Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Ongoing discussions on article naming

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

A new move proposal has been proposed at #Requested_move and posted to the requested moves page. Please join the discussion.

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)

Agreed. This could have been a leak, no one knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.63.106 (talk) 21:49, 23 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)

Now there's typical AGW alarmist Watermelon argumentum ad hominem content-vacant suppressive authoritarian WikiNazi rottenness if ever it got posted online. Don't address Monckton's (or Nsaa's) position, but strive to fault the source as such. "Objectivity" and "consensus" and "impartiality" indeed. Just good old "Wiki-bloody-pedia" (to use Mr. Monckton's ever-so-apt characterization) as usual. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 15:14, 22 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)

Hacking has not been proven and should not been used because it is being used by political opponents of skeptics. Many the of the "reliable sources" have expressed support for AGW and are conflicted. A neutral word should be used until there is evidence to support hacking. And indeed we see many reliable sources now backing away from the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that hacking shouldn't be used, most security experts have said already that it was probably someone from inside. My opinion is that the article should be called "Climategate Scandal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "hacking" is inappropriate, but not for the reason you give. The "most security experts" claim is nonsense, quite frankly. There is no chance whatsoever of the article having either "Climategate" or "scandal" in the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is how it is know everywhere. The same thing is valid for the global warming page. Global warming per se doesn't relate to human causes. Even so it is called that as that is the most common use of the world.Echofloripa (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the discussion of the title is worth the amount of time has gone into it. The currently title isn't terrible. But my preference would be something like "CRU document release". "e-mail" leads to a misimpression about the contents of the release. Hacking implied that the focus is on hacking, whereas most of the focus is on the release of documents (or the documents released). I agree that it is most likely that it was a hack. However in most cases when someone says a server has been hacked there's some evidence of hacking on the server. The statements I've read (and I admit I may have missed something) say things like '"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.' This isn't a specific statement that they saw evidence of hacking on the server. I oppose "climategate," although it should be mentioned in the article. The press seems to like to call everything they can xxxgate. That is just silly. I'd prefer Wikipedia not let itself get caught up in that, but use a more professional-sounding title. Hedrick (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CLIMATEGATE How about calling this page by the name that the public know best because that is the name that will draw the most people in to read this steaming pile of propaganda that has been edited by at least one individual (William Connolley) who was actually in the leaked emails and was a colleague of Mann and Jones. There's a conflict of interest to begin with. I say call this webpage Climategate and make the subject area the content of the emails or abandon this page to the cover-up mob and start a new page called climategate. The emails aren't copyrighted by the way and no one will take any legal action against wikipedia for linking to them so there is no reason why they shouldn't be linked to other than the people who represent realclimate and the CRU here wouldn't want anyone to read them. realclimate is even cited in the article. Thats not biased is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk) 23:42, 27 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)

If you don't think that the police POV push in a fashion unacceptable to Wikipedia, you are naive beyond words. I suggest a strong dose of Radley Balko crime reporting.TMLutas (talk) 04:10, 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)

Searching Google for "Climategate" yields 9,150,000 hits. Searching for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" yields only 30,900. In order to limit the search to reliable sources, I decided to try Goggle News instead. Checking news for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" yields 7 hits (that is seven). climategate yields 6,669. (Of the seven, 2 are by WMC, 1 is on the IPCC site, and 4 use the name "climategate" at some point in the article.) As stated by Mariordo (below), Wiki policy states that the most common name must be used for naming an article. As the searches show, the only sources using the current title are wikipedia and those references that specifically reference wikipedia. The rest of the reliable sources use climategate. Per our own style guide, there is only one possible choice. To ignore overwhelming common usage is to create the story, not report it. In fact, the current name supports Solomon's claim that a few people have made wikipedia their own private propaganda machine. Q Science (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this article still not referred to as Climategate? That is clearly the predominant moniker used in the press to refer to this incident. This should be changed forthwith. --GoRight (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. See Q1 of the FAQ in the header. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I put the consensus from the above discussion at 8 in favor of changing the title to Climategate to 2 opposed. That seems a pretty clear consensus to me. Did I count incorrectly? --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Please list the names in favor of such a change below. You are ignoring all of the archived discussions on this topic and I find that highly disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I commented somewhere in the archives, searching Google News for "Climatic Research Unit" with or without "climategate" shows about 60% of the stories about CRU currently use the term. 60% is a quite large fraction and supports the use of that name, but at the same time it is also misleading to suggest that the term is being universally used. Dragons flight (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you support the change, or not, as an editor? --GoRight (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a change, and related moves (such as those found in this discussion) have not found consensus at this time. I would like to refer you to Q1 of the FAQ for this article, GoRight, as well as this NPOV noticeboard discussion As Time magazine made clear, ""Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up."[14] That should tell you all you need to know about the problems with such an article name. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In this conversation there is. Might I remind you, consensus can change. You don't get to try and lock in an old view by putting up a FAQ, especially on an issue as volatile as this one. When the mainstream media continue to use climategate to refer to this incident over time it is only a matter of time before this article will have to follow suit. So, we need to keep testing the current state of consensus (as we are here) to determine when that time has come. --GoRight (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles that mention "climategate", do so by saying something along the lines of: or, as some have put it, “Climategate.” They usually put the word in scare quotes, do you suggest we include the scare quotes in the name as well? It's not like we don't acknowledge that some call it climategate, it's just we shouldn't make it the name of the article, but rather choose a neutral name.
—Apis (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC reports they had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked. Either the hacking report is false or the reported date of the hacking is false or the BBC report is false. This article is in error on that point.

