Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

CRU Hacking Dispute

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

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)

but Chris, that would be a Primary source, a clear violation of Wikipedia policy (see your own argument against using Mann's reaction to Climategate as a Reliable Source on the discussion page of Michael Mann's article.) 173.168.129.57 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Notability of criminal acts

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

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

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

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

'Hack" seems to be most widely accepted because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alleged death threats are not notable. Many death threats occur against public figures every day and only very rarely are notable enough to merit mention in Wikipedia, much less prominent place in the article. A related point: mention of alleged criminal events, for which investigations have only started, should be prefaced by "alleged" or similar wording. There are very good reasons newspapers use the term "alleged" if somebody has not in fact been convicted of a crime, some of them argued above. In the case of the alleged death threats and alleged hacking, nobody has even been arrested, for crying out loud, much less convicted. But Wikilawyers citing "alleged" as a "weasel word" apparently think its preferable to convict groups of people (such as climate skeptics, tarring them by alleged association with alleged criminal events) in Wikipedia before anybody has even been arrested, much less convicted, in a court of law. Flegelpuss (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Favor mentioning hacking: Some quick searches on Google News (articles only) indicate that most news articles are treating the hacking as a given on near-given. Our language and weight should reflect that. I can't find any evidence that many reliable sources are seriously questioning the notion that the information was hacked. MarkNau (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because news agencies are calling this a hacking attack doesn't mean they're right to do so. Until the actual nature of the data release becomes clear, we should preserve a more neutral tone. At the very least we should be using phrases like "a likely hacking attack." Benstrider (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't just news agencies. The Norfolk police themselves call it "criminal offences in relation to a data breach" and the Metropolian Police's E-Crimes unit has also been called in. This is being treated as hacking incident by the police at the highest level and an external police unit specializing in hacking investigations is involved. --TS 11:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Norfolk police haven't called it "hacking," but "a data breach." Is it really appropriate to state that hacking -- a crime -- occurred when the police haven't confirmed it? 71.206.138.96 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If they hadn't determined that a crime had occurred, they wouldn't refer to their investigation of criminal offences (not potential criminal offences, but criminal offences). --TS 21:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the actual criminal offences are not disclosed. For all we know, the criminal offences could be violations of the FOIA by the university and its employees. 71.206.138.96 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Data breach" is just a more formal way to say what we mean here by "hacking". We could call this article Climatic Research Unit e-mail data breaching incident; it would mean exactly the same thing, but just be more verbose and over-formal. Like "proceeding in a easterly direction" vs "walking into town". Note that the literal meaning of hacking is just throwing software and other computer instructions together in an informal, ad hoc manner, quickly to achieve limited ends. This is a slightly specialist use, for which some would rather use the word cracking, but that's only relevant in computer-geeky circles. --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Death threats against climate scientists

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

• Yes, I think this belongs in the lead. It's one of the 6 major facts of the affair, and it isn't subset of any of the other topics already covered in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• No, it is tangential at best. Inclusion in the lead only serves to garner sympathy for CRU scientists and antipathy for anyone who makes allegations against them. Drolz⁰⁹ 03:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  So you argue that we must suppress the facts because you have taken sides and the side you do not support must not be seen in a sympathetic light? Is that what you're saying? --TS 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Is it wise to decide what gets included based on who we perceive gets "sympathy or antipathy" from a certain piece of information? Wouldn't that result in a biased article?
  —Apis (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am saying, crudely, that the death threats are "more prejudicial than probative," to use the roughly analogous legal evidence standard. Drolz⁰⁹ 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And given that I've advocated the inclusion of far more in this article than you have, TS, that is ridiculous. Though not as ridiculous as pretending that I am the only one with a POV here. Drolz⁰⁹ 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, WP:WEIGHT is supposed to be determined by their prominence in WP:RS. Most reliable sources are NOT focusing on the death threats or giving them much attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the first 10 WP:RS used by the article [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and only 1 out of the 10 even mentions the death threats. It's obviously WP:UNDUE to feature it so prominently in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How many of those sources were from before it was known that scientists had received death threats? -Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"A Quest For Knowledge", that seems like a rather robotic way to decide on weight. The items you describe as "reliable sources" are newspapers. The FBI and the Norfolk police are all the source we need on the police investigations, however. They know what they're doing, they've made announcements, and so we know the investigations are happening. And, of course, they're serious criminal offences resulting from the incident. And you think we have to ignore that because you've been counting mentions in newspaper articles? Doesn't work that way. Multi-continent, multi-jurisdiciton investigations into death threats are inherently important. --TS 03:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If it seems robotic, it's only because appeals to reason have failed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why we should be ignoring reliable sources? Please provide the rationale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I note also that "Due weight" is being misinterpreted here. It says " the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Evidently the distinction between a significant fact and a significant viewpoint has been elided. --TS 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't see how you have explained the relevance of these threats in the first place. You say, "they're serious criminal offences resulting from the incident." What does it mean that they resulted from the incident? Presumably it means that they were a reaction to content in the emails, some of which you won't allow referenced here. You're saying that it's relevant to include the reaction of an anonymous (insane) person to the emails, but we can't include the emails themselves? And, "Multi-continent, multi-jurisdiciton investigations into death threats are inherently important." What is your warrant for this? Virtually all wirefraud and many, many non-physical crimes in general are "multi-jurisdictional." The FBI would be involved in any crime connected to the mail, for example. I think you have two burdens here, TS: First, you need to prove that death threats are important. Second, you need to prove that they are significantly relevant to this particular issue to warrant the POV slant that comes with adding them. Drolz⁰⁹ 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This also seems to be a case of double standards for WPRS. On skeptical viewpoints for example, you apply a scientific authority standard, which precludes most people who aren't climate scientists from being quoted in the article. For this death threats issue you are applying a verifiability standard, for which it merely needs to be proved that threats were indeed made/said. I believe the second standard is the appropriate standard, personally, and would support noting the death threats (thought not in the lead) if the same standard was applied to everything. Drolz⁰⁹ 03:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony: Wrong. Per WP:UNDUE "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it belongs in the lead as long as the material 1) Adheres to WP:LEAD 2) Is mentioned in proportion to other notable aspects of the incident (for example, it doesn't go on and on abut the death threats, but simply mentions them) 3) Is supported by good sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well the wording at present is:

  Norfolk police are investigating the incident[4] and, along with the US FBI, are also investigating death threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails.

• So it's really quite a brief mention. --TS 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. No reasonable summary given to someone asking "what is this Climate email controversy thingy, anyhow?" would mention the death-threats as addressing or giving any insight into the core of the incident. The lede should do its best to concisely summarize the major points. As an aide to objectively deciding, construct a hypothetical explanation of the incident to a hypothetical uninformed friend. Unless you're pushing something, the death threats don't appear in the first several sentences you'll construct. MarkNau (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's odd, really. I'm not pushing anything, but I find it hard to conceive of a way of describing this affair and its consequences without mentioning two police investigations on two different continents. To say you have to be pushing a certain point of view to find that significant seems odd. --TS 04:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TS, what I try to do in cases like this is find parallels. In other events, how much coverage/prominence was given to associated death threats? Or think about it in isolation. Which elements of the incident are prominent on their own to warrant coverage. The threats really miserably failed all attempts to formulate an objective test. As a random example. You know Dyron Hart? No, you don't. Neither does wikipedia. Now Google him. See what I mean? MarkNau (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there are two police investigations? On two different continents? Unheard of. I would still very much appreciate it if you would address my points above, rather than repeating these goofy lines that are designed to convey some awesome scope to a tiny issue. If the issue were as important as you claim, you wouldn't need to do that. Drolz⁰⁹ 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the FBI has launched an investigation into the death threats, and if multiple sources have covered this news story, then it is important. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is only a minor side issue...likely related to kids who are pranking. No need to go overboard and add this unfounded material. Gherston (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[user was a sockpuppet of scibaby - Kim D. Petersen (talk)]

