Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Ongoing discussions on article naming

Can we make a decision on this?

It's clear from the above discussion that words like "Climategate", "hacking", "scandal" and "controversy" are deemed inappropriate (by policy, guideline and general consensus). "E-mail" is fine, but seems unnecessarily limiting. Can we therefore come to some sort of agreement over a new name? These seem to have the most support thus far:

• Climatic Research Unit documents incident
• Climatic Research Unit files incident
• Climatic Research Unit incident

I propose that we pick on of these (I personally favor "Climatic Research Unit documents incident", but I'd support any of the three), establish a consensus and do it already. Variations can have redirects. What say you, shipmates? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A concrete "Request for move" is in progress above. It's quite close to ending now. The discussion of the article title can continue, though. As you may see in the lists, though, opinions for and against the current proposal are quite evenly matched, so consensus on a widely acceptable alternative is probably going to be difficult to achieve. --TS 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the consensus, policy or guideline is against the word 'hacking'. If you read the 'oppose' comments above, many of them oppose that proposal because it doesn't include 'hacking'. Equally, many above agree that the main media focus has been on the e-mails, not the other documents, so this should be reflected here. Where do you get the idea that we have to get moving on renaming the article? Why can't we wait until there is some new evidence, for example an arrest, or a published investigation, or a statement from one of the parties, and discuss the name in the light of finding out some more facts about whatever actually happened? --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My primary desire for moving the article is the limiting "e-mail" qualifier, since other files are also involved. Also, "hacking" (while supported by reliable sources) is probably unnecessary. I realize that some editors specifically desire these words to remain in the article name to help control the scope of the article, but that shouldn't really be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to "control the scope" of the article, but this was a hacking incident and so the name fits. I see some pressure from some editors who are quite open about wanting to limit the scope to the ensuing controversy (arguing that, in their view, this is what the media are doing) and that explains to me why those particular editors support a name change, but since this is a hacking incident being investigated by the police that's a good enough reason for me to include the word in the title. --TS 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if, apart from the vocal minority who want 'Climategate' or something like it, the majority of other editors are happy with the present title, why just keep proposing that we have to discuss the same thing (removing the two descriptive words in the title other than 'CRU') over and over? --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - But surely having "hacking" in the title is a presumption that a hacking has actually taken place, without that having yet been proven? And I think everyone agrees that "e-mail" should either be changed to "documents", or "files", or simply omitted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest a "majority" of editors are happy with the present title. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On hacking, the speculation that it's something other has been done to death on blogs and even on Wikipedia, but strangely not in any reliable source. This is because there is no evidence that it was other than what has been reported both by the Climatic Research Unit and by RealClimate: hacking. Not unsurprisingly, the Norfolk Constabulary--a county-wide force that has experts of its own--has called in a specialist Metropolitan Police e-Crime unit and is calling it "criminal offences related to a data breach"--hacking to you and me. --TS 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but until that has actually been proven, it is still based on speculation and not cast-iron facts. I am utterly convinced it was hacking of some nature (certainly it was an unauthorized access of data), but Wikipedia must be absolutely certain before such a controversial term is used in the title of an article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been stated by all the significant people involved. --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So? Until the investigation has run its course, nobody can categorically state that hacking has occurred, which means it is inappropriate for use in the title of the article per WP:NAME. This spirited defense of the word now has me concerned. What compelling reason is there for "hacking" to be in the title? Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is special pleading. On Wikipedia we rely on what is verifiable, not what is provable beyond all doubt. When the police launch a kidnap investigation we describe the incident as a kidnapping, even if eventually the facts are found to be different. To make an exception for this case, we would need a reason, and the only reason I see here is that, in the face of all the evidence and without any countervailing evidence, some people want it to be something other than a hacking incident. --TS 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Things like, "The glorious liberation of the truth from evil scientists"? --Nigelj (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Special pleading" or otherwise, we are talking about the title of the article. When there is any doubt at all, we have to err on the side of caution when it comes to article naming (that's a policy, not a guideline). And I don't want to hear any of that "some people want it to be something other than hacking" crap, because I do think it was hacking. My argument is purely about a matter of policy, and some of you are responding as if I'm a "denier". Perhaps I should request a third opinion on this matter, because I'm starting to wonder if we don't have some ownership issues developing here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to doubt. No reliable source has suggested anything other than hacking. I call it special pleading becuase it's a classic "you cannot say the earth is not flat" argument. --TS 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. You cannot equate my concern for following article naming conventions (entirely a policy-based objection) with believing the world is flat. I ask again: Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, we had a WP:RS at one point in the article, but it's since been removed. If I get a chance, I will try to find some more WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "hacking". That is not the issue here. The issue is that the word qualifies "incident" when it isn't yet certain that hacking was involved (although I personally believe that it was). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok read this "East Anglia University has gone out of its way to promote itself to students from the former Soviet Union. Its website says that 33 Russian students currently study there. It is not known if they have fallen under suspicion as part of the police investigation." Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails? from Daily Mail. As an student you're on the inside … Nsaa (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question mark at the end of the headline, and the extremely speculative nature of the quote from the article (classic Daily Mail style to invoke McCarthyist fears of the long gone Soviet Union) should provide you with a clue that this article in a tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source on anything except the obsessions of its proprietor and editorial staff. --TS 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So Daily Mail is known for simplifying and distort the truth? Here's yet another Source "On November 17th an anonymous whistleblower downloaded email and data files from computers at the Climatic Research Unit and," 'Climategate' Exposes the Global Warming Hoax in Pravda. Nsaa (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pravda! --TS 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha just your comment on Daily Mail and long gone Soviet Union … Nsaa (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you listen to this Youtube Clip Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower, Not A "Hacker" you may wonder if he's right. Why did a "hacker" removed all personal information like e-mail-addresses, names etc.? Typically a Whistle-blower activity. But since we only have Daily Mail, Pravda etc. we should STATE in the article name that's a hacking incident? Get real! Nsaa (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You want to cite Monckton? No. Just no. If you want anyone to take you seriously, please try to find a higher calibre of sources than blogs and YouTube videos from fringe figures. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with two above Daily Mail and Pravda. Listen to a person don't hurt. Instead of attacking me you could try to dismiss his analysis and pointing where he went wrong. And no, I don't suggest adding primary sources videos like the above Video. Where do I propose that? I just say try to listen. And hacking is POV and should go out. Nsaa (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see that none of you are taking this seriously. Nobody has been able to answer my question (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?) despite me asking it twice. All I am getting in response is the Chewbacca defense. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's break this down a bit. The article title currently has four components: (1) Climatic Research Unit (2) e-mail (3) hacking (4) incident. (1) is uncontroversial - I don't think anyone has suggested altering or removing that. (2) is reasonable, since the focus is primarily on the e-mails. (3) is defensible, since the circumstances in which the e-mails were released is a major part of the controversy - the way that the CRU was targeted by criminals has been roundly condemned by scientists and politicians. (4) is an element on which I'm amenable to change. "Incident" is perhaps misleading, since it implies a single discrete event at a single point in time. That would be accurate if the article was solely about the hack. But since it's not just about that but also covers the subsequent controversy, I think it's an unsatisfactory term. "Controversy" would, I think, be a more suitable term. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! So Remove (3) hack and Change (4) and we get Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy which is a far better name and more neutral in tone. But since others strongly has rejected controversy we just stick to incident for the moment. I.e. Climatic Research Unit e-mail incident and goes for this now. Nsaa (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why controversy again is proposed? Just for distorting the question from Scjessey (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?)? Nsaa (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been researching this and "controversy" in the title is perfectly acceptable in this situation. I'm currently drafting an explanation which hopefully will be done soon. Unfortunately, I only have 2-3 hours a day to devote to Wikipdia so "soon" could be tonight or this weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been embroiled in titling discussions that involved the word "controversy" before. In most cases, the word was deemed inappropriate per WP:WTA. The facts of the incident are not in dispute, so there isn't anything "controversial" about it. I'm not a fan of "incident" either, but I cannot think of a suitable alternative. I don't know why anyone still insists on the "e-mail" qualifier - coverage of the emails has been more significant because they are easier to follow, but quality analysis of the other data is beginning to appear as more time passes. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage further discussion on this, but removal of the term "hacking" seems moot for now as a concrete proposal to do just that is on Requested moves and at the end of the seven day discussion period (subject to backlogs) an administrator will make a determination on whether consensus exists for that action. --TS 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the voting results so far, it appears that there is broad support for renaming the article, but consensus breaks down upon when deciding what the new name should be. Several editors have expressed reservations about the use of the word "controversy". However, it is perfectly acceptable given the situation. According to WP:AVOID, "controversy" is OK if reliable sources also use the word "controversy". I found dozens of reliable sources which use the term "controversy" so I believe that issue is addressed.[6][7]