Climategate is the name that will be recorded in history. Whether wiki chooses to make itself irrelevant through misplace application of rules about creating words through the use of "gate" is a choice for wiki. Already wiki has become part of the story on Climategate and this article is part of the cited evidence being reported. What has changed is that now the whole world is watching, and wiki needs to wake up to this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC story which is repeatedly trotted out by the less-informed blogs has long ago been debunked--the latest instance was on this very page yesterday. Perhaps we would be able to proceed with editing more quickly if people wouldn't repeatedly come here with ignorant nonsense they picked up from silly blog. --TS 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I added this point as question 9 on the FAQ. We probably need to put a lot more debunking of nonsense on the FAQ. --TS 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Who sent Paul Hudson the emails he reported received on Oct 12, 2009? Who uploaded the UEA emails along with other documents reported place on realclimate.org Nov 17, 2009? Unless the identities of these person(s) are known, it remains unproven whether the two events are connected or not. Neither Paul Hudson or the BBC can know if the events are connected unless they know who posted the UEA documents to realclimate.org, which they apparently do not.

Why were personal emails and administrative emails removed prior to placing the emails on realclimate.org? What reason would a hacker have to do this? Hacking is an offence in itself, regardless of the content. A whistle-blower on the other hand would have motive to remove these documents. Internal release of FOI requested documents would not be illegal, while release of personal information could be actionable. The title of the released file suggests the file was released for FOIA reasons.

Also, the time required to sift through emails and remove personal and administrative emails would expose a hacker to risk of discovery and thereby prosecution. Why would they want to do this? A hacker will more likely wish to access and transfer the files with as minimal contact as possible to limit the risk that they can later be connected to the information.24.87.71.192 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of conspiracy theory, collapsed per WP:SOAP. See FAQ Q9.

A BBC weatherman has said he was sent select emails 5 weeks ahead of the UEA report. The source of these emails has not been revealed. As such, it is unproven if the BBC's source differs from the source of the UEA documents. Given the timing, co-incidence argues for them being from the same source.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC) See FAQ Q9. It's a myth. --TS 00:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Paul Hudson says "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October". Nothing in his blog establishes that his source differs from the UEA documents. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Yup, and nothing in the history of Wikipedia establishes that you are not the King of Spain. Go figger. He actually states that those emails he received were complaints about an article he had written on his blog. If anything underlines the stupidity of the blogosphere's response to the incident, it is this kind of blatantly inadequat reasoning. --TS 00:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC) So, you are assuming that since Paul says it was a complaint the emails could not have come from the same source? And then resorting to name calling to try and solidfy your position? However, we have now established that you accept that the emails are the same, the only thing left to establish is the source the same.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Let us now determine the source of PH's emails. There are 3 possible: the authors, the recipients, the UEA documents. If the source was the UEA documents, then the "hacking" report from UEA is false, the documents would have had to have been in circulation as early as Oct 12, 2009. Neither the BBC nor PH have identified the source. If we examine the emails in question, as per PH's blog, they do not support the claim that the science is settled on the questions of AGW. Indeed, the email from KT to TW are frequently quoted as evidence that the science is not settled. As such, it seems unlikely that the source of the emails either the authors or the receipients, unless one of them is also the source of the UEA documents. If that is the case, then the source is a whistleblower, not a hacker, which would make the release legal under British law.24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Read FAQ Q9. This nonsense is the result of conspiracy-minded thinking. --TS 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The emails in question show a pattern of co-ordinated activity involving individuals from different organizations at the head of climate science acting to suppress competing points of view in favor of their own, contrary to the scientific method. Dictionary.com defines conspiracy as 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.192 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for calling the article Climategate, as that is the most commonly used term, just as the article about Panthera leo is called Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Q Science said, "By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email." I think that statistic should be added to the section of the article called "Content of the documents." It also seems odd that the only subsection in that section is the one about the emails. Perhaps the info about the rest of the documents doesn't have any reliable sources - yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, what happened to: "He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article..?" -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you didn't post a link to support your claim. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I did. I posted it at WP:ANI, because this is not the place to get into lengthy meta discussion about your agenda-driven editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote which you attribute to me is not what I said. I posted the accurate quote at that section. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, Grundle. You promised not to edit anything related to climate change, yet here you are. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus to rename this article Climategate, as it is almost always called and as some above have established. Mamalujo (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. And even if there were a thousand editors all insisting we called it "Climategate", that would still not happen because it would be against policy. Even Watergate is not called "Watergate" on Wikipedia (it's called Watergate scandal, and only because it is the name of the hotel), and that's the source of all the "-gate" bullshit. Most reliable sources that use the term have it in scare quotes for a reason - because it is a term cooked-up by the skeptics to make more out of the incident than it really is. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus to call it "Climactic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"? That's a lot more loaded than referring to it by the common name. In any event, if we have consensus we have consensus. Policy does not trump consensus, it is a creature of consensus. If people reach a consensus that a content position satisfies Wikipedia policies, nobody gets to say "you're wrong, and because I know policy better than you do I get to interpret it." You should know that from quite a few battles where people in the minority were claiming that they are right no matter what anyone thinks. This isn't a BLP or copyright type of thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon, and it's time to call the question. This is getting ridiculous. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous indeed. If anything, there is consensus not to use the -gate term, continuing to pester everyone about it won't change that.
—Apis (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be called by the most common name, which is "climategate". Or even better "climategate scandal". Scjessey: It won't stop being a scandal just because you say so.Echofloripa (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What scandal? And why should this article be named "Climategate"? We already have a redirect. Wikipedia isn't a sensationalistic media outlet that relies on skewing headlines and pushing a POV. Time magazine made it very clear that this term was chosen by anti-climate change skeptics. Why should we use their term over a more neutral name that doesn't take sides? Please answer this question directly. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• To the anti-Climategaters: can you folks count? I don't know how to make a formal motion to change the name, but reality (and consensus) trumps preference. The article itself is bad enough -- must the name be a laughing-stock, too? Sheez. And Merry Christmas! Pete Tillman (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is rather funny. Climategate is the obvious name, not some mealy-mouthed agenda-laden alternative. Crap article by the way, but that is another issue. Fails most of the intent of the pillars, while, of course, obeying the letter exactly. Encyclopedic my arse. Greglocock (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is self-evident that the name Climategate has reached critical-mass and has nullified any claim that Time Magazine has made in the past. Consensus has been reached and the title must be changed! So whose dragging their feet? -MrGuy