A great many "important" things are not covered in this article, let alone its lead. Relevance to the issue at hand is obviously a necessary criterion for inclusion. Drolz⁰⁹ 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And how are serious death threats against the scientists involved in this incident not relevant? Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think I'm finding myself impressed by Marknau's extremely strong conviction. If he and I can have such completely different reactions to these death threats, it's probable that one of us is misperceiving their gravity. While I find the multiple law enforcement investigations, and the clear distress of the scientists, quite significant, and certainly the most significant provable outcome of this entire event, other reasonable people may not. I'm not entirely convinced, but I am less certain than I was. --TS 04:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have a clue how important the issue is. But I think that's beside the point. It's clearly notable enough to be in the article. And since the lead is supposed to represent the article, it should be in the lead. It's not like it's an elaboration on any of the other points in the lead - it isn't one more email, or one more reaction, or one more reply. It's categorically distinct.

    A summary is supposed to extract every major point from a larger body of writing. If you can't categorise as a subset of any of the other major points, you need to pull it out, you need to include it in the summary. And that's why this point belongs in the lead. Its inclusion in the lead isn't a function of its importance. It's a function of its distinctness. Guettarda (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

    • Guettarda, see for reference the entry on California Proposition 8 as an example. That almost certainly generated an order of magnitude more threats than this case, and yet mention of the threats is in a section set aside for that sub-topic, not mentioned in the summary. I think it's a good example, particularly because it is a case from "the other side." MarkNau (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a B-class article that failed GA. It's not really a standard for comparison. Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC) DisengagingGuettarda (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Guettarda, You misunderstand why I mention that article. It is not a "gotcha - precedent!" comment. What I mean to do is present an exercise of the brain. To provide a gymnasium for one's objectivity. An opportunity to possibly catch one's brain rationalizing due to partisanship. MarkNau (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Disengaging (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I did not mean to imply that, and I am sorry if I insulted you. I don't think the issue is whether death threats are disgusting or acceptable. It is whether it is sufficiently germane and illuminating to the pertinent topic. Looking at another case is a good way to try to anchor objectivity. MarkNau (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Marknau, what do you mean by "the other side?" Proposition 8 was not to my knowledge related in any way to global warming or climate science. --TS 05:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Given the common political viewpoint bundles, it is likely that someone who is predisposed to be biased in one direction on this issue will tend to bias the other direction on Prop 8. That makes it an interesting venue to test one's brain, to try examine it as a parallel issue. Is Prop 8 significantly about the death threats that emerged from the situation? Would you feel compelled to put mention of those threats in the Prop 8 summary? MarkNau (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • That possibly applies in your country, Marknau, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is an international forum. You simply confused the hell out of this Brit. --TS 05:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
            • TS, although a non-USian wouldn't be as familiar with Proposition 8, the political correlation still holds in UK, and so it is rather likely (note moderate wording!) that someone who feels strongly one way about this case will feel strongly the other way about a proposal to outlaw gay marriage. And if not in your particular case, then I apologize for not being able to come up with a more appropriate example. MarkNau (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I feel like I'm miscommunicating badly. Let me try again. As a personal exercise in judging and testing my objectivity, I will often try to ask myself how I would feel if I felt strongly in the opposite direction on a particular issue. Would I still cling to the same principles I am purporting to champion, or would I rationalize them away. I'm just sharing this technique. I don't think I'm too out of line to suggest that Prop 8 has a good chance of providing such a "mind-twisting" position-flip for someone who feels strongly about this issue. Please note the moderation and qualification of my language. I'm not throwing stones here. I'm trying to share the way I approached the problem, to explain why I think the way I do on this issue.MarkNau (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Guettarda, I've shared what I want to share. People who persistently feel strongly about the contentious underpinnings to this issue are not going to be able to objectively help decide the question "Are the death threats significantly relevant?" I've kindly shared a tool in goodwill, and anyone who wishes might be able to use it to help us decide that question. MarkNau (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you guys won't even call it Climategate, as it's known throughout the world now, but these alleged death threats are a primary point? LOL. Sad, really. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations aren't being investigated as a criminal matter. The death threats are. That's a big difference. --TS 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the accusations are being investigated. The dearth of reliable sources which has covered this aspect of the the story needs to be accounted for. We aren't supposed to introduce bias to counteract the bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't even be in the article, much less in the lead. Death threats against public figures are very common and only extremely rarely are they notable (for example, if they lead up to an actual murder of a prominent figure). Otherwise, most Wikipedia BLP articles about public figures would contain long lists of obscure alleged death threats.Flegelpuss (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You only need one source to confirm a police investigation: the police themselves. To some extent, they also determine how significant a death threat is. --TS 05:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, have the police given any indication that these threats are unusually notable? Drolz⁰⁹ 06:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:V, "Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question of whether the material should be in the lead is predicated on whether it should be in the article at all. Which is, of course, a separate discussion, which probably does not belong in the RFC. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an unnecessary diversion, we can have the convo here quite easily. It's also a simplification to say that if it's in the article it's in the lead. Death threats pretty much just fall under reaction to the emails, and can easily be included in a phrase like "sparked controversy" for the purposes of the lead. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On Marknau's example, I don't think it holds in any case. The scale of the incident here is small: the hacking and release of emails and other documents. The personal consequences are global in scale--several law enforcement bodies are investigating these threats. The California Proposition 8 article mentions just one death threat that was handled at local level. Proposition 8 was of course a much bigger affair than this hacking, and the whole of California and even a small part of Utah was animated by the affair. So there's a lot more to write about and of course the death threats are less significant in the context. --TS 05:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why the investigation makes it relevant, TS. Cf. my above point about the double WP:RS standard. Another question I would ask: If these scientists had received death threats during the controversy, but for reasons unrelated to it, would the situation be significantly different than it is now? There is no assertion that any notable person made the death threats, and no one has explained what import the death threats have to any other aspect of the controversy. There is no evidence that whoever released the documents is responsible for the death threats, and now law would hold them accountable if one were carried out. Likewise, there is no relevance to the content controversy. All inclusion does is create a spurious link between people who make reasoned allegations against the CRU scientists, and the anonymous lunatics who made the threats. Drolz⁰⁹ 05:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Even this is deeply offensive. You're implying that if someone supported Prop 8, they must also support all the tactics used by its supporters." Geurtarda: Aside from the fact that MarkNau seems very civil to me, and certainly not insulting, you've just shown exactly why the death threats shouldn't be prominently featured in this article. Doing so gives the impression that anyone who questions the CRU scientists supports the death threats as well. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz00, we're already agreed that it's relevant--nobody is now arguing that we should not write aout the death threats, because multiple reliable sources (to wit, police departments and secondary sources reporting their statements) have drawn the link for us. The rest of your comment seems to be a heap of red herrings. --TS 06:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant because you already agreed that it's relevant? Why can't you just answer the questions I pose rather than write them off as red herrings without explanation? Drolz⁰⁹ 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As for your allegation of double standard, I don't know where you get it from. The police and FBI are reliable sources on which investigations they have begun, and scientists are reliable sources on the science. --TS 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but including an allegation against scientists is not a question of scientific expertise. It's simply a question of whether or not we can verify that someone made the allegation; it's not for us to determine whether it is accurate. Likewise, the police/FBI are used to confirm that a threat was made and that investigation is ongoing. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't argue that wwe would use scientific expertise to make any determination outselves. We certainly do report what those with scientific expertise are saying. And that speaks for itself. That's why we distinguish sources by reliability in the first place. That's why we report how those qualified in a field are saying about that field, and about events closely related to it. --TS 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is the double standard. You will not report the allegations of skeptics because they are not scientifically reliable, but you will report random death threats because there is reliable evidence that they were made. The same standard should apply to both, and it should be the latter. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. You say to me "You will not report the allegations of skeptics." This is far as I am aware simply incorrect. I've written extensive parts of this article, much of which is reporting what sceptics are saying. Now I've removed statements from unqualified people, including the Union of Concerned Scientists (who despite the name are not a scientific organization), who are not sceptics at all. I've removed them because their stuff clutters up and gets in the way of the wealth of relevant, well-informed analysis from those who are qualified. --TS 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So a statement by the UCS is just cluttering up the page, but anonymous death threats belong in the lead? Does this really seem right to you? Drolz⁰⁹ 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the UCS's words in support of the climate scientists and attacking the hackers was in a section on responses by scientific organizations and they're not a scientific organization. I'm not into piling on comment for the sake of it, so I removed it completely rather than create a section for "not-so-scientific organizations" or whatever. Obviously the FBI and police investigations are of somewhat more import than any statement by an advocacy body. --TS 06:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This "Obviously the FBI and police investigations are of somewhat more import than any statement by an advocacy body" seems incorrect as well, given that an advocacy body represents more people and wields more political power than an anonymous death threatener. It is significantly more likely to have substantive effects on a large scale. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the double standard again. You are holding one statement to a standard of scientific accuracy, and another to verifiability. Moreover, I just looked through the article at the skeptic views you claim to have included, and found precisely one. A US Senator who pointedly makes no actual reference to the specifics of the emails. The emails themselves are presented with incredibly vague statements about what "skeptics say" followed by verbose explanations of how the skeptics are wrong. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating this accusation of a double standard. I certainly hold a statement on science to a scientific standard. I certainly trust the police and the FBI to know which crimes are serious enough to investigated. Do you not see? Two different fields of expertise, held to the same standard: relevant professional expertise.