In addition, we have several precedents for using the word "controversy" in our article titles. As other editors have noted, we already have Killian documents controversy and Global warming controversy.

What's more, I found 7 articles which passed peer-review to achieve Good Article status, all of which use the word "controversy" in the article title:

AACS encryption key controversy

Essjay controversy

Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man

Old Court – New Court controversy

White House travel office controversy

plus 2 more which passed a second peer-review to achieve Feature Article status:

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

John the bookmaker controversy

Given the fact that dozens of reliable sources use the term "controversy", I believe that the standards within WP:AVOID have been met. Given the fact that we have several precedents for using word "controversy", including an article in this very topic space, Global warming controversy, as well as 9 different articles which have passed peer-review to reach achieve Good Article or Feature Article status, I think it’s OK for us to use this for the article title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, per my comments above. What exactly is "controversial"? Why use the word when we don't have to? I would argue that other articles have resorted to the use of the word because of poor decision-making by those involved. How about "Climatic Research Unit mountain out of a molehill" for a title? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the controversy is legit or not is irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The great flaw in this theory is that most of the reliable sources out there refer to the incident as "Climategate", which we have already established is inappropriate. The great thing about Climatic Research Unit documents incident is that it is accurate and neutral, whereas anything with "controversy", "scandal", "hacking" or "Climategate" characterizes the incident unnecessarily. I should also point out that Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions makes little mention of reliable sources or verifiability. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We determine whether a source is reliable. If a source is wrong on the facts, it isn't reliable. --TS 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, mainstream news media are reliable sources. Are you seriously arguing that BBC News isn't mainstream news? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If our verifiability policy really did claim that the mainstream news media are intrinsically reliable, then that policy would be incorrect as written. It lists mainstream news media as among the more reliable sources. We must still use our judgement (which is one reason why we have reliable sources guidelines, for use in helping us to make a determination). Without breaking a sweat, any reasonably well educated adult could pick up today's edition of the mainstream newspapers and find factually incorrect statements--statements that contradict more reliable sources, for instance--in those newspapers. It follow that all sources, including newspapers, must be handled not blindly but with judgement. That's our job as editors. --TS 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously judgment has to be employed when using sources - some are "more reliable" than others, especially when being used in a particular context, and sometimes generally reliable sources make individual errors. However, one can make a broad statement that mainstream media sources generally speaking fall within WP:RS. Also that they are actually a pretty good guide to what something is currently called in mainstream, non-technical discourse.

As to the name itself, "incident" is simply inaccurate as a matter of English language. We are not dealing with an "incident" here, which suggests a single event, we are undoubtedly dealing with a running "controversy". To me that seems to be a fairly accurate - and neutral - description, not to mention one that is commonly used in the media. Acknowledging that doesn't mean acknowledging that the CRU documents reveal controversial or bad behaviour, it simply means acknowledging that the alleged hacking of the material, and, more importantly, its content, has generated a controversy. That seems rather undeniable, even if one thinks that the real controversy is how the material has been exploited by fringers and denialists. "CRU e-mail controversy" seems to cover the issue pretty accurately without being either too woolly or POV. And as noted, there is precedent. --Nickhh (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "incident" (the hacking seems to have been a one-off event). Controversy would be better, however, because the fall-out from the hacking has been fairly protracted. --TS 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After much consideration, I have been persuaded that using the word "controversy" would be acceptable (although still not ideal). With that in mind, I am hoping that we can form a consensus around the title "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". Such a title allows for the fact that only a small percentage of the stolen data were emails, and eliminates the troublesome "hacking". A possible alternative to consider would be "Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy", which implies hacking without actually saying it. Do either of these seem worthy of support? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking"? This removes the problematic implications of "incident". I don't accept that having the word "hacking" in the title stops us discussing the fall-out from the hacking. However having "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking controversy" makes it sound as if the sole controversy is over the hacking, and missing the word "hacking" out altogether would give too much emphasis to the controversy over the e-mails, which has been rather small beer in the scheme of things. Should anything ever come of the fuss over the emails (withdrawal of major climatology papers, etc), then at that point I would say we should probably call it the "Climategate scandal", but at this stage nobody can make such a prediction. --TS 03:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

I vote for using Climategate as the title because that is how it is reported. The Wikipedia guidelines against using "-gate" apply to phrases made up by Wikipedia editors, and to minor scandals. I don't think that this is a "minor" scandal. In fact, there are many Wikipedia articles about various -gates. Therefore, in my opinion, not using Climategate when that is the obvious choice is nothing more than very strong POV pushing.