Change the name back to Climategate and link to the emails. If this article isn't called Climategate and isn't about the content of the emails then I would suggest that a new article is started entitled 'Climategate' to cover the relevant facts. There are two sides here. One side wants to cover climategate and one side wants to cover it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk) 23:54, 27 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)

Note: There is circumstantial evidence showing that 98.232.27.135 (talk · contribs) and 71.125.130.14 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 22 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)

The reputation of the various journals that have been exposed as caving to pressure from outsiders has been damaged. Is that scientific enough? There has been a diversion of budget to review 160 years of UK data as a result of this loss of confidence. Is that not a scientific impact? There's a world-wide scramble to see if all the climate data's real with reports coming out of Australia (the Darwin zero controversy alleging GHCN hanky panky to get a 6C/century global warming rise) and Russia (the IEA report alleging cherry picking warm stations) at least hinting at scientific misconduct. No doubt a lot of those attempts at verification are going to be coming out in the months and years ahead. You really think there's no scientific impact? Really? TMLutas (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-blog citations for all of those claims, please. There has been a lot of hyperventilating by anti-science activists but I've certainly not seen any data being retracted. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, it just slipped my mind. The 160 year review. The Darwin zero bit is indeed confined to the blogs for now but that doesn't mean there's no scientific impact, merely no Wikipedia impact. The IEA report isn't peer reviewed, but lack of peer review does not mean no scientific impact. TMLutas (talk) 19:17, 27 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'm sure you'd be happy to remove Climategate from Google altogether. - MrGuy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.157.119 (talk) 09:54, 28 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)

Ignoring the fact that the term Climategate is now used by neutral mainstream media (and RS too -The Economist, NYT, etc) it blatant WP:OR, no matter how we try to find support in other WP policies. Some of the arguments that were valid a month ago are not necessarily valid now.-Mariordo (talk)

Wikipedia has a different set of policies and guidelines than the media. We don't justify the use of article titles based on what the media decides; "If it bleeds, it leads" is not an encyclopedic approach. And since there are BLP's involved, a slanted article title is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The arguments that have been made consistently are based on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a non-negotiable core policy of Wikipedia. Specifically WP:NPOV#Article naming: "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." Names incorporating -gate are deprecated in another key policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Descriptive names, which specifically mentions the example of "Attorneygate" (which we refer to as Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy). We do not use -gate in article titles because that breaches the fundamental principle of neutrality, and no amount of campaigning by partisans is going to override that principle. The principle of NPOV cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Bottom line - this article will never be called "Climategate". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'm warming to Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy, suggested by ScJessey above. This would remove the potentially ambiguous term "hacking" and go with the unequivocal "theft", which is at least as well supported by reliable sources. As a freebie we get "data" which is more accurate than "e-mail". --TS 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This makes me happy. It appears that reasonable editors from both "sides" of the debate are beginning to coalesce on a possible title. Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy has the advantage of being descriptive, accurate and neutral. All reliable sources have said that the CRU servers were accessed illegally, so "data theft" accurately describes that without using the controversial "hacking", while still leaving open the possibility of a "leak" (which would still be the illegal theft of data, just not "hacked"). Climatic Research Unit documents controversy also has support. To my mind, it widens the scope of the article and slightly shifts the focus away from the most significant detail (the data theft). I concur with comments above that basically say this article "will never be called 'Climategate'" - it does not really matter how many !votes or cries for "Climategate" there are, because it will always violate Wikipedia policy. People arguing for this non-neutral, comic-book term would have to get the Wikipedia policy on this matter changed in order for them to have a shot at getting their way here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first I don't think there are two 'sides' here with regard to the name of this article and I'm not sure if characterising even the name as a two-sided confrontation when we're all trying to help is really helpful. Back to reality, and I have been worried by references to 'data' and 'data theft' in the title here before because the whole purpose of the CRU revolves around climate data, and many of the emails that are discussed refer to the data and the other documents include a lot of source code that processes climate data. So 'data' in this case is a specific term, already in heavy use; and what was stolen was not that data, at all. It makes me think of someone on one of these talk pages recently who wanted to educate us that what Watergate was about was someone stealing some tapes to prove that Nixon wasn't a nice guy. I think it's easy to set up the basis for confusion in these cases. I'm happier risking confusing someone as to the fact that many of the documents stolen were not actually emails, than having them tell me in 20 years time that someone stole/liberated all the climate data from CRU in 2009. --Nigelj (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Perhaps "[CRU] e-mail theft controversy" is as close as we can get without setting up potential confusion over whether or not raw data was stolen. --TS 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said "sides", I was referring to those preferring "hacking" or similar terminology and those preferring "Climategate" or a more ambiguous version of what we have. Perhaps "positions" would have been more accurate. That aside, I see the point concerning the possible confusion over the use of "data" in the title; however, "data" is still the correct word when attempting to describe "computer files" of varying types. I would rather not have an overlong title ("Climatic Research Unit computer files theft controversy"). Bear in mind that it is normal for the very first sentence of the lede to explain the meaning of any title that needs any sort of disambiguation, so a title change would usually mean also changing the first sentence. You'd end up with something like this:

"The Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy refers to an incident in which data of varying types from a UK-based climate research institution were illegally copied and disseminated. Referred to by some sources as "Climategate", the controversy 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. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years." blah blah blah.

I think that would remove any concerns over the use of "data" in the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, "data" makes you think of "scientific" climate data, and that's not part of the documents, thus "data" is misleading. Almost all news rapports have discussed only a few of the e-mails and not really any of the other files. Regarding hack/theft I think it might be wise to wait for the police investigation to complete, then we will know more about the illegal act and we can hopefully make a more informed decision.
—Apis (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't going to be misleading if it is explained in the first sentence of the article. Besides, "data theft" is accurate legal terminology in the UK, as I recall. "Hacking" should be removed from the title at the earliest possible convenience, because it is a loaded term almost as inappropriate as "Climategate". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the world calls it "Climategate". How long are we going to hold out on this? It's a broad term that refers to the whole incident. It's not particularly negative either, the term is used in a silly postmodernist way. If we want to have different articles about different aspects of it - the hacking, the scandal, the underlying science, the internal debate among scientists, the aftermath, we can come up with different article titles. But whatever it means there is clearly something notable out there called Climategate, and I think that is the focus of this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true. "Climategate" is a non-neutral term cooked-up by skeptics to feed controversy. Most reliable sources only use the term in scare quotes, and those that don't are simply too lazy to be nuanced. The word is already described in the article, but we certainly shouldn't break Wikipedia's policy and lower the encyclopedia's standards just because a herd of skeptics stomp their feet in unison. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The name is the name. There is no widely used alternative, and it's not for us to coin our own lingo simply because we don't like the terms other people use for things. "America", and the resident "Indians", are also non-neutral terms, in that case cooked up by the geographically and culturally challenged. Desolation Canyon is an awfully judgmental term for a piece of geography, blind man's bluff is a slight on the sight impaired even if it's the most PC term for the game, and Donner Pass is named for folks who ate each other. Whatever a word's origins, once it becomes accepted as the name for something we've got to respect the sources and not invent our own. If you look at the definition of scare quotes, that's not what is happening. Scare quotes are used to signal that the term is referenced to someone else, so as not to create the impression that the writer endorses the literal meaning of the term. Here there is no literal meaning: we do not mean to dissuade the reader from thinking we claim the existence of an operable perforated physical barrier to a point of entry to a bounded-off area, with climate on one side and no climate on the other. The quotes are used to signal that we are referencing a newly coined term. The rules of when to use single versus double quotes are complex and varied, but it seems that the sources that use double quotes ("climategate") are attributing it to someone named or unnamed, those that use single quotes ('climategate') are referencing it as a defined term, and those that use it without quotes are either being informal as you say, or they simply acknowledge that it is in common use. In any event it gets 7.5 million google hits and 6,000 current google news hits on my browser, which is an astonishing number, half as many as Brittany Murphy. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked and perplexed by the reluctance of apparently intelligent people to accept that the obvious title should be Climategate. "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is a good title for a single event such as Sarah Palin's e-mail hacking incident since the hacking itself was a bigger story than the information it revealed (despite the efforts of Leftists to sell the opposite) Besides the indisputable factual errors in the title, that the majority of the released information were emails (most were other form of documents) and that the information was acquired through hacking (it could have been a whistle blower), do we not all agree that the majority of mainstream sources refer to this incident as Climategate? Its a rehtorical question of course since its a fact that most mainstream sources refer to this incident as Climategate somewhere in the title and according to Wikipedia's own rules that should be enough. But the problem is that Wikipedia's rules are taken at face value when its convenient to Leftists and meta-analyzed out of existence when not. So since mainstream media refers to this incident as Climategate you are now splitting hair as to what exactly is mainstream media and when it is relevant ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") If thats the way its going to be why have rules at all? The people in power should just do whatever they want and spare us the pretense. The reason liberal news and radio is failing so miserably is because liberal ideologues such as you make everything so predictably dull. Wikipedia has been in a decline for years, do you ever ask yourselves why?Professorteeth (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally

Exactly what difference does it make what the article title is? "Climategate" redirects here. This article is the #1 google result (in my browser at the moment) for the word "Climategate", which appears as an alternate name in the first sentence. The reader gets the exact same content, whatever we call it. Is there any hurry to sort this out? I would propose that a few months from now we'll know whether the term "climategate" stuck, or whether there's a different term for the broad incident. In the meanwhile, I am sympathetic to the claim that "hacking incident" != "x-gate" controversy. The purloining or leak of the emails is just a small part of the picture.
The current name is quite ungainly and fails to encompass the broad scope of the article, which is about more than just the fact that some computer files were compromised. If we want a literal, descriptive title, I would take a cue from the Financial crisis of 2007–2009 article, and call it something like "2009 climate change email incident" or something like that. That's still not quite it. Exactly what is this incident? It's a scandal whipped up by climate change deniers / skeptics / whatever upon the revelation that some climate change scientists were rude, ornery, and spin-conscious about the message they were putting out and the public perception of their work, and engaged in private conversations and planning that were unseemly to some. Condense that to 4-6 words and you'll have a good title. But if we can't agree on it and brevity escapes us, I wouldn't lament. Titles aren't the most important thing in the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that its an attempt to rewrite history. Wikipedia is suppose to report the story and not attempt to influence it. As currently written, anyone not familiar with this incident who glances at the title will walk away thinking that this is all about hacking when in reality its all about climate science fraud. Does anyone here really believes that this story made the news because society is so shocked by the act of "hacking"? No, its news because scientists who are paid through our tax dollars have manipulated data for decades and that faulty data is being used right now to justify one of the biggest power grab in the history of man kind. Professorteeth (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While the current title is inappropriate (attempts are being made to craft one that is more accurate), "Climategate" is simply not appropriate. If "Watergate" isn't appropriate, then "Climategate" certainly isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever of "climate science fraud", and this article should not be giving any credence to lies of that astonishing magnitude. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Who said "Watergate" is not appropriate? That article is misnamed as well, and probably leaves a lot of readers scratching their heads. But we're here and that article is somewhere else. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Watergate Scandal is a fine title. Everyone refers to it as Watergate and it was a scandal. How about changing the title for this article to Climategate Scandal? The issues of hacking vs leak and whether or not there was climate science fraud can be covered in the body. Professorteeth (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with this approach. Firstly, "Climategate" violates WP:NPOV. Secondly, "scandal" violates WP:NPOV and is totally inaccurate. Recommend lifting the stylus from your vinyl, since you keep playing the same screeching noise over and over again. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Because "Climategate" is a ridiculously POV term used either by those with an axe to grind, or to mock those wielding said axes. Not that I'm much of a fan of google-as-proof, but news search shows a far bit of in-quotes usage, which signifies derision. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, I recommend you take your head from out of your ass. Any objective person can see the blatant one-sided bias of this article. James Delingpole said it best:

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists [15]

Professorteeth (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

'Best' is not quite the adjective I would choose. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climategate" in common usage has wider meaning than the purported hacking of UEA (it has not been establised as fact). Climategate has grown to refer to the politicization and suppression of climate related information, including competing points of view in science as to the causes of climate change. The UEA emails are put forward as one example of this. WP has also become part of the story, with suggestions that some contributors have exibited non-NPV.24.87.71.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC).

Much of the above discussion in this section id entirely off topic. The original point is correct. Climategate is not about the theft/leak/release of the CRU documents. It is about the behaviour exposed by the docs. Compare with Watergate, which is not about the breaking onto a hotel room. It is about the behaviour of Nixon and his administration exposed as a consequence. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is the ensuing scandal, not about the theft/leak/release of the docs. No one here says different, as far as I can tell, but there is considerable distraction above. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit documents controversy — as a more accurate description of the subject matter. —TS 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion: #Ongoing discussions on article naming and Move proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"

Is there any support for "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" for the article title?