In the case of the skeptics, the "relevant expertise" is to know that a allegation has been made. The police have the expertise to know that a threat has been made, a publisher has the expertise to know that an allegation has been made. You are swapping the actor and the source. To avoid double standard: Anonymous guy makes a death threat, police report it; Skeptic makes an allegation, publisher publishes it. However I expect that if someone had made a public death threat, you would advocate for the inclusion of that as well, which means that self-published allegations should also be allowed. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you come back amazingly quickly and claim to have investigated many hundreds of my edits, and claim that I've only supported the inclusion of one item about a sceptic. Come on, try to make credible statements, don't just make up obvious fictions. --TS 06:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this article, obviously. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To put it another way, if the UCS does not belong in this article because it has no scientific relevance, how are the manifestly less scientific death threats relevant? Drolz⁰⁹ 06:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Doing so gives the impression that anyone who questions the CRU scientists supports the death threats as well." Gosh, that's a weird thing to say. If we wrote a lead so badly that it gives such a false impression, the encyclopedia would be sunk. We'd be hopelessly poor writers. --TS 06:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, only published reports are reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

If the police hadn't published what they were doing, then we wouldn't be discussing it. --TS 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean that you are okay with the inclusion of published allegations against the CRU scientists? Drolz⁰⁹ 06:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you being serious? We are already doing so. --TS 06:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring, meant to divert attention from the real concerns expressed in reliable sources. Keep it out. Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[user was a sockpuppet of scibaby - Kim D. Petersen (talk)]

A very new account. Dived straight into controversial articles on climate change. --TS 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem some of you guys have with new accounts? Wouldn't you expect people to jump into the more contro issues as they are the ones people are actually interested in? That's the problem with these protections. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And this is different from experienced editors who continually Wikilawyer this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A serious accusation. Please go to dispute resolution if you think some editors on this article are gaming the rules. --TS 06:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean ignoring the rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't some of these recent comments just repetitions of earlier comments? I'm sure I've read them before. --TS 06:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah s/he copied a whole set of comments down. Newbie mistake. But not ok. Quote, don't copy signed comments, AQFK. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a copy and paste error. Feel free to revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be potentially confusing, perhaps it would be best if you could strike it out, that way it's clearer what's being referred to?
—Apis (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it should be mentioned. It's a serious issue, it's confirmed by the relevant authorities, and it's covered in reliable sources.
  —Apis (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• No it should not be in the lead, IMHO. I agree it is a serious issue in terms of the scientists' lives, however It would seem adding it to the lead would give it undue weight. Though, of course I believe it should be included elsewhere, but I do not agree that the threats are given such prominence in the average story about the incident.

There are editors mentioning WP:LEAD, but it would seem to me that including something in the article's lead puts a very strong emphasis on it and I do not agree that the death threats would then be given "relative emphasis of relative importance" in the overwhelming majority of RS published stories about the event. I would, however, be willing to reconsider if there was significant precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia, of mentioning death threats in the lead of the article that describe the circumstances which ultimately lead to said death threats.

Moreover, editors have repeatedly said that this article is about the hacking incident and not the fallout / controversy surrounding it. While I would like to see an article that does deal with the fallout, shouldn't these same authors be fighting to keep death threats out entirely? Instead, it looks as if at least some of them are fighting for its inclusion in the lead. The decision needs to be made and made clear, are we including the fallout and controversy (in which the death threats belong in the article, but still probably not in the lead), or are we strictly limiting the scope of the article to the hacking incident, in which case I'd be curious how the death threats warrant inclusion at all. jheiv (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the fuss and the death threats followed and were a consequence of the hacking, it would be as irrational to omit them from the article as it would be to fail to report the fuss. Nobody has argued to remove the fuss. --TS 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick rough datapoint on how much focus that aspect is getting from other sources. A search on Google News, limited to "articles" produces 233 hits for CRU (234 for climategate). Seatching for CRU death threats generates only 7 hits. 2 of which are not actually about death threats. That's quite small, fewer than I expected even. It's not conclusive, but I think it does echo my sense of the RS coverage of this issue, which is that RS are generally treating the death threat aspect as a very minor side-issue, close to outright dismissal. MarkNau (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, even if the start of investigations hint that those threats were taken seriously, I don't think they deserve to be mentioned in the lead by they own right (much because of the fact that there's always mad persons doing this kinda things; what's so special in that?). But if we can write about (them being part of) a more general "harassment", that has a connection to this case, and do so without OR or synthesis, then why not to mention about it. --J. Sketter (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Marknau has conceded on other threads, the fact that no further media discussions of the criminal investigations have ensued is a facet of the interface between the British criminal investigation and legal systems and the press. The absence of reportage is entirely expected, and in no way detracts from the gravity of the offences. --TS 00:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

    Support Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

    — Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk • contribs) is indefinitely blocked for being a sock puppet

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the fence

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of the word "skeptic"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change requested to lead

Those accused issued prompt refutations, and the CRU scientists have accused the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit of December 2009,[10] and categorize the entire incident as a smear campaign.

This doesn't read very well. I suggest the following change:

CRU scientists issued prompt refutations and described the incident as a smear campaign, accusing the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit.

Or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in this particular case, we shouldn't be using the word "sceptic". It's been pointed out several times that we shouldn't be lumping legitimate scientists and journalists in with the AGW skeptics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed that discussion, which isn't surprising considering the size of this page (and archive). Viriditas (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "refutations" implies their lies-on-top-of-lies were able to refute anything.

