite is also true; whether or not the emails constitute corruption has no bearing on whether they were obtained legally. The only reason that this would not be the case is if the emails had been manipulated by the hackers, but not only has no one alleged this--they have been determined genuine.

Accordingly, neither issue should taint the other on Wikipedia. If the emails reveal corruption, the article on them should not be cluttered with discussion of how the hacking was also corrupt. This amounts to instantiating "two wrongs makes a right" in an Wikipedia article. Again, the opposite is equally true.

Also, the hack occurred months prior to the actual scandal, and the hackers are unidentified. There is no reason to believe that they are even affiliated with the principle actors in the current scandal, but when they are discussed in the same article, they are effectively conflated with the skeptics, unfairly impugning the reputations of the latter. Drolz09 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In reading the article, I was thinking the same thing. There really should be an article related to the scandal and the fallout in terms of the science community and its impact on the overall view of global warming ("Climategate"), and a separate one covering the act of leaking the documents ("the incident"). Tencious9 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep adding material and when a subject gains too much material it will tend to be split off. No need yet to plan what will grow. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually several issues packed together there: 1) possible bad behavior by a handful of scientists; 2) the consequences in re the science of AGW; 3) the consequences in re the perception of the global warming issue. The latter is actually closely related to the issue of the theft, since it was clearly the primary intent of the thieves affect that perception. Of course all of these issues relate to one particular event -- the theft and dissemination of the EAC materials, which is the subject of this article. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:POVFORK. Without the hacking incident climategate would not have occured. This topic might already be in the discussion archivesChelydramat (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I hardly see how these events can be considered the same subject. WWI might not have occurred without the Arch Duke being assassinated, but that doesn't mean they are inextricably linked and need to be on the same page. Also, I'm advocating a "fork" explicitly for neutrality. As I said, it's possible to oppose both hacking and corruption. The moral standing of the hack has no bearing on the science. If Climategate is a fake scandal (it's not, sorry), it is because of the content of the emails, not how they were acquired. If, for instance, the hacking were ongoing, or in any way continuing to play a role in the analysis of the documents, it would have a place here, but that is not the case.Drolz09 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the same subject and we don't need two articles. So, no. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot separate the two. The security breach would not be notable were it not for the release of the e-mails. The provenance of the e-mails is central to their authenticity. While we do not know who leaked the e-mails, they must have intended to embarrass the writers of the e-mails. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, as I said, the only importance the breach can have is if they somehow affect the veracity of the emails. Yet, even though no one contends that it does, discussion of the breach absolutely DOMINATES the article. The topics wouldn't need to be split except for the fact that the Wikipedia "Ruling Party" is so relentlessly shameless in its employment of the NPOV tag as a means to force POV. Drolz09 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The hack is a central part of the story. Frankly, I see this as just another bid to hide the crime that started this controversy - we've seen people arguing that there was no crime, now we're seeing people arguing that the crime should be hidden away in another article. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the main story in the Smoking/Cancer issue is the leak of proprietary data by whistleblowers? Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg? Is your contention that any malfeasance which is revealed due to criminal activity is thereby excused? Or is it just that the real story is always the way in which it is revealed? So Watergate is actually about an observant security guard? Neither claim has merit. In fact, the reverse is, at the very least, more accurate: that is, if someone knows that a crime is being committed and commits a lesser crime with intent to stop it, a reasonable person could see that as justified. The claim you are making, that when ongoing criminal activity is brought to light by a lesser crime, it is excused, defies all reason. Drolz09 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Problem though is that you're jumping the gun a little. There's no evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of the CRU folks. As it stands, the story of stolen email, the content of the email, and the way the content was cherry-picked and spun wildly is all woven together. Guettarda (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized the article, and your characterization of editors not only is wildly factually inaccurate but violates WP:NPA. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree they are two distinct topics (hacking being a technical): [24][25] 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The hackers made their intention plain, and to some extent they have been successful in the short term. It is unlikely that this subject will need two articles in the near future. --TS 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I weakly endorse the idea that two articles are required. The provenance of the emails remains in question, and the motives, methods, and legal status are under investigation by the university and the police. Totally apart from that aspect of the scandal is the appearance of impropriety on the part of individual scientists, missing/destroyed raw data, and the impact on the Copenhagen Climate Summit and the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. Like John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln, the two topics are vitally linked, but essentially separate.Nightmote (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of splitting the article. That would almost certainly result in a POV fork. The significant detail of this incident is the data theft, and the local-level consequences that arise from it (security, staff being replaced, UK government investigation). It is unlikely to have any significant impact on the Copenhagen Climate Summit (from a point of view of policies, treaties, etc.) and it will have absolutely no effect on the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (or the science supporting it). At best, it will promote stricter standards among scientists working in climate-related fields. It might provide fuel for the James Inhofe's of this world for a little while, I suppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the data theft is the significant issue is unsupportable. Nobody in their right mind cares about an isolated incident of data theft. Claiming otherwise is especially absurd here, because the "stolen" data was subject to FOI requests anyway. The only reason the hack is at all relevant is because of what it revealed. Regardless of whether you believe the data reveal malfeasance, that is the issue at hand. It is not POV to answer this question independently of the question of the hacker's identity/motives, because the second issue cannot be said to have any bearing on the outcome of the first. Drolz09 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It "revealed" absolutely nothing, which just leaves the theft as the important and significant matter. All this alleged conspiracy has already been debunked repeatedly and all over the place. Here, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the article is not about a criminal investigation, but about the content and reaction to those contents. You are completely jumping the gun here by saying that it is all settled and done with because that is obviously not the case. The scientific review has only just been declared. I don't see how you can objectively reach this viewpoint. Ignignot (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily, actually. Just as the apoplectic wingnuts of the Limbaugh persuasion had already condemned the scientists within mere moments of the hack coming to light, and by misinterpreting the emails and data (such as the complete misunderstanding of the word "trick", or even what anyone was referring to). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to flip out over the responses of "wingnuts," etc. proves that those reactions are what makes Climategate notable. If climate science is as robust as everyone here believes, it's hard to see how this compulsive suppression of dissent is warranted. Drolz09 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? With respect, the REAL story here is likely to be that some climate change deniers, backed by big oil, hacked into the CRU to find, and then misrepresent, data related to climate change for the purposes of sabotaging the summit. I'm willing to bet that is all there is to it. All this other stuff is fanciful nonsense, quite frankly. The focus of this article should be about the hacking incident, and then the misrepresentation and lies that followed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course it's hard to see if you radically misrepresent it. Nothing is being suppressed, compulsively or otherwise, certainly not dissent -- unless you consider mere factual correction of error to be suppression of dissent. You talk about the robustness of climate science, yet this event and the materials it brought forth don't touch climate science, only the behavior of a handful of climate scientists. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, it's obvious that you're trying to swing this article as far into your own bias as possible. The hacking incident is focused on the by left-wing media, while most of the rest of the MSM is also reporting on the ramifications introduced by the allegations of fraud on part of one of the most prestigious climate research institutes. It's VERY clear that there are two distinct issues to be discussed.Static623 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to splitting at the time being. The theft and it's performers possible intentions are integral part of this all. If there's a trial or so some day, then it'd be made as a sub-article. --J. Sketter (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also opposed to splitting, and as someone who is very familiar with the forking process, I cannot see a single valid reason for creating two articles at this time. I am open and willing to listen to proposals. As far as I can tell, this proposal has been repeatedly made on a daily basis for some time now, as if each new thread will somehow result in its acceptable. This a great talking point for the POV pushers, but its tendentious and disruptive. POV forks are not what we do here. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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[26]. 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)