By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email. Q Science (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Second the motion, particularly in light of recent evidence (and it's getting into the wonderful, "reliable" MSM[8][9] so beloved of Wikipedia apparatchiki, too!) on how AGW propagandists who had been infiltrating Wikipedia since 2003 in a concerted effort to suppress soundly skeptical science on the subject of the AGW fraud and to slander scientists critical of the CRU correspondents' mendacity have degraded the intellectual integrity of this online encyclopedia for their own nefarious purposes.
If "Climategate" flames these bastiches, all the better. It is the term by which this whistleblower revelation is known throughout the world in spite of MSM "spiking" and Watermelon censorship, and the continuation of this duplicitous denial is no longer tolerable. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no scandal, unless you are referring to the scandalous press coverage full of misrepresentations, or the scandalous statements of lies made by energy-financed politicians? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support the title "Climategate" but respect the arguments against such a change, as well. I believe that it can be argued that the professor's actions created a scandal by failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that most readers will be more familiar with the term "Climategate" over the CRU or the IPCC or UEA. But, like I said, at this point I am easy. Nightmote (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy states that the most common name must be used for naming an article, and that name is "Climategate" as already has been used or recognized by such reliable sources as The Economist (here), Reuters (here), The New York Times (here), The Guardian (here), CNN (here) and most of the other language Wikipedia sites. The discussion above clearly reflects an effort to cleanse/sanitize this controversy, and most of the arguments presented to keep other titles are just flagrant original research as these titles have not been used by any RS but here, reaching the ridiculous point that now "controversy" is considered lack of NPOV. Please' let's call things by its name! There is no wondering Wiki's NPOV reputation is being tainted (see this and here) I proposed this matter to be settled once an for all by a group of real neutral admins/experience editors (anyone who has contributed in GW or climate change articles should be excluded, including admins). In the meantime I will add three of these RSs in the lead to support the use of Climategate.-Mariordo (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are few things uglier than a row of references in the middle of the first sentence of an article. These are totally unnecessary, and your edit is borderline pointy. Please self-revert, or someone will remove them on your behalf shortly. In future, please build a consensus on the talk page before making controversial edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did change the word "some" for "several" so given the contentious nature of the article, in this case several RS are required to support that edit. I do not think that adding RS requires consensus, did you read the content in these references? Instead of format reasons please provide a more solid argument for requesting the deletion.-Mariordo (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that the wording and format prior to your changes existed because of painstaking discussion and deliberation by many editors that led to a consensus. You came along and changed that without prior discussion, and made it ugly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please point me to such discussion? Do this discussion considered the same references I provided? News and points of view evolve through time, I had followed some of this discussion and waited until sufficient RS use the term. Furthermore, why the ref from Reuters in better than the Economist, or yet, the more recent from CNN. I will check the discussion you mentioned (please provide me the link), but clearly it used to be "some" and now is "several", are you sure this discussion is not out of date. Finally, I gave my opinion about the name change above, but the edit refers only to "several".-Mariordo (talk)

Please don't edit war, Mariordo. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You will find the discussions in the archives. I'm sure you are just as capable of using the search tool as I am. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an experienced Wiki editor with not a single 3RR sanction on record, so please refrain from patronizing me, one rv is not an edit war, and you can be certain I will not reverse more than once. Let's go back to what matters, please provide the solid arguments to reject those RSs other than "ugly" (to the best of my knowledge those refs have not been included before, or correct me if I am wrong), also I am waiting for the link to review the specific discussion you are mentioned above (the archive is very long and I am raising a very specific issue), justifying "some" and picking only Reuters as the RS.-Mariordo (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As an "experienced Wiki editor", you will doubtless be aware that any time you revert a revert, it is considered edit warring (whether or not you have broken WP:3RR). There is nothing wrong with your sources. They are simply not needed, and the long line of sources in an article lede (especially in the middle of a sentence) is ugly. And "an experienced Wiki editor" should not need help searching the archives. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the first line "...referred to by several sources as 'Climategate'..." This is as fallacious and absurd a statement as you will ever see. Might as well say, "referred to by virtually everyone except Wikipedia (and perhaps a few delusional fringe 'sources') as 'Climategate'" -- Newspeak is apparently alive and well in this transparently slanted approach. Indeed, not only is "Wiki's NPOV reputation ... being tainted," as Mariordo points out, Wikipedia's rep is fast becoming laughable. Also, per the FAQ citing the supposed "Wiki standards" you have this little bit of delicious hypocrisy: "Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of 'scandal' or '-gate' frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view." Well, then, how is the phrase "hacking incident" not guilty of this same "breach" of protocol? Particularly since, as noted throughout this discussion and elsewhere, the "hacking" aspect is debatable both from a practical and a legal perspective.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you had bothered to read this talk page, you would note that the current title of the article is under discussion (and has been for a couple of weeks). Personally, I don't like "e-mail hacking incident", and would prefer "document incident" (although I am starting to lean toward "document controversy"). It is not a good idea to introduce yourself to a Wikipedia discussion by making bad faith assumptions and accusing fellow editors of hypocrisy. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the "welcome" with the predictable dose of condescension. I have, in fact, been following the farcical "debate" here since day one, with growing disgust. The appalling and blatant propagandism and lack of authenticity in the deliberately synthesized "angle" that's being plied. Obnoxious levels of disingenuousness, sorry to burn you, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. So yeah, I am finally, after several weeks of observing, putting in my two cents. Problems with that? It's still a "free" Wiki, is it not? Welcome to Wikipedia!MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are unable to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for civility and good faith, then perhaps you should find something else to occupy you. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please specify my intolerable lapse of "civility and good faith," you who called out another editor's changes as "pointy" and "ugly" in most impolitic fashion. Further, do you have some jurisdiction here to cast aspersions on one's opinions while others on your side fling vitriol and innuendo wantonly and freely? If you do have jurisdiction of some sort, forgive my ignorance, but to be honest I really don't care much either way. Lastly, do you have a problem with myself and others expressing ourselves with strength of convictions, because you are awful quick to jump on the "format" and "protocol" high-horse, rather than discuss substance.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"There is no scandal" US News & World Report has named Climate-gate one of the Top 10 Political Scandals of 2009.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of some sub-editors sitting in an office seems like an odd criterion for determining whether an event is a political scandal. The inclusion on the list of clear non-scandals such as Sarah Palin's premature resignation as Governor of Alaska illustrates what a very unreliable criterion inclusion on that list would be if used for that purpose. --TS 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Uh-huh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we have repeatedly run up against instances where editors have advocated a naive, robotic approach to reporting. There's a serious issue here. We don't write articles from newspaper reports. We carefully assess all reliable sources. Somebody who says Sarah Palin's resignation was a political scandal doesn't know what the word "scandal" implies. --TS 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"We carefully assess all reliable sources" I believe that's an argument in my favor. Consider the WP:UNDUE weight given to a minor element in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You and the police and the FBI seem to have irreconcilable differences on the correct use of the word "minor". --TS 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The police have their policies, we have ours. If you want to write for the police, more power to you. But here on Wikipedia we're supposed to be following WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And you see a conflict between the two? Odd, I thought we were supposed to report significant facts, and the police investigations are significant facts. The word "minor" applies to neither, whether on Wikipedia or in a police station. But I fear we're drifting off the topic of this thread so I'll leave you with the last word if you want it. --TS 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of who gets the last word, it's question of writing good Wikipedia articles. Yes, absolutely, there's huge difference between the two. One is completely irrelevant and the other is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I suggest that if you don't like WP:NPOV, you should take it up with the editors there. Please let us know how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Climategate is the name used for their versions of this article in the Spanish [11], Norwegian [12] and Swedish [13] wikipedias. I agree that the current English name is unacceptable. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate name: Climategate is not the hacking incident