A better word would be "responses." That's what we usually use to describe a lie covering another lie, anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.69.80 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "refutations" seems correct in this case. A refutation is a reasoned objection to the truth of a factual claim, and we should avoid using vague words like "responses" where a more descriptive word is available. I like Viriditas' alternative wording. --TS 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Were they prompt though? I have read criticism specifically that the lack of prompt response allowed all this to fester to the point that the mainstream media started to give more credibility to the skeptics. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me, it might be a good idea to construct a timeline to enable us to structure the article. Here's a start that covers the earliest days of the affair:

• Nov 17: evidence of the hacking first emerges when somebody tries to hack RealClimate and put the articles there. UEA promptly informed.
• Nov 19: content published to the Tomsk server
• Nov 21: Ben Webster (The Times) reports the incident and gives a comment by UEA: “This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry.” At that stage, Webster reports, because of the volume UEA could not report how much of the content of the posted zip file was genuine. Phil Jones had spoken to a climate skeptic, Ian Wishart, who "quoted Prof Jones as denying that he had manipulated data and saying that he could not remember writing the words “hide the decline”.
• Nov 26: SolveClimate reports on three scientists, including Michael Mann, describing the affair as a smear campaign, and the CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research, Trevor Davies, putting out an official statement saying "There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Your mileage may vary, but to me it looks as if CRU had a very complete hold on the nature of this attack and responded appropriately and as promptly was humanly possible. --TS 18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "rebuttals" would be more correct here. The word "refutation" implies proof, and it's too strong to be used at this stage. I've been thinking that "refutations" sounded a bit odd in that context since I first read it. Simonmar (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I support the improved wording proposed by Vir.--SPhilbrickT 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttals is okay with me. I think it is a little clearer. --TS 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, but without "prompt" and with "refuted" replaced with an alternative (e.g. rebutal, response or something else). Prompt: I'm not keen on the word. Those in the public relations industries advocate a prompt response to negative publicity because a quick response can be perceived as a sign of innocence and a delayed response can be perceived as a sign of guilt; both probably with only very limited validity but people are what people are and they tend to have certain preconceptions.

So, with that in mind, "prompt" seems to me to have a POV bent to it - it's making a point that they were quick with their response, which some people might think implies innocence. To me though, prompt would mean the day after someone tells me something (possibly stretching up to the day after that) and, as TS's time line points out, that's not the case with the CRU's response.

Of course my opinion (and, I'm assuming, any other editor's opinion) on whether the response was prompt or not isn't particularly relevant; what we need to know is how reliable sources have characterized the response. Are there any sources that say it was prompt, or not prompt, or even say anything about the time frame of the response? If there aren't I suggest dropping the word.

Refuted: similarly, with the word "refuted", I perceive it to have a slight POV bent to it. The only times I've seen it used (or used it) are when the person believes they have overthrown or disproved the opposing argument - e.g. commonly on forum arguments and Wikipedia arguments. While the CRU scientists obviously believe they have refuted any criticism with respect to the emails (and I would mostly agree with them), Wikipedia should not be asserting that they have refuted (overthrown, disproved) them. Wikipedia should adopt neutral language and state the fact: that they responded (and obviously what their response was).

I don't particularly object to "skeptics" being used in the lead but note that it's the first time it's used in the article so I think it needs a qualification ("skeptics of what?", a reader might want to know). Also, the proposed change says that "CRU scientists [...] accused the skeptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit" but when I read the reference provided, it's actually Kevin Trenberth that is saying that. Is he a CRU scientist? If he's not, then it's not the CRU scientists that are refuting/rebutting/responding with that particular response, it's someone else. You could just drop "CRU" from that bit so that it summarizes scientists' responses in general, or you could leave CRU in and change the text to summarize what the CRU scientists' responses were, rather than what other scientists' responses were. Brumski (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Place the following sentence in the lead to replace the sentence starting "Those accused issued prompt refutations..."

Climate scientists issued rebuttals and described the incident as a smear campaign,<ref name="Reuters 25 Nov" /> accusing the climate change sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit.<ref name="AP 22 Nov" />

As of 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC), all issues raised below have been resolved.

--TS 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are Richard Somerville, Michael Mann and Eric Steig (from the first reference "Reuters 25 Nov" [17]) and Kevin Trenberth (from the second reference "AP 22 Nov"" [18]) CRU scientists? If not, the proposed edit is not backed up by the sources provided and shouldn't be added in it's current form.Brumski (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't synthesis, but the previous version that I supported (it was removed by several editors due to their misunderstanding of the necessity of attribution for the reasons that you observe above) attributed the claimants directly, rather than this current general formulation. For the reason that you give, I prefer to attribute directly, but this version is still true, in the sense that people other than those named above have made similar claims. The current article should reflect this. If it doesn't, then yes, changes need to be made, but the lead is still accurate. Your observation is a good one, though, and I support changes to bring it inline with the previous version which avoided this problem. Here is the last good version that I edited:

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. Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.[19]

Therefore, please address the problems with this version. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the phrase "CRU scientists" to "Climate scientists" in the request, and put the request on hold. --TS 11:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the revised version that changes "CRU scientists" to "climate scientists". The sentence that will be immediately before this proposed text in the lead states that allegations have been made about climate scientists and this revised version of the proposed edit then makes clear that climate scientists have rebutted the allegations and gives one important example of how they have rebutted it; that seems to be a good way of putting it while being factually faithful to the references used. Note that, on reflection, I'm aware that my last objection to CRU scientists might be slightly pedantic so if others that have already agreed to this text (or yourself) would prefer CRU scientists rather than climate scientists I withdraw the objection; I understand what "CRU scientists" is trying to say and what it is trying to say isn't particularly contrary to the body of the article, even if the references provided with the text don't support it. With respect to Viriditas's version immediately above, WP:Lead says that the lead should be written at a greater level of generality than the body and I feel that version is a little too detailed. Also, the lead should reflect important aspects (that climate scientists reject the allegations) and the reader can read the article to find details of which particular scientist rebut them in which particular way (and that additional particular scientists have rebutted them in additional ways). Brumski (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So where do we stand? Are we good to go? Viriditas (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the revised version immediately underneath the editprotected template and I was the one that objected previously, so I've reinitialized the template so it can be added. If protocol is that I should have done so earlier, apologies for the delay. Brumski (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement for the Article

What is the article about? Why is the underlying topic significant? There seem to be several possible answers to that (not necesarily mutually excusive):

1. This is the event that cracked open the global criminal climate hoax conspiracy
2. This dug up information that completely discredits all climatology research
3. This exposed information that calls into question the methods used and the professionalism of the CRU
4. This exposed information that calls into question the validity of some climatology data
5. A criminal security breach was committed upon CRU
6. The fact that an unknown person was able to hack into CRU is of grave concern for security of scientific study and data
7. An unknown person leaked information in an attempt to discredit climatologists and influence Copenhgen
8. An unknown person Falsified information in an attempt to discredit climatologists and influence Copenhgen
9. This is another event in a pattern of criminal harassment of climatologists
10. This was the event that eventually led to a wave of violence and terrorism against climatologists

I think we would benefit by sharing our views of what elements are important and why. If we can come to consensus on this, I think we can more easily discuss what the proper scope and structure of the article should be. MarkNau (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My view: 3+4 are the CORE matter. 5 is a part of the story but of clearly SECONDARY importance. 7 is a big part of the story, but we have no hard facts on it. Everything else is either unfounded, outright crazy, or off-topic and relatively unimportant side issuesMarkNau (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this one, Mark. It's notable because numerous reliable sources have found it notable. Nothing more; nothing less. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We may actually agree. Which ASPECTS of the story have the reliable sources found to be notable? In other words, what is the scope of "it," as defined by how reliable sources have treated the incident? MarkNau (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that as a different question. Notability applies to articles as a whole, whereas weight applies to content within an article. To answer this question, we're supposed to focus on what reliable sources have focused on. As far as your list goes, I would say that they're focusing on #3 and #7. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that looking at the focus of RS is the right way to proceed, and should be our first order of business. If I think that #4 is being given a lot of focus in reliable sources, I can make that case. If there is a consensus that a significant minority of coverage is putting focus on #9, then it could be included, but given appropriate weight. And so on. Procedurally, this seems like a way to put "first things first" and have a constructive conversation about what the proper weight should be for each potential aspect of the article. MarkNau (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:

• documents were hacked
• accusations were made, some wild and some less wild
• most of the scientific community closed ranks behind the scientists; some however expressed concern
• an investigation of allegations against CRU scientists has been announced
• the hacking is being investigated
• death threats are being investigated.