Myron Ebell again

Continuing this discussion...

Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression states that "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value" violates NPOV.

This is the relevant passage from the article:

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

This is verbatim from the source [27]:

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position." (emphasis added)

The phrase 'whose group is funded in part by energy companies' is relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value that has been strangely excised from the middle of sourced information and should be inserted into the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduff442 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to go down this road, let's include the funding sources for the university professors. They should not be consider clean and uninfluenced by their funding sources. Let's not assume that special interest groups don't fund universities. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this because these pressure groups and think tanks exist precisely to advance the interests of their patrons. But consensus is against adding the text at least in this form. --TS 09:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The appearance of consensus is misleading. The standing was 2-1-3 F/Neutral/A (it's 3-1-3 if your support is added). Let's see what emerges here and debate the merits of the point. Mere objection is not sufficient to block progress -- the point must be defensible by reference to the rules. The onus is on those objecting to enter into debate.Dduff442 (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Myron Ebell is a lobbyist? I find the whole idea of adding the comments by lobbyists very odd. How are their opinions notable? Does the CEI have such a huge influence that it makes their statements notable?
—Apis (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Ebell's patrons are in effect paying to have his statements appear in newspapers and the like. If we then quote him aren't we giving undue weight to paid representations? --TS 10:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2) I explained above. It's not relevant, as the only purpose is the implication that the sponsors affect the statements, which statement wouldn't be acceptable in Wikipedia even if explicitly stated.

Ebell is a scientist working for the CEI, which is a think tank, rather than a lobbyist working for a lobbying organization. If he were a lobbyist, the identity of the specific sponsors might be relevantHowever, CEI wouldn't then be a non-profit. The separate question of whether the Post's statement is more correct than Obama being sponsored by energy companies (some energy companies did contribute to his campaign) might tben need to be investgated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it claimed that the phrase is not information about sources or sources' credentials or that it is not needed to fairly judge their value? We have no authority to form a consensus on this issue while flying in the face of Wiki guidelines.

Your general objections cannot stand in the face of the specific rule I'm quoting.Dduff442 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"scientist working for the CEI" - that's a good one! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ebell is a paid media jockey and is a longterm political activist, having worked as a senior legislative assistant to John Shadegg. (see CEI's own bio of Ebell). --TS 11:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see his "impressive" scientific bibliography: [28]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Mr Ebell is none other than the great Larry David [29].Dduff442 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it as I don't think this is the kind of informed, expert commentary we should be looking at for inclusion in that section. The press is full of hype for anybody who wants that, and people come to Wikipedia for an insight into the facts of the situation, behind the hype. --TS 12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, others may not. His notability is doubtful but not completely absent. I'd be satisfied if the words cut from the Post piece -- 'whose group is funded in part by energy companies' -- were included. If there's consensus to cut Ebell's remarks entirely then I'm fine with that too.Dduff442 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree he's not notable, but I'm not OK with the "energy company" statement. As stated, it's accurate, as misleading as to state that Obama is funded by energy companies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That Obama's campaign was funded by energy companies is relevant to him, though I'll wager their contribution to his coffers was a small fraction of the total unlike in this case. The CEI page lists ExxonMobil and Ford as sponsors -- both firms with an interest in energy policy. Extraordinary justification would be required to rationalise cutting out six words from what is otherwise a direct lift from the Post article. The policy is pretty clear as well.Dduff442 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interpretation. Mentioning ExxonMobil and Ford (which is not an energy company) may be cherry-picking, but possibly relevant; mentioning energy companies is an incorrect interpretation. No additional justification is needed to remove clauses, where the only justification for keeping the clause is the allegation that the group's statements are dictated by the sponsors.