Support

• Support as proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified support - I have more support for this than the existing title, but less than the version using "data theft". Frankly, I would rather see a speedy move to this "middle ground" option and continue to discussion on other options than leave the inaccurate and POV "e-mail hacking incident" wrongness in place. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - While I reserve the right to revisit my proposal above at a later time, this seems a bit of a step toward a more neutral title so I will support it. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support-This is a step in the right direction, but still a poor title in that the term "documents" does not cover source code. I would favor something along the lines of Revealed/Exposed Climate Research Unit information/data incident/controversy. I still think that this endless naming discussion is due to the lack of a straightfoward naming policy/convention on Wikipedia. The current name is truly quite bad, and we should move to something more accurate while the discussion drags on. I experienced an endless debacle in trying to get Bing (search engine) changed to Bing. Nonetheless, as long as we can put up redirects, it doesn't seem to be something worth wasting much time on.Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This shouldn't be called climategate for reasons mentioned time and again, and is nice and general. Ignignot (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, for the reasons given in the preamble.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, it has been decided (many times I believe) that the title should not to restrict article content from discussing the fall out. As such, a more appropriate title would do a great deal to clear up these common confusions about "what the article is about." jheiv (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This title isn't ideal but it's better than the current one. The problem with the current title is that it is about the hacking itself, when the majority of the content of this article is about the controversy that resulted from the content of the documents. Oren0 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. What Oren0 said. That East Anglia was hacked is a supposition without evidence. It is just as likely to have been done by an insider.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified Support The current article name is both in error and POV, and thus it should be renamed, but the new suggestion up for vote is just confusing. It should be a general name for the actual information release incident as well as ensuing fallout, or there should be two different articles. I've posted a link to a Nobel Lauerate panel at this talk page supporting the view that these are two separate issues. (EDIT: Moved from Opposed to Support after having re-read previous move discussions, sorry for the multiple edits) Troed (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The proposed title is not ideal, but it would seem to be a good deal more accurate than what we currently have. The big argument here seems to be that the allegations surrounding the content of the emails cannot be discussed in the article because the article is about the leak/hack of the emails. But in the same vein, it is impermissible to create a separate article about this notable controversy. To some, it would seem the goal is that this controversy not be discussed at all. The situation is unacceptable, and a middle ground must be found. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

• Oppose: -- it's a step in the right direction, but we will continue to look silly to call it something other than Climategate, as the rest of the world does. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to follow a neutral policy. While the rest of the world calls it climategate, certain wikipedians believe that such a name has a negative connotation with scandalous implications.Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete, would you be opposed to using this title with the understanding that the renaming debate would continue? I ask because I have deep concerns about the existing title, and I think that almost anything else would be better, even it is only temporary. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the present title is just awful -- it's making Wikipedia a laughing-stock, in the press & elsewhere. This proposal is at least a little better. OK, put me down as "weak, limited interim support." But, eventually, we need to call it what everyone else (even including UEA faculty) does: Climategate. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with the "Climategate" part of it, I am glad that you agree that the current title is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - while we're at it let's retitle Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Release of dense metallic material over Japan. Call it Climategate. Greglocock (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Coverage in the media has focused overwhelmingly on the emails, the hacking thereof, and their implications. Any title that fuzzes "e-mail" to "documents" would be a step away from what the reliable sources are covering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per the RS I provided before in this page, mainstream and reliable media is now using Climategate, therefore it is no longer a pejorative term used only by GW 'contrarians'. The existing and proposed names are blatant OR as the discussion demonstrates that wiki editors are engaged in trying to make up a name for the title. Regarding the interpretation of other policies to support other names, WP:Avoid opens by saying that "There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article..." Clearly, we have a qualified exception to the use of the term -gate, because it is the popular most common name and after a month used by media considered RS here at Wikipedia, and to avoid the connotations of the term scandal, we could called "Climategate controversy" for the sake of NPOV and to comply with the spirit of WP:Avoid.-Mariordo (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  There is no hope whatsoever of you getting anything that says "Climategate" in the title, because it violates too many policies. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I think "controversy" is an improvement over "incident", but "documents" is just strange. While not completely accurate, "... e-mails controversy" would better reflect the focus of the topic and is closer to what people will search for. Simonmar (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having thought about this at some length, I am pretty much of the same opinion as Simonmar. The fact is that the e-mails are overwhelmingly the main focus of the controversy. The other documents (draft papers and source code) have received very little coverage in reliable sources. Changing the name to imply that they are a major part of the controversy would be misleading and would open the door to demands for coverage of these items by non-reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. CRU certainly has many many more documents than the ones release in this incident. And while one can quibble with possible interpretations, neither emails not source code come to mind when talking about documents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the best suggestion so far perhaps, it excludes the hacking and other events related to the supposed controversy (which is a word to avoid btw). As others have pointed out, the media focus has been on the hack and the contents of e-mails. We should keep the current name until we have more information.
  —Apis (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:AVOID, please see[16]. E-mails, source code and text files are all types of documents. In fact, source code files are text files. I'm a software developer and although I edit my source code files with Visual Studio 2008, I could just as well use Notepad, Microsoft Word and any word processor or text editor I want to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that most reliable sources refer to this as a controversy, even if some do (perhaps even many). The article also cover more than the supposed controversy, for example the "hack" itself and so on. Documents might be technically correct, but emails or source code is not what most think of when they hear "documents" thus it's misleading (just as "data" would be). The central event is the hack of the emails, everything said so far revolves around that: the emails, the "controversy", the police investigations, the FOI investigation, the political reactions and so on.
—Apis (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title perfectly describes the current verifiable truth. The media have solely focussed on the e-mails, which give us a term that is much more identifiable than 'documents'. After statements/enquiries/investigations/arrests/trials in the future, we may get more verifiable information, and then we can rename the article if necessary. There seems to be about one proposal a day to rename this article, and, per Tony Sidaway below, I worry that every single one of them tries to exaggerate, or downplay, some POV aspect or another. --Nigelj (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this article needs some stability - two name change request in less than a month is distracting. Although I accept the name may not be perfect, I think the name debate is serving as an excessive distraction. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning heavily to oppose. I'm concerned that the data theft--which is being investigated by the Norfolk police and the Met., is downplayed by this proposal. --TS 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's part of the documents controversy. Should be just fine.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  That concerns me too, but it is better than the existing title, surely? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, I think it may be a worse title. I'm adding a "further discussion" subsection for extended discussion. --TS 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  After more contemplation, and noting with thanks all the arguments expressed for and against, I've decided to oppose because I agree that this is a distraction. --TS 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not every reader of the emails considers their content to be controversial. In fact almost all informed readers do not. "Controversy" is an interpretation that has been put on them by some people with an agenda to push. To concede that they are controversial would be partisan and make the article POV. Lumos3 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  Use of the term "controversy" does not imply that the emails themselves are controversial, only that they have generated controversy, which is nearly impossible to deny [17]. By your same logic, should we remove/rename the global warming controversy article? Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the term "controversy" implies that the emails themselves are controversial. I would be happier with a word like "dispute". Lumos3 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  Your statement that "almost all informed readers" do not consider the actual content of the emails to be controversial sounds to me like weasel words and POV. If I am wrong about this, I apologize. That the actual content is controversial can be proven by the sheer amount of sources. A discussion about how "informed" such sources are is a discussion that is appropriate for the article.Jarhed (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The focus of the article needs to be on the facts, not on the surrounding controversy. That is, we primarily need sources reporting on the facts, not sources reporting on how other sources are discussing the facts. "Climatic Research unit e-mail incident" might be a better title, as the e-mails themselves, rather than the particular way in which they were obtained, are the main focus of most reports.  Cs32en  14:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• -Kmhkmh (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Because we really need more of it! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this section is so that people will have somewhere other than the for/against straw poll to put their comments.