Which matter to give more prominence is, as discussed above, a matter for discussion, and there may be facts to add to the list. Vague opinions such as "This is another event in a pattern of criminal harassment of climatologists" and outright falsehoods like "This exposed information that calls into question the validity of some climatology data" should be avoided. --TS 15:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But clearly, a background section would describe what the CRU is, who their major players are, and, in chronological order, any harassment of climate scientists leading up to the event. There is a pattern, and sources have covered it. Viriditas (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether or not we include a background section is orthogonal to this debate, which is about deciding on the topics of the article. --TS 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Tony's outline is the best we've come across so far. Doesn't have to be perfect, but it's useful to identify what we consider the main points. Viriditas is also right - of course we need to include a proper context and all that. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another way to think of it is that Tony has outlined the lead, now we need to match the article to that lead, so that we can then go back and summarise the article into that lead. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I support using Tony's outline as the framework. I also support the notion that we will look to the focus of RS coverage to determine weight. MarkNau (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a move in the right direction. --TS 01:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Truth does NOT matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's true that there's some editorial judgment that we can exercise and reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch, but rather a sliding scale. But you're missing the point that WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS were written to resolve the sort of arguments about which side is right or wrong. If you want to add a sentence to the article that says "The leaked e-mails don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.", all you have to do is cite a reliable source such as [20] and the other editors can check your source to verify that it says this, and it should be the end of the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You need to be a bit more flexible in your approach. Your entire position is based on erroneously entering "death threat" instead of "death threats".[21] It's time to stop the bickering and admit you made a mistake. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP review of stolen data

AP have some interesting comments after a full review by 5 reporters of all stolen data [22] ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus of reliable sources

The weight of various aspect of this incident should reflect the focus each aspect is getting from the mass of reliable sources covering the incident.

So far as I can tell, the main focus in mainstream news articles is

• to call the incident Climategate
• to state that the information was hacked
• to not mention any notion that this incident is framed within a background of harassment
• to not mention that police are tracking down the hackers
• to not mention the death threats
• to call those who question the majority climatology scientific opinion "skeptics"
• to refer to the incident as a scandal

Now, let me be clear about my personal take on this. I categorically reject the notion that Climategate is an appropriate term for use in the article. It is predjudicial and strongly implies the CRU scientists were engaged in no-good, which is not supported by any hard facts in the proponderence of reliable sources. Same with the use of the term scandal. Newspapers are looking for readers, and so will use more inflamatory language than we should.

But likewise, there is a real dearth of any mention of tracking down the hackers, the death threats, or past harassment of climatologists. My initial instinct was to say that mention of the police investigating and tracking down the hackers should be mentioned, but I'm having a hard time justifying that from the preponderence of RS coverage. And yes, I know there are other RS than news articles.

Note that pointing to several articles and/or dozens of RS blog entries is not enough to establish that the issue is receiving anything more than a slight side-show minority of focus. I'm not claiming to have researched this conclusively, but will be very doubtful of including anything other something getting a primary or substantial secondary focus from the mass of RS covering this.MarkNau (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're an American then you may not be aware of the sub judice rule that operates in the UK. The progress of law enforcement investigations is not being reported because it can't be reported: under English law it's contempt of court to do so. It's not like the US where you get endless leaks, rumour-mongering and speculation. The police here do not usually comment on cases under investigation other than to appeal for witnesses and suchlike. So when you refer to a "dearth of any mention" of issues under investigation, that's because there's nothing to report other than that the investigations are underway. There will be nothing further to report until either the investigations are dropped or arrests are made. The argument that it's "undue weight" to talk about the law enforcement investigations is therefore faulty, since it doesn't take into account the way law enforcement works on this side of the Atlantic. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite a specific policy or guideline that says such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a Wikipedia policy, obviously, it's a UK law. But it's because of that law that the media have not published any more information on the investigations beyond the news that they are underway. They have nothing they can legally report. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not our problem. Can I assume that you concede we are in violation of WP:UNDUE, or are you going to invoke Ignore all rules? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I concede nothing of the sort, and I regard your argument as tendentious and self-serving. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-serving? I don't even care about this article's topic. I'm only here because I get annoyed by editors who abuse Wikipedia to promote an agenda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only "agenda" that I'm promoting here is documenting the known facts. You appear to have a problem with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Facts as revealed by reliable sources. You've already admitted that we don't have enough reliable sources to support such high prominence of this claim in the lede, yet you still won't admit that you're wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Guettarda (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, interesting point ChrisO. The logic, then, is that because of this law, we should not expect multiple and continual waves of news covering the police investigation. It will be well-mentioned initially, when the police announce there is an investigation underway, but not later. And this is what my cursory search of Google News found to be the case, using the date-narrowing function in the advanced search. As a proportion of EARLY news reports, the fact that police are investigating the hacking does show up a decent amount. So I'd agree that there is support for some weight on the police investigation of the hacking attempt. MarkNau (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the case. You get an initial wave of reporting, then a blackout until what the police call "executive action" takes place (arrests or the case is dropped). Thanks for taking the trouble to look into it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This new article from Associated Press has a lot of information that could be useful. Among other things, it says, "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed under #AP review of stolen data above. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadening Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working from Tony's outline,

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

I would see the article developing something like this:

Lead

Summary of the major points of the article

Background

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

Timeline

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

Reaction to the release

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

Analysis of the emails

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

Reaction of the scientific community.

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

Investigation into CRU.

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

Investigation of the hacking and the death threats.

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

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

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

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

That's impressive, I think we can work with that. Read 'what they "really" mean' as "what scientists say they mean". A lot of assorted people have had a go at working it out, so it's as well that we identify the people who are claiming that they mean something different than what a whole heap of non-scientists are saying. --TS 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images show how they used a "trick" to "hide the decline."

The green line in this graph, which shows a decline in temperature, mysteriously disappears during the duration when it showed a decline. This set of images should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because an editorial in the Davey Grail is such a reliable source on the nuances of science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I really have no comment on the picture, but if the standard is that they need to be "a reliable source on the nuances of science", would any of the reporters quoted fit? I'm not sure that is the standard that we have. jheiv (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To report, sure. To analyse? Probably not. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly categorized as a news story, not an opinion piece or editorial. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a very interesting piece and does contain some new information. However it's not pure news. For instance the writer David Rose overplays the prominence of climate scepticism and overemphasizes the significance (and perhaps the meaning--I would have to check the context myself) of legitimate doubts expressed in the emails. This is in keeping with the traditions of British journalism, where news stories are often slanted towards the opinions of the editorial staff and proprietors of the newspaper. Daily Mail, I should add, is a tabloid that has always been notorious for its extremely right wing politics. I'm not ruling out citing this piece, but we would have to find a way of circumnavigating the obvious editorial stance. --TS 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:

Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he [McIntyre] says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant...