To quote the policy, the statement is "not needed" — nor is it helpful — "to fairly judge their value". It's needed to unfairly judge their value. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the best option is just to exclude Myron Ebell's comments given that he is obviously not a scientist and doesn't even appear notable and the CEI is not a scientific organisation of any note. Since we seem to have consensus to exclude it I don't think there's much point for further discussion.

However if we start to get opposition to excluding him, in terms of the energy companies bit you can probably say I'm neutral to it. The fact that it's sourced directly to the source used is good however such descriptions tend to be problematic and disputed so personally I prefer to avoid them.

The Obama/energy companies thing is probably not a great example. A better example would be if Obama had made comments on this and we decided to include them, I doubt many people would agree to us mentioning his campaign was part funded by reneweable energy companies and environmental groups (which I strongly suspect is true on both counts) even if it could be sourced directly to a source mentioning his comments. I also doubt we'd have any support to mention the CRU (or any one of their researchers e.g. Phil Jones) or other people and organisations mentioned is this article are part funded by reneweable energy companies and environmental group (which may be true in some cases guessing) even if we can find a relevant reliable source. Some people may say these comparisons are misleading since the percentange and diversity of funding is different but that's a completly different argument. Some may say it's red herring since we could never find such WP:RSes but I'm not convinced that's is the case (and in event, this is an issue that arises in other article and other fields) so it does serve as a good counter example IMHO.

In other words, I won't hold it up if people want to include it but I can also see the POV of those who want to exclude it.

As for ExxonMobil/Ford, let's just not go there again, eh?

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I differ with Arthur (and apparently some other support his view) on inclusion of characterization of Ebell. If we were to include him we'd need to make clear that he spoke as a political activist, not a disinterested individual--I think it should be the case with all cited sources that we correctly characterize them. The nub of the difference is that I do think the sponsorship of his think tank by companies with an interest in the continued viability of the exploitation of petroleum technology for private transport--and yes, that includes Ford--would be an essential part of that characterization. I agree that we don't have consensus on that.

The reason I removed his entry entirely, however, is that I'm trying to move away from reliance on the usual rent-a-quote mob which has blighted the press and media coverage due to our voracious 24-hour news culture. Unlike news organizations we don't have column inches and airtime to fill, so we can afford to pick through the dross and get the most reliable sources we can find. So I'm against quoting political pundits and think tank mouthpieces who are in effect providing a paid-for platform for their patrons. --TS 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad Arthur Rubin has at last chosen to address my points directly instead of merely re-stating a prior position. I note the initial WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP objections have now been dropped to be replaced by a claim that knowledge of CEI's funding would somehow confuse readers.

It was never stated that Ford was an energy company (@AR, not Nil Einne). Ford is listed as a sponsor on the CEI page, and it is a firm with a critical stake in energy policy. The proposed edit didn't mention Ford. I can't comprehend how mentioning ExxonMobil and Ford would constitute cherry-picking, mind, when they are the only funding sources given for the CEI on its own page. I'm going to consider this aspect closed now as nobody is suggesting mention of either.

Ebell is a former congressional staffer; a lobbyist. AR may dispute this last definition, however numerous other eds have used it. It's casual usage but accurate. He has no scientific training and is certainly not 'non-profit'; he's a paid representative. Public corporations have a legal obligation to maximise stockholder returns; if they did not believe their funding of the CEI produced a return for their shareholders that funding would be illegal and those authorising the payments might be sued for damages. Quid pro quo isn't a possibility, it's a legal imperative as actions that deliberately hurt the value of shareholder funds are ultra vires.

I can cite the precedent of the original Washington Post piece in defense of my POV here; what examples can Arthur Rubin provide where journalistic integrity permits such information to be concealed? This is what he is arguing for -- suppression of information.

When this discussion was re-opened, eds quickly came to an assessment of the value of Ebell's comments: 0. Like I said, this is more than I sought and might even be disputable. (with inverted logic, WMC tried to present this as a defeat for my views on his ArbCom election page).

Public_relations#Front_groups states that "one of the most controversial practices in public relations is the use of front groups – organizations that purport to serve a public cause while actually serving the interests of a client whose sponsorship may be obscured or concealed...Instances of the use of front groups as a PR technique have been documented in many industries. Coal mining corporations have created environmental groups that contend that increased CO2 emissions and global warming will contribute to plant growth and will be beneficial...". (emphasis added) Do we agree we're not in the business of 'obscuring or concealing' information?

This is from the Society of Professional Journalists [30]: "Journalists should identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." (emphasis added)

From the BBC[31]:"As with any medium, hidden commercial or political agendas can shape a Web site's content. Researchers should check the links to and from a site as these can often reveal political or commercial affiliations. It is wise to question where the financing for a Web site comes from". (emphasis added) Again, the Post thought it unwise to hide the commercial affiliations and possible commercial agenda of the CEI.