The opening line is false, "The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as 'Climategate', began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich." This article seems to be discussing the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which by all means did happen in November, 2009. However, implying that this "incident" is referred to by some sources (who?) as Climategate is a false statement. Climategate is about the documents, code datasets and information revealed from the "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident." This information did not begin in November 2009, that's when the hacking incident that this article talks about happened. But Climategate is referring to the state of climate science over the past decade. It's the information revealed from the "incident" that this article is discussing. One of two things needs to happen: (1) the improperly referred to name "Climategate" should be removed, or (2) information about Climategate should be added to the article. Both the hacking incident and Climategate are not one and the same. 98.232.27.135 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is revealed by this affair about the state of climate science over the past decade, that isn't known from peer-reviewed sources? Do you have a reliable source for the notion that our knowledge of the state of climate acience has been advanced as a result of this hacking incident? --TS 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no mainstream scientific source - as opposed to hyperventilating bloggers and self-appointed amateur "auditors" - have corroborated any errors in the CRU's data, let alone the rest of climate science, as a result of this incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that ... uh ... IP, there makes a nice point. It can be reasonably argued that the hacking of the data is a crime. It is also reasonable to argue that the impact of the hacking stands apart from that crime. It would then be reasonable to discuss the scope of that impact based on reliable sources. TS and CO, you can reasonably posit that the effect has been minimal and transient; you cannot reasonably argue that there has been no effect. As I have stated elsewhere I am no longer pursuing a name change because I bow to the WP "-gate" policy, but I remain sympathetic to the idea and continue to be troubled by statements that "there is no spoon". Nightmote (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying there's been a political impact, but that's separate from any scientific impact. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg. Dynablaster (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, many deny the existence of a chicken. For them the egg stands alone. Nightmote (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon makes at least one valid point: it is an inaccurate name. This is an ongoing controversy that clearly has extended beyond the initial November hacking. Unfortunately, nobody here can agree what the new name should be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take climategate out of the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with whatever IP wrote this, but I feel that the word "ClimateGate" shouldn't be taken out until it can be put somewhere, since there are large numbers of people who believe that "ClimateGate" does change the dynamics regarding anthropogenic climate change, as per wikipedia's significant minority opinion policy (Rush Limbaugh and Anthony Watts come to mind as huge supporters of this view, and they together have tens of millions of listeners/readers). Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's poor justification. There are billions of people living on this planet, and only a tiny "fringe-sized" minority of them follow Limbaugh or Watts. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the insinuated "vast majority" that buy the "planet has a fever" philosophy wholesale? Please. Whether you hate him or hang on his every word (I do neither), you refer to perhaps the utmost political pundit in America, having one of, if not the largest followings of any political commentator, and you then go and compare Limbaugh's inarguably humongous audience to the world population in order to try to make the downplay work so you can stick that "fringe-sized minority" comment in there? The saying going around is, "who are the 'deniers' now?" In other words, the horse has fled the barn, sayonara horse. (If you can get your "digs" in, why not the rest of us?) As for the primary issue in this sub-section -- by all means, DO disentangle the "alleged 'hacking incident'" article from the Climategate redirect; make them two discrete topics. No? Ahhh. But of course; that would go against the agenda of the self-important self-appointed Wiki "elites" who have bullyragged other would-be contributors and tortured this article to shoehorn it to their point-of-view, and deliberately hijacked the "Climategate" terminology with that slippery redirect, as part of the whitewash. Objectivity is, at this point, sham. I'll re-adopt an attitude of "good faith" as soon as the Wikibully cover-up artists unlock their kung-fu grip on this "article." As jfcj1 says in this talk page, "Why not just rename it 'The Official Wiki Warmist Coverup and Propaganda Page'?" It's as plain as the nose on your face; this charade fools nobody. It's no wonder Wikipedia is losing editors in droves. It's being turned into another propagandist tool; and as such will eventually become a coffee-klatch.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Rush Limbaugh and his views are representative of anything but a tiny minority--even of the American public--is as persistent as it is erroneous. A recent poll commissioned by BBC World Service and performed by GlobeScan found that only 6% of the 24,000 people polled in 23 countries did not want their country to reach an agreement at the Copenhagen conference to deal with global warming. --TS 12:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Say what? "Erroneous"? The knowingly false claim that a majority of Americans are liberal "progressives" (we all know it's far to the contrary) and the propaganda attempting to portray worldwide belief in the AGW theory as "all-but-universal" -- these propositions are as laughable as they are persistent among those of the type who have assumed a death-clutch on this "article" while squatting all day even here on the talk page. In the scientific community alone there are many thousands who are experts in this and/or ancillary fields of study, who have been raising serious questions even from years back. You lasering in on a ludicrous BBC poll (BBC being the British version of TASS) like that further illustrates the horrendous POV-ism going on both on the main page and behind the scenes here. When one's premise requires one to try to "downplay" challengers to the AGW "debate is over" crowd by stating, in effect, that "it's only Limbaugh's audience which is 'fringe' compared to the world population" -- when you start citing polls that are clearly off the mainstream (check one of the two- or three-dozen other polls to use for citation; Gallup or something credible would be nice; oh wait, that might not serve your "intent") then you've not only got a flawed premise and an obvious agenda, you've departed the road of scholarliness. Add to it how editing to this article is jealously guarded by the self-imposed "authorities"; add to it the continuous recurrence of "we already discussed that didn't you read the talk pages and we don't want to discuss it no more now let's refocus" as a response to anyone who tries to talk straight (yeah we heard, the debate is over, somehow that doesn't quite make it); add to it the continuous implication of "I am a seasoned Wikipedia editor -- welcome! peon noob" -- add it up and you've got a seriously un-Wiki-like dynamic going on here. At best it's a travesty; at worst it's sinister. But I guess there are those who will determinedly ignore the elephant in the living room; but he's a growing boy, that elephant. OK, the rustic rabble shall return to the tillage. For now.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we re-focus? There are (as far as I can tell) two issues under discussion: 1)"Should the article be re-named Climategate?" and; 2) "Is the hacking the central topic or is the content of the emails the central topic?" Regarding (1), there is reasoned opposition to the title "Climategate" based on wikipedia policy and the idea that the term implies guilt where none has been proven. To avoid mentioning the almost universally-used term "Climategate" in the introduction, however, would be blatant POV-pushing. Regarding (2), it is pointless to continue to argue that this main thrust of Climategate is computer hacking at a college. The fallout - scientific, political, professional - has almost nothing to do with how the data were released. In a year or two, Climategate may be seen to be a flash in the pan. Or not. But the significance - however great or however small and of whatever duration - lies in the data and how the world reacted to those data. Nightmote (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition I would like to re-suggest that e-mail is not the only thing that was stolen, so it should be removed from the title to be more general. Ignignot (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "e-mail" is an unnecessary part of the title, and somewhat limiting. As I said elsewhere, I am leaning toward "Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(@ Nightmote, after ec) - I think that is only partly right. First of all, I think you are right that "Climategate" should not be in the article name, but should definitely should be in prominently mentioned in the lede. This would be consistent with the way other "-gate" stuff has been treated. Beyond that, however, I must disagree with you. The most significant issue of this matter is the theft of data. Everything else branches out from that, including:

• How the data were stolen (technical details).
• The investigation (by police, university).
• Why the data were stolen (just because? Agenda-driven?)
• Whether or not the release of this data was timed to coincide with the climate conference.
• The scientific impact (minimal).
• The impact on public opinion (some impact, particularly in the US).
• The political impact (minimal, some embarrassment to UK gov, exploitation by some US politicians).

All of these are legitimate points worth covering, and there may be more, but it is still the data theft that should form the central focus of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think ScJessey's approach is close to the one we've followed so far as the situation has developed, and it seems to work well. --TS 17:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"The most significant issue of this matter is the theft of data." No it's not. Suppose it had been the English department's archives that had been hacked/leaked — who would care about the incident? It's the view behind the curtain at the way climate science has been done that makes this noteworthy.

—WWoods (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is slanted such that it comes across as a POV condemnation of the hacking incident, consisting of email excerpts followed by numerous quotes from AGW proponents supporting the argument that the emails mean nothing and that AGW continues to be real. I don't see that as productive; we already have an Global Warming article, right? The investigation is ongoing; accordingly, we can't assume that a whistleblower released the files out of a sense of altruism, and we can't assume that the theft had overtones of international conspiracy. What does that leave us? The bare facts (what files were removed, when, and when they were disseminated) followed by a BRIEF pro/con assessment of significance (four or six quotes from James Hansen and others of similar prestige, giving no undue weight to either side) and an assessment of *concrete* impacts (quotes from leaders at the Copenhagen summit, data confirmations undertaken by the IPCC, death threats, etc.). The Climategate sandwich is, at the moment, all bread and no Climategate. Nightmote (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy states that the most common name must be used for naming an article, and that name is "Climategate" because after more than a month it has been already used or recognized by such reliable sources and mainstream media including The Economist (here), Reuters (here), The New York Times (here), The Guardian (here), CNN (here). This fact has been recognized by most of the other language Wikipedia sites, as they call this article Climategate. The discussion above clearly reflects an effort to cleanse/sanitize this controversy, and most of the arguments presented to keep other titles are just flagrant original research as these titles have not been used by any RS but here, reaching the ridiculous point that now "controversy" is considered lack of NPOV. Please' let's call things by its name! There is no wondering Wiki's NPOV reputation is being tarnish (see this and here) I proposed this matter to be settled once an for all by a group of real neutral admins/experience editors (anyone who has contributed in GW or climate change articles should be excluded, including admins). And to keep a decent minimum of NPOV the word "some" in the lead should be changed to "several" (all the refs are in the history I provided were deleted because they look "ugly" and "pointy", with no discussion of the substance), or simply "also known as Climategate"-Mariordo (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Using a common name is fine, unless that common name happens to violate other policies, such as WP:NPOV. WP:PRECISION is a more useful and relevant part of the naming policy. We have an ongoing discussion about what the article name should be, and we must strive to select something that is both neutral and descriptive. "Climategate" is neither. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Scjessey's earlier suggestion: "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". I'd also be find with "Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy" since that's what the majority of reliable sources are focusing on. The nice thing about "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" is that it side-step the 'e-mail vs source code' issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on question 5 of FAQ

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

---

Speculation by Graham was based on assumptions that have now been debunked.

---

Hey guys. Given that the usage of words like "hack," "leak" and "stole" has been brought up repeatedly on this talkpage with no consensus reached, it feels inappropriate to "answer" this question in the FAQ as if so clear an answer is available. I want to see this question deleted entirely. If you have a compromise in mind, feel free to offer it up. However I'm having trouble imagining that such a compromised answer (e.g., "opinions are mixed on whether to do x") would provide much guidance to the reader at all.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text of the entry as it currently stands:

Q5:Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?

A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia", and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair.