Briffa knew exactly why they [IPCC] wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’...

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.

All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.

On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

...as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.

On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

Flegelpuss (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is rather notorious for editorialising in its news pages. The British press is far more overtly partisan than that of the US, and the Daily Mail is one of the most partisan (Conservative) newspapers in the country. Daily Mail "investigations" are often overtly editorial in nature, as is this one - note the use of derogatory terms such as "global warmists". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Daily Mail the same paper who was making a big fuss about Paul Hudson supposedly getting the hacked e-mails even tho he'd clarified 2 days before their story that he meant he received the e-mails criticising his story and even though his (1 day) earlier message was a bit unclear many commentators had pointed out this was likely what he meant already? Ah from the archives, thought so [23] Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where has it been declared that the Daily Mail is not WP:RS? There are 5,000 references to remove. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we speak English please? The phrase is "reliable source". The Daily Mail is a reliable source for the opinions of some people, specifically the proprietors of the Daily Mail. It has never been a reliable source on factual matters, and if we've ever cited it as the sole source for any factual matter we've erred (and that applies to any single newspaper). --TS 22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a mainstream media publication with editorial control and as such is for Wikipedia purposes as reliable a source as other mainstream media publications. To make an exception to this rule invites ideological cherry-picking. For example objections are stated above that this is a "conservative" rag. So what? That's no more a legitimate objection than an argument that the Washington Post is not a RS because it is a left-wing rag whose writers suck up to the local population of federal bureaucrats. As SEWilco pointed out there are over 5,000 references to the Daily Mail in Wikipedia articles, most of them regarding factual matters. Flegelpuss (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with this content provided we adequately explain the Divergence problem

Where did we get this idea that a newspaper is a reliable source on the science of climatology? This is entirely false. --TS 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Particularly a tabloid newspaper. What's next, using The National Enquirer as a source for evolutionary science? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We might use it as a source for a specific topic, and you can see there are several subjects mentioned in the paper's article. If Weekly World News covered Bat Boy then they're a source for that. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are other articles about specific scientific issues. This article reflects the RS coverage of events related to the CRU material, whether computer security, CRU bureaucracy, politics, carpentry, or science. If one or more RS touch on a topic, we report here was is stated and link to more specific articles. Should we remove from the Watergate scandal articles all sources which are not from police, burglary, and security journals? -- SEWilco (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. We shouldn't get so narrow in scope that we lose the feel of the story as it unfolds. On the other hand, an encyclopedia trying to cover Watergate or the Cuban Missile Crisis as it happened would probably have said "woa, let's wait for more data." We really are not a newspaper. We really do not need to write whatever it is the newspapers are saying now (and they've changed tack a couple of times in the past week). All we need to do is to present the known facts. The speculation and opinion will, for the most part, sort itself out once the investigation concludes. --TS 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Error of omission

Graphs showing data variation from icebergs over thousands of years have been left out of this article making it impossible for the ordinary citizen to come to his own conclusion regarding so called global warming. I would like to add the link from [24]

This link clearly shows what that the hockey stick is misleading and that the Middle Age warming period was ignored. The conclusion that the scientists involved committed intentional data massaging is unavoidable. Also there should be an inquiry into the financial relationships proponets of Global warming such as Al Gore have. Large corporations may be able to offshore factories into Asia or India to avoid having to purchase carbon credits in the US and hence be able to underprice their competitors. Oil companies may relish hiding the decline in oil production since 2005 (Peak Oil has already happened) by hiding behing a global warming agenda that rations oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livermore10 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly it's a blog maintained by a former weatherman, so it isn't a reliable source. Secondly, it doesn't seem to relate to the subject of this article. If you find a reliable source (for instance, a real climatologist) it will almost certainly go into a more appropriate article. --TS 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If he was a weatherman, then he might have been published by a third-party reliable source and his blog might be acceptable as a WP:SPS. Is meteorology a relevant field to climatology? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Are you suggesting that weathermen are authoritative on climatology? --TS 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm honestly asking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Meteorology is a close and very relevant field to climatology, just as the study of micro-evolution in viruses is highly relevant to the study of evolution, the study of how a river transports and deposits soil on a daily basis is highly relevant to geology, and so on. Aspects of weather, such as cloud cover, are central to climatology, and changes in many weather phenomena, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and so on, are believed by many to be one of the consequences of global warming. It is meteorologists who study how these phenomena work, and studying climate history is an important part of the meteorological curriculum. Flegelpuss (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is no. Meteorology deals with short-term atmospheric phenomena (weather), while climatology deals primarily with long-term atmospheric trends (climate) that produce specific types of weather. They are both atmospheric sciences but they are distinct fields. Expertise in one does not translate automatically to expertise in the other. As an aside, people often confuse weather with climate; that's why every winter you get uninformed arguments like "it's snowing therefore global warming must be a myth". -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that Watts had any skills in meteorology? I don't think I did. As far as I'm aware he has no such skills. He was a TV weatherman. I assume this means he stood up in front of a map and waved his arms around a bit, like the character played by Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. I don't think we have enough evidence to describe him as a qualified meteorologist. Assuming he did, I find it improbable that he would be qualified to have an opinion on climate. --TS 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"He was a TV weatherman" Hmmmm...that sounds like his work has been published by a third-party reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by a television station. Does that mean we should seek out and insert into relevant article Jimmy Savile's opinion on the administration of British hospitals? He has appeared before the microphone thousands of times and he worked as a porter at Stoke Mandeville for decades. --TS 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should find somewhere to work in Tom Baker's view of theology. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Talking of Romana's various husbands, I wonder if the world's most accomplished Professor Yaffle impersonator has come out with a view on this matter. As the emeritus Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Dawk has a professional expertise to add here. --TS 02:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

TV weathercasters are not prima facie experts in meteorology. Experts in meteorology are published in scientific journals and have advanced degrees. TV weathercasters appear on TV, and may or may not be published in scientific journals or have advanced degrees. Does this specific individual have an advanced degree or publications in scientific journals? Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well no. But he has a blog, so he must be an expert! --TS 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, as TS noted the material original poster linked seems to be clearly outside the scope of the article in hand. --J. Sketter (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FSB

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to add WP:RS to support inclusion of editorial