This dispute relates to matters of editorial judgment rather than fact, the facts being undisputed. AR's position is that one particular undisputed and sourced fact needs to be excluded, the definition of suppression of information. My position is in complete agreement with Wiki policy and the various editorial standards quoted.Dduff442 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Whitehouse spokesman Gibbs

Obviously we should add a reference to Robert Gibbs' statement Monday, when asked whether the affair "Climate change is happening...I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly among most people, in dispute anymore." [32]. Should this appear under "elected national representatives"? Although Gibbs is a press secretary, he speaks for White House official policy. --TS 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama is the President of one of the most prolific carbon polluters in the world, and one of his key energy policies was a proposal for a strong carbon-limitation regime. That's why the responses by his spokesman to press questions on this matter is relevant--just as Gordon Brown's response is relevant. --TS 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's arguably one of the most notable political comments, the US is a key player globally, the response by the US government/president regarding this is highly interesting because it will have a direct effect on global politics (e.g. in Copenhagen now).
—Apis (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia response may be interesting as well. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting: [33] According to the Mail, computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service - the FSB - to close down websites which promote views not approved by the Kremlin. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an allegation published by a (not particularly reliable) newspaper. It isn't an official response by Russia. --TS 11:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i know. i just thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article contents and how to improve it, not for chatting about whatever catches our interest. --TS 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

whatever. your perception is wrong. that interesting fact IS related to the article topic, not necessarily to this thread. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that quote doesn’t come close to being notable. It isn’t even clear from the article when he said it. There no indication that it was in response to ClimateGate, and even if a transcript shows it was in response to a question about ClimateGate, there’s no indication that the White House has actually done anything to investigate and reach a conclusion. It is an extremely common, perfunctory, restatement of current opinion. SPhilbrickT 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Gibbs was speaking on Monday and had been specifically asked whether this affair would affect Copenhagen. If you don't regard this statement by the press representative of the most powerful government on the planet as "notable", my impression that the phrase "not notable" is often used as a synonym for "stuff I don't like" is strengthened. --TS 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the US is the biggest emitter of CO2 in the world, so the US Government's position on CO2 emissions and reaction to the CRU thing is probably the most significant single national response, with the possible exception of the UK because it happened in their jurisdiction. The only other political response that would be as important would be the UN or the results from Copenhagen. Ignignot (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I do not appreciate the barely veiled implication. Let’s talk about the article, and not impugn motives. I think I’ve managed to do that.

Your claim that Gibbs was “specifically asked whether this affair would affect Copenhagen”, may be correct, but it is not in the article. And no, I don’t autmatically assume that a press spokeperson’s boilerplate response is automatically notable.SPhilbrickT 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why this is notable, either. Robert Gibbs is asked about everything by the press corps (he was asked about Tiger Woods, FFS!). To me, it seems like editors want to see this quote in the article because he said, "Climate change is happening..." If his words concerning the CRU incident specifically become significant in a preponderance of reliable sources, then it is reasonable to mention it. Right now, that is not really the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To what extent can Gibbs be said to be speaking for the Administration? If what he says reflects the position of the Administration, then I would call it notable. If not, then it's more debatable. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He is paid to be an official spokesman for the administration. And he is paid to waffle when he is unsure what the administration position is on anything related to the administration. He is not, however, paid to independently determine facts. Collect (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked. If what he says is the official position of the Administration, then that is notable whether or not that position is based on (what you regard as) the facts. The question is whether his statements represent the Administration's official position. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do -- he's the official spokesman. If he says something that doesn't reflect the official position of the administration, he or the administration issues a correction/clarification. That said, this comment is only relevant if it is specifically about the effect of the CRU incident and if it is presented that way in the article. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trick

I find this edit very odd [34] especially the comment "rv: you wouldn't need so many refs if it was true". All the refs are from the side of the University of East Anglia / RealClimate. --Rumping (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit being removed was a tendentious and opinionated synthesis. --TS 10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are happy with a long quote from RealClimate which fails to say whether or not tree-ring and thermometer data were spliced together but unhappy with the following:

The trick involved replacing proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with data from air temperatures, following the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. This contradicted an earlier statement on RealClimate by Michael Mann in 2004 which said

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, 'grafted the thermometer record onto' any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."

with refs at

• "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". Time. 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
• "Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context". The Times. 2009-12-08. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
• "CRU update 2". University of East Anglia. 2009-11-24. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
• "Myth vs. Fact Regarding the 'Hockey Stick' - response to comment 4". Real Climate. 2004-12-22. Retrieved 2009-12-08.

There are clearly serious POV games being played with this article. Were the two series spliced together or not? What do the sources say? --Rumping (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The tree ring metrics were used as a temperature proxy which was tailed off for the time series where more reliable metrics were available. That isn't a controversial statement, nor is it an allegation of any wrongdoing at all. --TS 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So were the two series/metrics spliced together? I think you are saying yes, but your words are unclear, as is the current article and the current quote from RealClimate. The sources are much clearer: they were spliced.