Opinion is also "mixed" as to whether Barack Obama is a Muslim or has a forged birth certificate, but these issues are addressed in Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, on which this page's FAQ is modelled. The bottom line in both cases is that we reflect facts as published by reliable sources, not speculation and myths. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and as in that case all the reliable sources point in one and only one direction: in this case, that the servers were compromised. --TS 13:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In order to make the case for us to say that it's a whistleblower, you need to find some reliable sources. We had one previously, but it was edited out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we did, actually. The only sources able to tell us how the files got out are the police, the university and the hacker. Since the hacker isn't commenting we have to go by what the police and the university say, i.e. that the files were hacked. Anything else would have come from third parties with no direct knowledge of the situation and no way of knowing - i.e. mere speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this article.[14] I did make an effort the other day to try to find some other sources, but came up empty. It's really neither here nor there. I'm not a fan of finding the one oddball source that says something different and citing that oddball source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also at PC World, but it's the same article.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This article was discussed before on this page and rejected. The "whistleblower" claim is attributed to the personal opinion of one non-involved individual (an activist climate-change sceptic, incidentally). It's just speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. And for the claim that it was the work of an outside hacker intruding upon the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in a skulking smash-and-grab to come up with this carefully structured "FOIA2009.zip" archive predominantly consisting of data files and computer code - with a gracenote minority of e-mails showing how utterly rotten-to-the-core are the correspondents responsible not only for running the CRU but also the RealClimate AGW fraudsters' propaganda blog - we have only the claims of the University of East Anglia officers responsible for running the CRU and the proprietors of the RealClimate sack of feculent lies. You WikiNazi Watermelon scum want to think this over a bit? 71.125.130.14 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What speculation? It's definitely a reliable source for the sentence "Robert Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said that "80 percent of the time it's an insider."" Didn't we have the same discussion just yesterday? Anyway, I'm not proposing adding this sentence into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source only for the unsourced personal opinion of one non-involved, non-notable individual. Since there is no indication that this individual has any particular knowledge of this particular incident, its inclusion would be undue weight on a non-notable opinion. This has all been discussed before; there's no need to rehash it yet again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you hit the nail on the head. It's a weighting issue, not reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually both. As I said, it's only reliable as a source for this person's personal opinion. It is not reliable as a source for what happened with the CRU's data, since he has no involvement with it whatsoever. It can't be used as a factual source on that issue since it's a mere statement of opinion. That's the reliability issue. The weighting issue is down to him being a non-notable individual; his opinion is really not worth more than any other climate-sceptic blogger. As you've noted yourself, it's the "one oddball source that says something different". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he appears to be an expert on security, so this does fall within his area of expertise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been dealt with already. Look it up in the archives of this talk page. I'm not going to repeat this argument yet again - it's a waste of time. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious. What do you mean "dealt with"? Anyway, I did some more research and it turns out that he's been cited by numerous reliable sources including BBC News[16], CNET[17], MSNBC[18], eWeek[19], InfoWorld[20], USA Today[21] and many others. Non-notable, indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been cited by many people, yes. And I see that you continue to believe that journalistic sources are always reliable sources and that as such their statements must be taken as factual and verifiable--which is not the case.

Further, many of the articles you cite say nothing about the CRU exploit. The BBC item, for instance, is a 2007 piece in which Graham emphasizes the ease with which traffic can be hijacked and information in data packets can be obtained. Why does Mr. Graham suddenly believe that an academic website could not be hacked, when we know for a fact that Pentagon websites have been hacked, and a Scottish programmer is in the process of being extradited for that hacking? This one doesn't pass the "sniff" test. --TS 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that the claim that he's a non-notable expert does not appear to be correct. So the situation as it stands is that we have an established and notable expert speaking within his area of expertise. But yes, the lack of corroborating sources remains problematic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, anything coming from Robert Graham is tainted by his admission that he is a climate skeptic. That conflict of interest eliminates him as a reliable source, to my mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm heading out for the night, so I won't be able to research this until later, but when we started this discussion, we had no reliable sources to support the claim that it might have been an insider. We now have one reliable source which which quotes an established and notable expert speaking within his area of expertise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As I remarked earlier, this fellow's opinion is not relevant because he has no (none, zilch, zero) information related to the incident. The Norfolk police, the Metropolitan police, the University of East Anglia, the RealClimate, do have information relevant to the incident, and they're treating it seriously, as a criminal offence.

I don't subscribe to the notion of "notability", but even if I did the question of notability is moot. He's speculating, and the nicest thing I can say is that he's entitled to speculate. Let's quote his opinion if he is hired as an expert by the Metropolitan Police in this case. At that point we might presume that he has actual data to go on. --TS 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the anon's comment below: it's a frequently asked question, so it belongs in the FAQ. The answer may not be satisfactory to you, but broadly speaking it explains why we have done things the way we have done. It provides enough information for someone who disagrees with it to know how to phrase their disagreement. It doesn't give "The" answer to the question, but it explains why things are the way they are, at present. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have proof the documents were hacked, rather than released by a whistle blower, calling them hacked is just speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.61.57 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ above, question 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to represent the speculation of a self-appointed "security expert" who had no actual knowledge of the case in hand as evidence that there was an inside job is doomed to failure. All reliable sources tell us it's being treated as a hacking, and only speculation of the type we saw in the Obama case (thanks for reminding us, Chris) says otherwise. --TS 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, when we started this discussion, we had no reliable sources to support the claim that it might have been an insider. We now have at least one reliable source[22] which which quotes an established and notable expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security): BBC News[23], CNET[24], MSNBC[25], eWeek[26], InfoWorld[27], USA Today[28] and many others.

I did some more research and it appears that Robert Graham is also a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[29] Elsevier is a respected publishing house, is it not? According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read the articles you link to. Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AQFK is missing the point again. Re-read what Tony says: Graham's speculating. He is not involved in any capacity in this issue. He might be qualified to speak about general issues of network security but as an uninvolved party he has no more idea than the rest of us about what happened in this specific issue. AQFK has shown that he's a talking head; big deal. It doesn't make his opinion any more relevant. I'm not even sure that he's speaking in his capacity as a security expert in this case; the (undisclosed) fact that Graham is an activist climate-sceptic blogger suggests that he's merely forwarding blogosphere speculation, of which he is surely aware. We don't deal in speculation, period. I don't know why AQFK is even bothering to push this, since he's already acknowledged that Graham's is a fringe view. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Graham is a highly reputable computer security professional. He analysis is widely quoted in the media and should go in the article to counter the undue weight given to the speculation that the emails were "stolen" or "hacked". Flegelpuss (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But as someone with an admitted conflict of interest, he has effectively ruled himself out for use as a reliable source. I really cannot see how this discussion can be further prolonged, given these circumstances. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, please keep in mind that thus far, I have agreed with you and Tony regarding this issue because I found your arguments persuasive. However, if it turns out that I was wrong, I have no problem admitting that I was wrong. I hope that you can do the same. Wikipedia, like science, should be self-correcting.