I've started the process of requesting this move. The discussion should last seven days and then if consensus is achieve the article can be moved. --TS 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Article title

New discussion moved here to avoid redundancy - Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This title: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident :is to POV towards the premise that this was definately a "hacking".

I propose a new title: Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy ith a re-direct sending the old page title to the new page.

Comments? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Q5. On the suggestion of a move, see the discussion at #Requested move which concerns a very similar suggestion. TS 19:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on either front. The FAQs don't have a lot of force and they have been added rather speedily, but moreover, the fact of a police investigation does not establish either that something is true, or that its truth is part of the nomenclature of things to the point where the title is made for an assertion of truth. In fact it is likely that the emails were hacked, but that's just not how the sources choose to summarize and title the event. The public discussion centers more on what the emails say, and the political forces behind that, than the presumably illegal way in which the emails were released. The discussion was rather free-form and posed in a way that made it impossible to reach consensus. One thing it did establish is that editors in general prefer a neutral, descriptive, and broader term like "e-mail controversy" over "hacking incident", although no single proposal found a great number of adherents. I think whatever we decide in the end we should at least improve the title. At present it sticks out to readers as a peculiarity, so I don't think it does them or Wikipedia a great service. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the daily restart of the renaming debate. It is clear from this proposal that what "sticks out" to this reader is that it mentions 'hacking' and doesn't emphasise the ensuing blogosphere 'controversy' enough for their taste. Every suggestion is based on some POV. I maintain that we have sufficient evidence from the statements of the involved parties (including the UAE and the police) that the server was hacked and that this wasn't an intentional publication. The hackers' intention to create a blogosphere hoo-hah that exactly coincided with the Copenhagen conference has been surmised by several commentators close to the facts (including the British Prime Minister). Therefore I regard the present title as much more balanced than this proposal as it takes no POV at all, other than not to pander to the hackers by recognising their (now past) partial success of creating a minor controversy among climate denier blogs during COP15. There is no scientific controversy, and the results of the enquiries are not yet in as to whether there will be a staffing controversy within UEA. --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, how can you say the word "hacking" is not POV? It's only been alleged there was a "hack". There's no proof, no culprits, no charges, no arrests, no prosecution. Personally, I feel my efforts to get the phrase "reported hacking" to replace plain "hacking" is more accurate and honest - based on what's actually been in the news so far. The media has done a great job of characterizing the source of the initial release as a "hack/hacking" but beyond the intial assertions by the center, no information, data or proof has come out which supports this. Where are the findings? No audit trail from the servers yet? Where is the proof that a forensic examination - routine in such a serious breach - has occured? Don't you see how simply parroting the the term "hacking" with no qualifier such as "alleged" or "reported" is sheer and obvious bias? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The main body of the controversy, judging by the sources and extent of coverage, is not over the fact that private electronic files were released, presumably illegally and in a selective or manipulative fashion, but that the release of the files fomented doubt and dispute among politicians, partisans, the public, etc., over the state of climate change science and its research institutions. To characterize the whole thing as a hacking incident misses the point. That is one part of a multifaceted public controversy, and not the largest part. It is not a matter of "taste" and "pandering", etc., and I would appreciate a toning down of the testy overblown rhetoric on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