Whether this involves wrongdoing is subjective. RealClimate now takes your current position that there was little wrong with the splicing "trick"; five years ago it described such splicing claims as specious industry-funded climate disinformation, so presumably at that time such splicing was not seen as being so reasonable. So let's state clearly in the article that the "trick" was splicing the two series, with the sources and (for POV balance) the two RealClimate quotes. I do not see how RealClimate can be a reliable source now if it was not five years ago. --Rumping (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "spliced" is inexact and suggests sloppy work. The works in question have been subject to repeated peer review so we can rule out sloppiness. We cannot directly or indirectly suggest sloppiness, nor render important disagreements as debates over sloppy grammar. --TS 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I am not fixed on "spliced", even though splicing is in fact a skilled technical opperation, and it is a fair description of what was done. Would you prefer "joined", "stuck together" or something else? In fact the reverted edit did not use any of these words: it used "replaced" as does the reference from Time. So without using "spliced", I take it we now have consensus. --Rumping (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Spliced", "joined", "glued", "stuck together" or any other verb suggesting an ad hoc operation not technically justified by the mathematics and the science would be inappropriate. The RealScience description really is very good and we needn't strain hard to improve on it using our own synthesis. Their wording is "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear." And that's what it's all about. --TS 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure your contention that the “works in question have been subject to repeated peer review” is accurate. My recollection is that the work in question is cover art for some publication. If cover art is subject to peer review, it will come as a complete surprise to me. I’ll have to dig to source my recollection. I don’t question that both the temps and the tree ring values have been peer-reviewed, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether it is OK to create a hybrid curve, consisting of tree ring data through c1960 and thermometer temps post c1960. In my profession, that would be unethical. Is there evidence it is ethical among climate scientists (assuming my recollection of what happened is correct)?SPhilbrickT 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The point I have been making is that the "trick" was not just plotting the the two series together. The sources say the same thing. If that is really how you read the current article and the RealClimate quote, then the current article and RealClimate are misleading you. What happened was that the tree-ring data was truncated for recent decades and replaced by the thermometer data, with the two lines being drawn as one. This was not technically justified by the mathematics, and the ad-hoc scientific justification was that showing the reconstruction after the 1960s would be misleading because the reconstruction did not track actual temperatures. What you describe as plotting one series along with another is the second chart at the end of the University of East Anglia press release [35] linked in the reverted edit. What actually happended with the "trick" was the first chart in that press release where the tree-ring and thermometer series are joined to become one, by replacing part of one set of data with another. That is what the Time, The Times and UEA sources in the reverted edit say. Have you looked at the sources? You are now making my point for me as to the confusion in the current article and the need to reinsert the deleted edits. --Rumping (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumping, you're conflating several different facts: a particular figure was under discussion, and the data sets and conclusions from them have been discussed in articles that have survived multiple independent peer review. As for the CRU document you cite saying anything about splicing, what it actually says is: "To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month." Nothing about joining, splicing, sticking together, gluing or indeed anything not justified by the requirements of faithfulness to the most reliable data.

Sphilbrick, according to UEA the actual case under discussion was "a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999." --TS 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So you would be happy with "combine"? You do accept that the series on the WMO cover [36] combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series? --Rumping (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I'm happy with our use of the RealClimate description which is more than adequate, is a reliable source on this field of expertise, and doesn't rely on synthesis. --TS 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try again another way. Does the RealClimate description suggest to you that the "trick" was to combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series? --Rumping (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a description on a matter of expertise provided by experts, and is consistent with other expert descriptions. --TS 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes or no would have done. So you can't tell us what the RealClimate statement means. That makes it a bad statement and it needs to be replaced. All you have given is an appeal to authority (part of the list of red herring fallacies), and in this case RealClimate is an unreliable and ambiguous apologetic source, strongly connected to the leaked emails. The secondary sources linked above and that from UEA are clear and therefore better. --Rumping (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of reliability at the WP:RSN, and the end result of the discussion was that RealClimate is reliable under WP:SELFPUB.[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is Wikipedia's bread and butter. If you would read the article you cite, you will note that it says that appeals to authority are not generally fallacious; they are only fallacious if it is claimed that the statement must be true because it was stated by an authority. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is POV as stands. If you are going to include a huge block of text published by an interested party for the express purpose of explaining away controversy, you should at the very least include an equally detailed explanation of what skeptics claim "trick" and "hide the decline" entail, rather than one vague sentence that says "manipulation" is alleged. Drolz09 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that the RealClimate text clearly fails to make clear whether or not the "trick" was to combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series, in particular in the WMO cover graph[38], and is perhaps deliberately obscure and self-serving. The secondary sources do make it clear, as does the UEA statement. So excluding informative sources but including the RealClimate text, simply because RealClimate has spoken, is hopeless and is indicative of the problems with this article. Remember that is simply a description of what was done in 1999. For true NPOV, we might also consider what the skeptics are saying "hide the decline" means: that the divergence problem meant that tree rings did not track temperatures in the last 40 years, casting doubt on their ability to track temperatures in the previous 1000 years. Given the behavior of other editors on simple sourced facts, it would be impossible to get something like that here.--Rumping (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have veered off into original research. Let's stick with what our reliable sources are saying, and not try to push our personal views on the matter into it. --TS 09:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not it has not. This discussion has shown that you refuse to allow the article to use what reliable sources have said. The University of East Anglia said This email referred to a "trick" of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The Times says They draw the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. Time says According to PSU's Mann, that statistical "trick" that Jones refers to in one e-mail — which has been trumpeted by skeptics — simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. Which of these is "original research"? What do you object to? Why? --Rumping (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to the characterization in the UEA's statement. That is a falsehood. I do not object to the characterization in the Times' statement. That is a falsehood. I do not object to the characterization in Mann's statement. That is a third falsehood. I do not refer to any of those three as original research. That makes a fourth falsehood. Please rethink your line of discussion, which appears to involve a grossly mistaken characterization of argument against your own line of original research and that of Drolz09.