To help establish WP:WEIGHT, me and several other editors have argued to avoid including opinion pieces unless the opinion has also been covered by a third-party WP:RS. Currently, we reference the Nature editorial but don't have a WP:RS to cite. I'd like to add the following news article from The Chronicle of Higher Education[25] which references the Nature editorial. This seems to be a minor change. No content is being changed; my proposal is only for adding an additional cite to the end of the paragraph which talks about the editorial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the Chronicle ref being added. In regard to the wider question of how we select opinion pieces for inclusion, I agree we need criteria. But I'm not sure that "mentioned by a third party" is quite so important as a criterion as you and the others think. It seems odd that Nature cannot stand as its own source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as a statement of their own opinions, a quote from Nature's own opinion piece is irrefutable. Giving another ref where someone else has picked it up in more everyday literature adds credence to its notability, if that were needed. --Nigelj (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature's opinion would be relevant even if nobody else cited it. Nature is Nature. --TS 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} We're agreed on the edit. The principle concerned should be discussed rather than taken for granted. --22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Per my objection above. -Atmoz (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, per Tony. Nature's opinion is relevant, regardless of who covers it. After all, they are the publishers of several of these papers, their name has even been dragged in via "Mike's Nature trick". References are good. Additional references that add nothing to the article are bad. The benefit of adding additional references must always be weighed against the cost of making the article harder to read and to edit (especially for inexperienced editors). Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What objection above? I don't see it. Anyway, do you really want to open the flood gates for every op-ed on the subject? Do you really want to have to explain to every AGW sceptic why their favorite blog, op-ed, etc. shouldn't be used in the article? Requiring a third-party reliable source establishes a nice framework for eliminating a lot of crud. Besides, it's not like an editorial from a journal such as Nature isn't going to be mentioned by a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a binary choice. We can include the Nature editorial without cluttering the article with "crud". Lay off the hyperbole. Guettarda (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a binary choice, but it is a simple framework for dealing with fringe theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The double standard continues to grow more blatant. A Nature opinion piece agrees with us so they are reliable, whereas the Daily Mail, with an actual news story, comes to conclusions we don't like, so they are just conservative tabloid trash and thus not a reliable source. Very nice criteria for a left-wing propaganda organ. Not acceptable criteria for a neutral encyclopedia. Flegelpuss (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately satirical? It's really hard to tell at this point. Yes, of course the premier scientific publisher in the world, bar none, is a more reliable source on science than any newspaper. --TS 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what WP:RS says. Please stop making up rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're reading it right, then the phrasing of the guideline needs to be tightened up. Because what Tony says is the reality here. Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I only care about following policy. If you can get the editors of WP:V and WP:RS to agree, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You say you only care about following policy, but you repeatedly cite guidelines as if they had the same weight as policy. Why do you do that? --TS 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that policies override guidelines when there's a conflict, but I'm not aware of any conflict between the two. Are you saying that they are in conflict with each other? If not, it seems to be a moot point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just the policies override guidelines in some circumstances. Guidelines are just guidelines, they have no intrinsic weight, and it's possible to be a perfectly good Wikipedian while completely ignoring or even actively opposing a guideline or indeed several guidelines. A guideline, even where it is followed, requires interpretation, and must never be followed robotically. A policy, on the other hand, is something we all follow. Policies are in black and white, whereas guidelines are the color of discretion. If one attempts to impose guidelines on other editors, one does not succeed. The best one can hope for is to persuade. --TS 00:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...you might be right. WP:V doesn't seem to contain the distinction between straight news articles and opinion pieces. WP:RS does. I hadn't noticed that before. Let me think about this. We may need to bring this up at the WP:RS talk page. BTW, one of the reasons why I reference WP:RS so much is that I'm a regular participant at the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature is a reliable source on the opinion of Nature, which is intrinsically relevant to any scientific subject. That's the status of Nature, at this point in time. --TS 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"The double standard continues to grow more blatant." Well, of course it does. Every effort to bring neutrality to this article is being consistently blocked by the same group of editors. I spent months arguing with fringe theorists to being neutrality to our 9/11 conspiracy theories article so it looks like I have my work cut out for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously AQFK, your persistent failure to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors is very tiresome. But you are now stepping over the line into the realm of personal attacks. You need to step back from that kind of behaviour, now. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith. But when the pattern is blatant and obvious, it's hard not to ignore. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, "A Quest for Knowledge". I wonder if you could possibly cease casting slurs on your fellow editors, who are more numerous than you, at least as experienced and knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies, and as dedicated as your are to ensuring that we produce as neutral, accurate and high quality an article about this incident as is possible. --TS 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda and Tony Sidaway, why don't you just delete his comments or archive them instantly as you did to mine above in the Climategate discussion. You, Guettarda, also attacked me and accused me of all manner of things without any evidence or basis. Perhaps you two buddy's should look in the mirror.99.151.166.95 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda: You are not asking him to "assume good faith," you are demanding that he ignore a pattern of bias stretching out over weeks or perhaps even longer. It's one thing to assume good faith on the first edit, but once there are mountains of evidence pointing the other way, you're talking about willful blindness. Drolz⁰⁹ 23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, then how do you suggest we being neutrality to the article? We both agreed yesterday that AP analysis was pretty good. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to include that in our article, I'd be immediately reverted. Why is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc. Drolz⁰⁹ 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project. Drolz⁰⁹ 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we are falling out over whether or not to include a reference to Chronicle of Higher education that agrees with and supports a reference to Nature, then I'm minded to report this to the list of lamest edit wars. As I said above, I don't think it's necessary but I see where Quest is coming from and am very happy that we have such a constructive contributor to work with here. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am flummoxed. I support the proposed edit but I think "A Quest For Knowledge"'s broader suggestion is silly. Others have correctly pointed out that Nature's editorials are always relevant on scientific matters. And as a result of this very minor disagreement, "A Quest For Knowledge"' launches the most horrible and destructive personal attack against his fellow editors. Why is this happening? It's completely inexplicable. --TS 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect he'll be willing to clarify his position. Drolz' accusations of cabalism against named editors are quite a different matter. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those are a different (and very unhelpful) case, and not of "A Quest for Knowledge"'s doing, and not something any of us will be concerned about. It is "A Quest for Knowledge"'s assumptions of bad faith that really stand to harm the atmosphere here, because he is usually so reasonable. --TS 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not noticing the reasonableness, personally... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. When you see editors who:

1. Routinely remove anything they think makes their POV look bad
2. Only add material that think makes their POV look good
3. and no one is writing for the enemy

That tells me there's probably a problem with neutrality. Maybe the editors don't even realize that they're doing this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think that adding reliably sourced, neutrally worded information makes one side looks good? That is a very strange position to take. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. By over-emphasizing certain things, de-emphasizing or omitting certain things, it's very possible to write a biased article using only reliable sources. If I wanted to, I could easily write two versions of the same article, each heavily biased towards a different POV, using only reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response? Drolz⁰⁹ 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say, A Quest for Knowledge, you appear to be making some enormous assumptions here. Have you not seen the recent edits to this article, while it's been blocked? All of the textual edits made so far, were significantly endorsed by people like me, and none of them make any significant pro-science bias--indeed most of them remove text that could be read as exculpatory. See for yourself.

If I were really engaged in any bad faith exercise, why would I have devoted so much time to removing all possible bias in favor of my own point of view? --TS 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look at that. Editing is blocked. When did that happen? I don't see a section headline announcing the reason for that. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just from a quick survey of the article, I note that:

• Death threats still in the lead
• Title, "Hack and Theft," etc. still favor the notion that "it's an article about a security breach," as some of you have claimed
• Section on the emails still devotes far more space to explaining away misconduct than to explaining what the allegations even are
• There is still a massive, essentially unreadable section on the response of like 20 scientists, who all say essentially the same thing, and practically never actually address the email content
• There is basically no coverage of what the allegations of misconduct actually are, or coverage of what Climategate has been, or what people think about it, etc. Drolz⁰⁹ 01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say, for instance, that "there is basically no coverage of what the allegations of misconduct actually are?" That is the subject of most of the article. The section "Content of the documents" contains fairly detailed explanations of the main accusations. --TS 01:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Police investigations (not just "death threats") are in the lead, as they should be. We can't very well mention the investigations and then not say what they're investigating. Your argument effectively implies that we should not mention the police investigations in the first place, which isn't an option.
• Title and "Hack and Theft" describe how the files got released in the first place. That's essential.
• E-mails - there's always room for improvement, but please be aware that WP:BLP places tight restrictions on how we can cover allegations. As the very first section of BLP says, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" and "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The authors and recipients of the e-mails are the subject of considerable vilification at the moment, but there is little to no corroborated evidence of actual wrongdoing (and there won't be until the investigations into the affair have been published). If we underreport damaging, uncorroborated, possibly libellous accusations, then that is as it should be - as BLP says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper."
• Scientists' reactions - I'm sure this can be looked at, but since the incident centres on scientific matters and a major scientific institution, it's only natural that scientists' reactions should be a major part of the article. They are in a far better-informed position to comment than semi-educated bloggers and hyperventilating op-ed writers. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No AQFK, you have not been assuming good faith, at least not in the last several days. You've repeatedly made (mostly unfounded) accusations of bad faith against other editors. You have also refused to take advice on policy from more experienced editors. In addition, you've been guilty of a heck of a lot of wikilawyering. This is just the latest and the most egregious. And it needs to stop. That's all. Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What needs to stop, really, (among many other things unfortunately) are these ludicrous accusations of 'wikilawyering' every time someone points out that policy you cited doesn't support you. Drolz⁰⁹ 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Let's name the guilty ones who are throwing this word "wikilawyering" around. Flegelpuss, Flegelpuss again, A Quest for Knowledge, hmm ues and Guettarda above. Naughty boys. Stop making these silly accusations. --TS 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read that essay Drolz. Guettarda (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that we're supposed to be writing a WP:NPOV article. That doesn't change. We can't throw out the pillars just because we feel like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is throwing out any pillars. Wikipedia's policy framework is complex, particularly when it comes to sensitive topics that affect individual people's lives. You've been an active editor for about 11 months. Drolz has been an editor for 6 months. Tony, Guettarda and I have sixteen years of editorial experience between us. We've written multiple featured articles. We've written policies and guidelines. We not only know how Wikipedia works, we're among the people who made it work. We've repeatedly provided detailed advice on how those policies and guidelines affect this article. And yet we have a series of novice editors, sockpuppets and disruptive IPs claiming that we don't know what we're talking about. Can you understand why this is frustrating for us? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we are. Chris, when was the last time you wrote for the enemy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't "write for the enemy" (a dreadful phrase, I don't consider particular sides of a dispute to be my "enemies"); I write what can be reliably sourced about the various sides of an argument, with due respect for weight and the "do no harm" philosophy of WP:BLP. I haven't written much on the contents of the e-mails simply because others have been doing a good job of that without my intervention. But I'll repeat what I said above - we have to be cautious in writing about poorly substantiated accusations. If you don't like that key requirement of BLP, tough. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should as that's one of the reasons why so many editors have complained about the bias of the article. As for WP:BLP is concerned, as long as we're following WP:RS, we should be alright. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sixteen years? Wow. That's so sad :) Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

People can, in good faith, disagree about what constitutes an NPOV article. In fact, they do it all the time. When you decide that you know what NPOV is, and everyone who disagrees with you is engaging in POV editing, it creates a problem. Because, once you decide that you know who's right and who's wrong, it pretty much guarantees that you'll be wrong. That's why WP:AGF is such a key social policy. Most people are here to write an NPOV article. Sure, there are always a few people who aren't. And disproportionately many of them are SPAs and "returning editors" - "new" editors who arrive here well versed in editing Wikipedia. But we assume good faith even with them, because there are also SPAs who are excellent editors, and returning editors who are actually looking to turn over a new leaf.

AGF is importance because it allows people with different opinions and different perceptions to maintain a certain minimum level of collegiality. Our social policies are important because our goal of collaboratively writing an encyclopaedia, is a social endeavour. Good content editors who are unable to abide by our social policies soon run into trouble.

You can't always be right. And if you find yourself in the position where almost everyone is wrong except you, that's a good cue that some more introspection may be needed. You make claims of cabals - while I have known of Viriditas and ChrisO for years, I don't think I have edited with them in the past. I have run into Tony often enough, but I'm sure I've disagreed with him as often as I've agreed. Guettarda (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually knew Tony some time before either of us became Wikipedians, but I don't think I've edited much in common with him over the years, and I've certainly not crossed paths very often with Guettarda or Viriditas; I don't usually edit scientific or environmental articles. I only got involved with this one because someone renamed it to a name that violates a policy and guideline that I wrote, prompting me to move it to a move neutral title. And then of course we got overrun with fire-breathing newbies, sock puppets and IPs. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we knew one another from around '95, but not in the biblical sense. --TS 02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record that I agree that the scientific consensus is that global warming is real and is primarily caused by mankind. I also agree that this controversy hasn't altered this consensus. However, this is not an article about global warming. It's an article about the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails. We need to explain what the controversy is all about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And the difficulty in doing so is that few to none of the accusations have been substantiated, the accusations come principally from poor-quality sources such as blogs and op-eds, and the statements made by the accusers are often misleading or rely on selective, out of context quotations. Media outlets (particularly of the overtly partisan kind) like to spin issues to meet their favoured ideological biases; we have to aim a lot higher. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And we have no deadline. We can afford to wait months, or even years, to get this article right. We can definitely afford to wait until the criminal investigations and the independent inquiry finish. --TS 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"few to none of the accusations have been substantiated." This is the problem, and the double standard I have brought up. WP:RS for an accusation is not whether it is justified, or true. If this were the case, you wouldn't be able to write that someone in a murder trial had been accused of murder, because the allegation hadn't been "substantiated" yet. Meanwhile, death threats are in the article just because they have been made. There are plenty of WP:RS for the fact that allegations have been made, and these should be in the article.

The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. I freely admit that I am an AGW skeptic, and acknowledge that I have a POV. You guys refuse to admit that you have a POV, and because of this you see whatever you believe as being NPOV. I know that the balance in this article does not lie with what I personally believe to be the case. Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something. Drolz⁰⁹ 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Disputes requiring administrative intervention, concerns about edit warring, editorial conduct, general content, BLP issues, original research, NPOV, and reliable sources should be filed at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is not the place for extended discussion about these topics. A navigation menu is available here. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone add this to the FAQ? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Added as FAQ questions 7 and 8. --TS 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are you people trying to fool?

Why bother? Anyone who tries to engage in a civil reasoned discussion BUT doesn't toe the party line will be deleted, archived and banned. I was thinking of engaging in civil disobedience - but I'll go one better, I'll actually join in which ever side has the greater thuggery and will subtly egg them on to greater extremism. This will not of course work here in this article but it will work wonderfully in dozens of articles. I'll just sign up with an account and notch up a quick few thousand edits by reverting IP's wholesale (the more abusively the better, just not too many to tip my hand) then I'll suck up to some power users and go to town aggressively shutting down intelligent discussion always from the side of strength. My sole purpose will be to bend with the wind and support the ignorant assholes that are the loudest voices and most obsessive contributors who have become the arbiters of truth. I will endeavor to speed the decline of anti-intellectual Wikipedia by contributing (and not resisting) to the rot at the core. This will be easy to game simply by bending with the prevailing wind and pushing hard with the wind while leaving behind piles of crap quietly weaved into every facet I can touch. :) Hello brothers, I'm home. >99.144.192.74 (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is thataway... :-) Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My, my. Climate change "skeptics" are usually the anti-intellectual crowd, though. The scare quotes in this case are partly because scientific skeptics (as opposed to "skeptics" of science) come out on the side of the majority of climate scientists.[26].Шизомби (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly a skeptic, I simply discussed the widespread usage of the term climategate::

From a Time magazine news article, "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?" [27].

1. Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen"[28],
2. as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen"[29],
3. The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""
4. The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"
5. Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist , "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"[30]
6. Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"[31]

By any measure, except calculated political posturing, the term ClimateGate or Climategate is the norm. This dangerous bit of knowledge was deleted immediately. When I restored it, it was then archived immediately and I was banned.99.144.192.74 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom article

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