As I have noted before, this is not a topic that I am particularly interested in. My primary interest is in making sure we write a neutral article. Whether content "helps" or "hurts" a particular side of the global climate debate is, quite frankly, not my concern.

But what I am concerned about is what I think I'm hearing about Graham's character. Are you accusing Robert Graham of compromising his professional integrity in this matter? If so, that's a very serious accusation and WP:BLP applies. Now, if you have reliable sources to back such allegations, that's one thing. But WP:BLP applies to talk pages, too. Perhaps this is a road you don't want to go down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that categorically state that the UEA servers were illegally accessed, and that a data theft took place. The stolen data was then disseminated to the internet. That data theft is being investigated by police, and both the CRU and the Norfolk rozzers have corroborated this. On the flip side, we have a climate skeptic who happens to be a security expert. He gives his opinion based on access to the stolen data, but with no access to the servers and no "insider" information from the UEA or the police conducting the investigation. This is nothing more than the opinion of someone with a conflict of interest without full access to the facts. Let's not waste more time on this, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All we have is that he's quoted as saying: 'Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider"'. He knows nothing about this incident, he has an opinion about this 'type' of incident, but we don't know what 'type' of incident he thinks this is - a university research department hack? a global warming hack? a politically motivated hack? a hack shortly before an international conference? He doesn't say. He also doesn't say what research he is basing his '80%' on - is it actual statistics or is it just a guess? The figure is a very round number for actual research, and actual research would have defined what 'type' of incident this is too. The whole quote gives us nothing except a source for his opinion, and his opinion doesn't even seem to be based on anything much. It certainly has nothing to do with this case. For this case, as ChrisO said above, there are three parties with an informed opinion, the university, the police and the perpetrator. We've quoted two of them, and will add the third when it's established. The rest is tendentious argument. --Nigelj (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He is simply quoting statistics, in 80% of all cases of information theft, the theft is committed by an insider (nothing really controversial about that). The trouble is when you take a specific incident without knowing the background, and stating that it is most likely an insider... statistically you will be correct in 80% of the cases - but when applied to a specific case it has no information value. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"He knows nothing about this incident". Actually, you might want to read his blog posting where he discusses the hack, including his examination of the computer logs: [30]

There also appears to be a misunderstanding surrounding this whole "hacker vs insider" question. Graham is saying that it was a hacker who had a legitimate account or physical access to a University of East Anglia computer. This entire "hacker vs insider" issue appears to be based on a False dichotomy at least as far as Graham's analysis goes.

BTW, I found a couple more reliable sources which also published this article: Reuters[31] and PC World[32]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Do you know what background for analysing hacks/data thefts is? Or what logs are? Do you know why he is using the sentence "most proxies also forward the original IP address as a separate field in the web request", did you know that it is possible to "chain" proxies? All he has examined is where a posting to a blog came from. He has no knowledge of the security system at CRU, the firewall software, the intrusion detection software (if any), or insight into any of the logs for the systems, all of which are essential to determining where the hacker/whatever came from and whether it was an outside or inside job.

Summary: Graham has absolutely no knowledge about what happened at CRU, and only guesses about postings on a blog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That blog post of his proves several things: (a) he has no concrete or inside information about this attack, as we said (b) he does now say, in direct contradiction of that quote you wanted to put in, that it was an outside hack (c) he is not involved in the case and so is still guessing (d) he still can't help using his blog to put forward fringe, nonsensical and libellous views on climate change in general and these scientific workers in particular (under 'Context' at the end). Therefore, this whole discussion about quoting his original unfounded guesses was a waste of everybody's time here. I hope you're not now expecting us to discuss his attempt for another '15 minutes of fame' with this new unfounded guesswork? --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second there, I haven't proposed adding any quote to the article. I was originally only making a minor point about reliability and it morphed into this huge discussion which I did not anticipate. The reason for that is every time I'm been told something, I looked it up for myself and it turned out to be wrong. "We don't have any sources for possibility of it being an insider." Wrong. We have at least one. "Graham's not notable." Wrong. He's widely cited by numerous reliable sources. "Graham's not an expert." Wrong. He is an expert and security is his area of expertise. "It can't be an insider, it must be a hacker." Wrong, hacker and insider are not mutually exclusive. But both you and Kim have made excellent points that Graham doesn't have inside access to their system.

Where this all leads us, I don't know. As I already mentioned a few times now, I see the lack of corroborating sources as problematic. But this whole discussion, I think, has been very productive because it has revealed that the the ongoing "hacker vs. insider" debate has been framed incorrectly. You can be both a hacker and insider at the same time. For example, I work in IT and while I do have access to my company's source code, I don't have access to my company's e-mail server. If wanted to get my company's e-mails, I'd probably have to hack into it. Obviously, I have no intention of doing that, but hypothetically speaking, if I were, I would be both a hacker and an insider. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is correct that a hacker can come from the inside as well. Graham does make another serious mistake, where he assumes without knowledge, and that is in the timeline, where he places the Oct 12 as the beginning of the hack. He is running with rumours here (which have later been debunked by Hudson), that the BBC had access to "hacked versions" of the emails. They didn't. Hudson was part of an email-conversation (he was CC'd or Bcc'd), and thus could match his genuine mails with the hacked ones... that was misinterpreted by some blogs as if Hudson had gotten "early advances" of the hacked emails. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Possible sources - Climategate and Wikipedia