In short, you appear to have manufactured a controversy from your personal interpretation of the RealClimate description, although it is quite compatible with what all other reliable sources have stated. --TS 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I will take that as consensus that those three quotes can go in the article. --Rumping (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never argued against the inclusion of further reliable sources on this matter. The RealClimate description is, however, detailed and accurate. --TS 13:44, 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 [39]. 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)

URL to e-mails

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.

---

Please use the talk page to discuss the article

---

Could any of you give me URL of the site where those e-mails were posted?74.14.181.174 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not on-wiki, due to copyright concerns. But if you google e.g. "CRU FOI2009.zip -torrent", you should find any number of sites that claim to have the archive (if you have Bittorrent, leave off the "-torrent"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst Wikipidia can't link to the emails themselves, some newspapers are linking to the "east anglia emails" website, which has a copy of the emails in searchable HTML format - e.g. The Times [40], The Guardian [41], Science [42], Financial Times [43]. Could a section that mentions that (not the "east anglia emails" website name, but that they are being linked to) be added i.e. - essentially linking to a few of those major news site's web pages that themselves link directly to a copy of the emails? Brumski (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't allow support linking to the actual files, but a simple google search should do. They aren't difficult to find anymore. Also consider checking wikileaks, they ussually have this kind of stuff.Smallman12q (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the stolen Palin emails links to the Wikileaks files. Why not link to the Wikileaks copy of this file? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know - that's a question to ask at that article. Perhaps those are considered public documents. Or perhaps they shouldn't be linked to from that article. Who knows. These aren't public documents in that sense, so linking to them would be linking to copyvios, which isn't allowed. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 9 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.

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)

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)

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." [44] 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: [45],[46] -- 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 [47], 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)

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)

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" [48]. 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.[49] -- 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)

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)

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[50] 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". [51], 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)

(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. [52] [53]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reactions to Incident is slanted

I can't help but note in the "Reactions to Incident" section that pretty much every scientist, politician, and media personality quoted is an AGW theory supporter. In fact the most interesting reactions to this incident have been from the scientists, politicians and media personalities who are AGW skeptics. The "reactions" have obviously been cherry-picked by the handful of AGW activists here on Wikipedia. I propose we broaden the skeptic reactions and narrow down the activist/supporter reactions. JettaMann (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What other notable authorities are missing? Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Climatology founder Dr. Tim Ball has done tons of interviews and written articles. Search Tim Ball Climategate and there are lots. Here's one article:

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5663-obamas-science-czar-john-holdren-involved-in-unwinding-climategate-scandal

Lord Monkton has a great summary from the political end of the debate:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

CBC Television has a prominent reporter named Rex Murphy who reported on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbxxlSRa4Y0&feature=related

There have been other commentaries ranging from Jon Stewart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

To Glenn Beck (multiple, I'll spare you the links)

To Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lost-left-climate-morass136.html

Economist/author Christopher C. Horner.

And of course James Delingpole who was on top of this from the start:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

I can go on and on.JettaMann (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source in that little list. Glenn Beck WTF??? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a single one?! They are ALL prominent and notable people. You guys want to have it one way: Only AGW supporters (in media, politics and science) are allowed to be quoted. Well forget that, that absolutely violates Wikipedia standards.JettaMann (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Garbage in, garbage out. It certainly explains where JettaMann is coming from. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok Chris, you just passed the hypocrite test. You said earlier in this discussion list that we weren't supposed to attack one another personally. You just did. The fact is, these reactions are supposed to be from PROMINENT and NOTABLE people. These people all have large audiences. You simply want to have only AGW supporters/activists in this list.JettaMann (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand Chris. He is not attacking anyone; he is saying that as you have utilized fringe and questionable sources, it explains your somewhat original views. That's all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The second you stop talking about the issue at hand and instead start talking about the PERSON (me) then you are doing ad hominem. You are attacking me instead of what is at issue here. That's debating 101 guys and you just failed spectacularly.JettaMann (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Stop attacking other editors, read my (ironical) comment below that lists some of the criteria for notability and then read the link policy that Scjessey kindly gave you in the next section. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)But, that's an un-usable list of political blogs, fringe activists, personal opinions and youtube videos. Where are all the notable, authoritative sceptics who hold positions of power, like elected leaders of countries or heads of national or international scientific organisations? --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just what is this magical criteria that allows someone to appear in the list of notable reactions? Let me guess, they must support the AGW theory.JettaMann (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable here. A "large audience" has absolutely no bearing on the importance or reliability of an individual. Glenn Beck is a comedian who is now a conservative radio talk show host and the titular host of a conservative wingnut show on FOX News. There are mice and bits of balsa wood more knowledgeable about science then he is. I'm having a really hard time keeping a straight face. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual you cherry pick ONE person from the list (which I didn't even add a link) and pretend he is representative of the whole list. And I still stand by the statement that, love him or hate him, he is a notable media commentator. There is NO substantial difference from the people in this list and the people some of you AGW activists use for your "reactions" section.JettaMann (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at all of them. Only I posted it in the wrong section by mistake, and then botched my attempt to relocate the comment. So look below. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

None of these people appear to have any expertise on the subject. None appear to be connected wit the incident. None of them appear to be terribly notable in their own right. Why would be care to include the opinions of seeminly random people? Guettarda (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

• climatechangecraud.com - not a reliable source. Who is Tim Ball and why is he a notable source?
• wattsupwiththat.com - not a reliable source. Lord Monckton - why should we care about the opinion of some random British peer?
• youtube - not a reliable source
• youtube - not a reliable source
• Glenn Beck? He's notable on this topic in what way?
• LewRockwell.com -not a reliable source. Does not appear to be notable on the subject.
• Christopher C. Horner - no source. Does not appear to be notable on the subject.
• James Delingpole? Does not appear to be notable on the subject.

None of these people appear to have any expertise on the subject. None of them appear to be terribly notable in their own right. Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done some looking into Ball recently - he's a retired geographer, and climate change denialist. Ball was misattributed in the "Global Warming Swindle" as a "professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg" (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired.) Glenn Beck has had him on a few times. A real fringe theory kook, no climatology expertise at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe has saw a cloud once. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe even twice, but I don't think that makes him an expert somehow. I could be wrong, mind you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jettaman has listed some responses from the following people: Timothy F. Ball, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Rex Murphy, Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, Lew Rockwell, Christopher C. Horner, and James Delingpole.

Well that's a whole list of guys who are as entitled to have an opinion on this matter as I am. The only difference I see here is that nobody, including me, is saying that my opinion belongs in the article. I want to go on record as averring here and now that I do not sock puppet, and that Jettaman is not a sock puppet created by me to make opponents of Wikipedia look bad. --TS 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking these people to their Wikipedia entry. As you can see they are all notable enough to have entries on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they all have some interest in this incident and decided to weigh in on this case, which is the same as all the hand-picked people in the current "reactions" section. Let's not be slanted POV dicks here, people. Time to obey some Wikipedia rules.JettaMann (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The notability of an individual bears no relationship to the suitability of said individual to opine on a given topic. Most of the people on your list are insignificant figures in the field of climate change, and some have no scientific background of any sort whatsoever. Their only link to climate change is their refusal to believe in the facts concerning it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that very few of the people listed in the Reaction section have direct connection to the issue - and none have an expertise on the subject of the article (hacking) - they are just climatologists supporting the AGW theory. Yet their quotes way out of their expertise area ("this illegal act of cyber-terrorism") have been put in - and are being defended by the very same team of editors who cry foul (and revert without discussion) a well-sourced quote from a computer security expert - but not a climatologist. All JettaMann is asking is to apply an even-handed approach and allow the quotes from other notable people. Dimawik (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, your argument is laughable. According to you, the only reactions the Wikipedia article needs to mentions are from Climatologists i.e. People who will (duh) overwhelmingly agree with the AGW theory because their paycheck depends on it. Skeptics are important when it comes to truth, which BTW is what Wikipedia is all about. Naturally skeptics will be found outside this self-reinforcing AGW religion. People like Chris Horner are important. He wrote a whole damn book on Global Warming. Why the hell wouldn't his input matter? Ditto for Dr. Timothy Ball, he practically founded climatology. These obtuse objections to including this information are weak, very weak.JettaMann (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you seriously stating that Ball "practically founded climatology"? Is that a joke? I'm not getting it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please note they are notable for other reasons than climatology. Similar to an instance when an editor wanted to put Michael Creighton's opinion in a article: it was disallowed. Why? Because Creighton was famous for being an author. Not a scientist. Not even a doctor, although he held a medical degree he wasn't a noted doctor and his medical opinion was no better than any other retired GP. The area of expertise is highly relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the article is supposedly hacking, not climatology. Yet there are no security experts quoted. Dimawik (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic is the incident, not the hacking. So far as I'm aware no one has bothered to discuss the details of how the hack was accomplished. Have you a source regarding that aspect? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the topic is "hacking incident", not "climatology incident". Anyhow, the quoted opinions of the climatologists are way out of their supposed area of knowledge. How does an opinion on an "illegal act of cyber-terrorism" relate to the climatology? These words are clearly from the areas of computer security and law, and have nothing to do with the climate. What is the background of Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago in these fields? Precisely nil, I think. So why is his quote still in? Dimawik (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) That is a fair point. I have spent the last couple of days trawling reliable sources and Googling, but I have been unable to find any decent quotes from security experts commenting on the incident. The media seems more interested in the hype (remember Balloon Boy?) than trying to investigate the important issues. I think more will become available once the police have completed their investigation. -- Scjessey (talk)

Here is an analysis from a network administrator. It's self-published, though it is drawing some media attention, so one of the places that links to it may be citable as a reliable source. Gigs (talk)