• Solomon, Lawrence (December 19, 2009). "Wikipedia's climate doctor: How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles". National Post. The National Post Company. Retrieved 2009-12-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Ball, Tim (December 7, 2009). "Climategate; The Supporting Cast - Thought Police Anyone?". Canada Free Press. canadafreepress.com. Retrieved 2009-12-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cirt (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lawrence Solomon piece is part of a long series of opinion columns in the National Post. The Canada Free Press piece is so full of distortions and rank falsehoods that even linking to it from Wikipedia would raise serious concerns related to our biographies of living persons policy. --TS 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay okay okay, just suggestions. No worries, Cirt (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's article is hilarious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Solomon and Ball reports are consistent with what I've learned while trying to discuss and edit Wikipedia articles related to climate. One need only read the discussion above to see the extreme double standards when applying the rules on reliable sources, depending on whether they tend to confirm or refute the dominant editors' beliefs, which are now way out of the mainstream. BTW, TS, what specific errors did you find in either of the reports? I didn't find any. Flegelpuss (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The ridiculous accusations of deliberate deception are the most obvious falsehoods. There are other lies which involve detailed claims, but those big lies are the ones that stand out. The article is apparently written by a retired geography lecturer who has occasionally been misrepresented by third parties as a climatologist. I notice that a note appended to this piece by him again repeated the false description of him as a "former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg." --TS 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that there is a serious conflict of interest here after reading all the article editing. This is definitely a controversial issue that needs both views clearly mentioned without a clear settlement. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention using this talk page to promote his personal blog. Bill, if the content of your blog is helpful in improving the article, just copy and paste your blog post here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"The other view" on this matter, as expressed by bloggers and opinion pieces in the right-wing media, is that these scientists are liars, frauds and conspirators to destroy the civilised world. All of these opinions fail our WP:BLP policy as none of them have been proved in a court of law or by an officially sanctioned investigation. These will come out if there is any case to answer, and then we'll report all the sordid details that are exposed. Until then, there is no COI and there has been no biassed editing here - just reflections of the facts as reported by reliable sources, as it will continue to be. --Nigelj (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel: AFAIK, as long as we're citing third-party reliable sources, we should be fine in most all situations. Exceptions include religious beliefs, sexual orientation, people who are relatively unknown, dates of birth, names of family members, etc., none of which currently applies to this topic.

Crazy: I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BLP so you know what's allowed and what's not. It's extremely important that you cite third-party, reliable sources. You can't use op-eds or blogs for controversial material about someone else. Which reminds me. I hope we're not using RealClimate or ClimateAudit as sources for controversial material about each other or for anyone else. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead getting cluttered again

In earlier discussions I remarked that the lead had become very congested with multiple source references. As the lead is only supposed to be a summary, the use of multiple references at that point is not necessary. As I had done before, since the lead had again become congested, I have removed secondary, tertiary, and other references. One is enough. --TS 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is cluttered because profoundly biased editors have insisted on packing every possible negative and speculative word -- "illegal", "stolen", "hacked", etc. into the lead and repeating these flames as many times as possible. We even have a specific quote about the alleged hack in the lead -- quotes obviously don't belong in a lead, for crying out loud. And as another editor commented above, the first sentence in this lead is out-and-out false. "Climategate" as used by well over 90% of the people using that word refers to the content of the documents and the extremely controversial behavior described or embodied in them, and to the resulting investigations and reviews of the documents and of the work of Jones, Mann, etc., not to the alleged hack. CRU is an open scientific research institute holding public scientific data, not a secret weapons research facility or repository of credit card numbers or anything else sensitive, so a breach by itself is not notable. It has only been made notable by what was revealed in the documents and the resulting political storm and investigations. Flegelpuss (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You say "quotes obviously don't belong in a lead", but out lead section guideline seems to contradict your claim in at least two places:

• Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations.
• The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited.

There are at present two brief quotations in the lead, both from the University's confirmation announcement stating that "data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites." and "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised." I don't see anything wrong with those--they seem uncontroversial and confirm that the university is taking this theft seriously. --TS 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the server hacked?

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

---

Duplicate discussion (#Consensus on question 5 of FAQ)

---

Is there evidence that the CRU was hacked? What about Real Climate?

It has been suggested on numerous skeptical web sites that:

1. A whistleblower inside of CRU uploaded the emails to a server and 2. Used passwords already present in some of the emails to access the Real Climate servers.

If so this hardly fits the existing Wikipedia definition of Hack_(technology).

The assertion from CRU that the emails were removed via a hack is obviously self serving but, as nearly as I can tell the only evidence that has been offered.

I would like to see one of the following:

1. If there are details about the hack (specifically evidence that somebody "re-configur[ed] or re-programm[ed] [the] system to function in ways not facilitated by" CRU or UEA as defined by the existing wikipedia article), then I would like the article to include them. Even if we don't know how the emails got out, if it is known that this was not an instance of whistleblowing, I would like to see the article provide that information.

2. Alternatively, if the only evidence of hacking is a self-interested statement by a university spokesman, the word "hack" should probably not be used without qualifiers (like alleged) until additional information becomes available. Otherwise, it serves to bias the article. 71.243.119.32 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See question 5 of the FAQ and the discussion above here about the consensus of question 5, which is about exactly this thing. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Was the server hacked? Pt 2

Yes, the server was hacked. Whether the hacker was an insider or an outsider is unknown. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Was it hacked? They state that they had (the compilation of documents), the "file" sitting on the server. If this were the case, then an insider would only need to copy the file using their credentials...this would not be a case in which the server was reconfigured or reprogrammed. If the person who obtained the emails did not use authentic credentials to obtain the information, then one could say the server was hacked. There are notable people who believe that the data may have been leaked rather than hacked.Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Monckton would not be a reliable source for the colour of the sky, let alone an issue such as this on which he has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. We're not going to add speculation, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic behind such a statement is ad hominem abusive and therefore irrelevant. Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

All the reliable sources say it was hacked. That's what we go with. --TS 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a sensible response. I do agree that for now it seems that the mainstream media is stating that the emails were hacked, but there are other sources still saying they may have been either hacked or leaked. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37].Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "the mainstream media". I said "all the reliable sources." I am not referring to any speculation or opinions by any journalists, pundits or commentators. I am referring to statements of fact by reliable sources. --TS 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review: CRU emails

One the more controversial topics in the CRU emails surrounds the peer review process.

Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones 11 March 2003 RE: Prof. Mann's expresses his concerns and strategy at preventing opposing papers from being able to claim they have been peer reviewed after a skeptical paper is published by "Climate Research". The following is a summary of the key points of the email.

Prof. Mann comments that Soon & Baliunas could not have cleared a "legitmate" peer review process. Prof. Mann concludes that "Climate Research" has been hijacked by skeptics. Prof. Mann list De Frietas, someone in his department as hijackers. Prof. Mann also speculates on the positions of the editors on the editorial board. Prof. Mann believes the only choice was to ignore the journal and stop submitting papers to, and citing papers in it.

Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann and others on the cc list Prof. Jones states he is going to tell "Climate Research" that he will have nothing more to do with them until they get rid of the troublesome editor. Prof. Jones notes that a CRU person is on the editorial board but not the person dealing with the papers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the peer review discussions are covered in the article already, from reliable sources. --TS 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)