I've just finished reading that, and it is certainly a fascinating analysis. My concern would be that the author would only have been able to study the content of the zip file, and would've been unable to corroborate certain aspects of the UEA network. The police investigation is more likely to lead to an accurate analysis because of their ability to study the network directly, interview the network administrators, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Small Dead Animals? Oh how precious. No, no, no. Not a reliable source. Not at all. LOL. Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've worked as a senior network administrator for a multinational company, and I have a blog. Does my opinion go into the article? Thought not. --TS 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If your opinion gets coverage in reliable secondary sources, yes. We can't and shouldn't cite smalldeadanimals. We may be able to cite reliable coverage of that analysis though. Gigs (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable secondary sources covering this? All I see is a lot of links from blog comments, and from other far-right blogs. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No Tony. You see, you get 644 Google hits, while Lance Leven gets 408. And, um, if you add up the digits in his total you get 3 (4+0+8 = 12, 1+2 = 3), while if you add up your number you get 5. Three is the largest single-digit number whose square is less than 10. Which is why his opinion is more notable than yours. Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I get 644 google hits? Hmmm, 22 below par for me. --TS 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if you're a president of a business technology research firm and describe several issues in Computerworld?Data leak lessons learned from the Climategate hack -- SEWilco (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, Scjessey and a few others have organized into a leftist cabal bent on slanting this article as far into their own bias as possible. Unless your idea of NPOV is defined by their bias, focusing this article on the real scandal is a worthless endeavor, as these trolls will revert your page edits at all hours of the day. Static623 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's curious, I don't see them listed on Wikipedia:List of cabals. Which one do you belong to, guys? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just awesome. I've never been accused of being in a "leftist cabal" before. Do they sell t-shirts on CafePress with leftist cabal logos, or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't deny it Scjessey, there's photographic evidence of you being sworn in here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of denying it. It makes me feel like a secret agent, or perhaps a superhero. Do I need to get a white cat or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the white cat is only required if you're planning to take over the world. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to take over the world. I moved to the United States with the specific task of getting Americans to speak proper English. When that failed, I decided to plan world domination so that I could force the populous to talk properly. The plan is going pretty well - I've already acquired a US driving license and switched to an exclusive diet of cheeseburgers so that I can "blend in" with the locals. Perhaps an RfA should be my next plan, so that I can also be in the power-crazed Nazi cabal of administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:32, 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)

Alleged lack of coverage by media

There have been some credible reports of suppression of this story, including non-reporting by the major networks and delaying reporting of the story for weeks after it occurred: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/ and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_XssuWtyc&feature=related and here http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx

I propose that this article should include a section called "Suppressed or delayed reporting" and we include the news outlets that failed to report this story in a timely fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if you were to study this policy carefully before posting more of this fringey conspiracy stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy about it. These are the facts: A major story broke and the three big US networks failed to report it. I know you guys want to shy away from certain facts about this whole incident, but suppressing pure facts is not part of what Wikipedia is about. There is ZERO interpretation about the fact that the three big networks failed to report this story. JettaMann (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's editorial decision if the decision was made independently at each of the networks. That happens all the time. It's collusion if there's a conspiracy between the three to delay or under-report such stories. It's suppression if an outside agency pressures them not to report as they see fit. For better or for worse, Wikipedia is a "lagging" indicator, we only allow what other reliable sources have already reported, especially for pages which could, if not backed up by a reliable source, cause harm to a real, living person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But nobody, and I mean nobody is even trying to say it's a conspiracy! This article just needs to report the fact (yes, the fact) that some media outlets failed to even pick up on this story, despite the obvious magnitude of the story. This fact deserves to be here far more than this lame "death threat" sympathy attempt that several AGW activists here want to push into the article. JettaMann (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be useful to review the timing and volume of media reports by region or continent? It may even be fascinating.Count Spockula (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. Such a review would yield nothing that could be used in this article because it would essentially be original research. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, take your pick. Ignignot (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know the "big three" haven't reported that Michele Bachmann is a self-identified lovable little fuzzball, either.[54] They have to draw the line somewhere. But unless you find a reliable source stating it is a Big Deal that they didn't report that, then it doesn't go in her article. You can't just put in non-coverage as though it were sourced; it isn't. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You are saying that this is not a big story? You are living in denial pal. Why did This Week with George Stephanopolis report on it? Why did McLaughlin Group talk about it? Why did CBC National talk about it? These shows (excluding the latter) only cover about 3 issues per week, and thi swas one of them. Get real. You are entering absurd territory here.JettaMann (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. I have made no statement whatsover on whether I consider this a big story or not, and your accusations of "living in denial" are based on nothing but your own imagination and lack of manners. I will now say that there is no source' that makes the assertion that there was any suppression, and until you produce one, and a damn good one, too, it won't go in the article per WP:NOR, WP:V. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IOk, you are agreeing that if I can get a good reference it can go in the article. I produced three, and that was without even looking. The Daily Telegraph looks pretty good to me.JettaMann (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The Daily Telegraph hosts it, but it is still an opinion piece by a guest blogger who happens to be a climate change skeptic. Like I said before, read WP:RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So your point is that the story is a big story, because it is covered in the mainstream news, and that we should have a section on how it is not covered in the mainstream news? Ignignot (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say that had me confused too. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Recommend you refactor your last comment per WP:BLP. You cannot accuse Bachmann of being "lovable" without reliable sources (good luck with that). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected my statement to indicate she is a self-identified' lovable fuzzball. Thanks for the catch! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann, can I give you some friendly advice? Your arguments are always going to be rejected unless you cite reliable sources. By "reliable", think major mainstream news sources such as BBC News, CNN, Washington Post, etc. Also, Wikipedia makes a strong distinction between straight news articles and opinion pieces such as editorials and blogs. The only way your arguments are going to be taken seriously is if you cite news articles from mainstream news sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 9 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)

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)

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)

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 no 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)

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)

Pew Center analysis

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has issued a detailed analysis of the stolen e-mails: [55] 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)

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)

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: [56] "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.[57] 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)

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)

Arbitrary break

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)

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)

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)