After all that was said and done, more was said than done. Sigh.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the legal system works in your country, but here in the UK, once the victim calls in the police and the police say they are investigating a crime, that's about all we expect to hear until the arrests and then the trial. we don't expect to find server logs on the police website at this stage. They have told us the facts once, and that's it. We're not going to start altering those facts, or drfifting off into blogosphere-style speculation here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ almighty this is getting ridiculous. What happened at the CRU was data theft, plain and simple. Data (emails, code, other data) were stolen from the CRU when their server was illegally accessed (POV term "hacked"). Controversy arose when the data were disseminated, because lots of climate skeptics and extremely stupid journalists misinterpreted (or deliberately misrepresented) some of what was being said in the private emails. So the article should have a title that includes "Climatic Research Unit", "data theft" and "controversy" (I'm being charitable with that last one) - Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy sounds about right. Anything that doesn't say that will probably not get my !vote unless somebody tries to buy me off with a lifetime supply of Krispy Kreme doughnuts or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You are getting emotional and I suggest that you calm down. If you are some authority about what constitutes data theft, then that is POV and original research. There has been a lot of speculation in reliable sources on this subject, but nothing has been determined one way or another. "Hacking" and "data theft" might be appropriate to describe this incident someday, but also may not. Right now, I can't imagine any other approach than to stick to the facts.Jarhed (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hack or Leak?

This article repeatedly refers to this incident as a "Hack" but this is unverifiable. This incident could have been a leak. No one knows, yet this article refers to this incident as a hack 11 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.63.106 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q5 in the FAQ Simonmar (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we rename thel aricle, we can cut this down? Eleven "hacks" does seem excessive! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that the CRU server was illegally accessed, and data was copied without permission. That is why I feel "data theft" is more accurate than "e-mail hacking". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear to you? Or do we have a preponderance of reliable sources, as we recall for any other piece of disputed content? Remember, WP:SYNTH and all that. Illegal dissemination of information (whether in violation of a court order, confidentiality pledge, job requirement, anti-hacking law, trespassing, false pretenses, etc) done in the name of a leak or exposé is not simple theft, and painting it as such is a rather transparent attempt to attack the credibility / validity / fairness of the conclusion. In general, characterizing an action as legal or illegal, when legality isn't the direct issue at hand, is almost always POV. For example, calling a strike, protest, criticism, real estate purchase, etc., "illegal", is just editorial slant that does not add clarity. Even if we accepted that, the article goes into so much repetitive detail about the illegality of the leak that it just looks sloppy. I can see why people are getting the wrong impression. Keeping in mind your comment that I use too many words, I'll stop there. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding what I am saying. "Data theft" is a standard legal definition in the UK, which is why it has been suggested here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Then, for the sake of those outside the UK we should make it clear that the article is using a term of art rather than making indirect accusations of illegality or wrongdoing. A wikilink isn't enough because the data theft article is a little rudimentary and seems to be written from a British perspective, with references to quaint Brittishisms like thumbsucking, podslurping, bluesnarfing, yousnoofing, clueboofing, and such. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. The Norfolk police (who should know) have said that they are investigating "criminal offences". "Whistleblowing" is completely unsourced speculation on the part of climate sceptics who appear to be uncomfortable with the idea that one of their own did something so blatantly illegal. It has no basis whatsoever in reliable sources or in anything that has been said by the police or university. Moreover, "whistleblowing" is a defence to criminal charges; it does not change the illegality of the initial act. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindented somewhat at this point)

Likewise, AGW evangelists appear to be uncomfortable with the idea that one of their own leaked the e-mails. We have a network security expert who believes it was an insider, but the simple fact is that we don't know if the hacker was an insider or an outsider. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By "network security expert", I assume you mean "climate change skeptic" with an obvious conflict of interest and a penchant for publicity? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, by "network security expert", I mean a published author whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by third-party reliable sources commenting within his area of expertise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's quoted in various RS because he puts out statements and press releases that are picked up by the media (a typical form of self publicity). There can be no denying his conflict of interest, since he self-identifies as a climate change skeptic. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you accusing Graham of compromising his professional integrity? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The source's preconceived position on the matter is relevant. Oh, and thanks for the "AGW evangelists" snipe. It explains much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented again somewhat)

Yep, you have AGW skeptics and AGW evangelists. Fortunately, WP:NPOV helps us sort through the nonsense from both sides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if you stopped calling people names, and discussed improving the article instead. --Nigelj (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussing WP:NPOV isn't improving the article? I find that strange since it's the major issue with the article. 18:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You can discuss NPOV without namecalling. --TS 19:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I did. We're not supposed to engage in the dispute between AGW skeptics and AGW evangelists, but simply document it in accordance with WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I and others may have misread you. I find the term "evangelists" unhelpful in this context. Are those who accept the scientific consensus also "evolution evangelists", "quantum mechanics evangelists" and so on? I hope you will see my point about the absurdity of such labelling. The skeptics call themselves skeptics because they are skeptical of the accepted theory. Those who accept the theory are not evangelists and they do not identify themselves as such. It's what mainstream means. In science, global warming is mainstream. --TS 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that Evangelion is "the good news", the term seems somewhat inappropriate (similarly to "global warming promoters", which much better describes some of the deniers). Anyways, here is the AP, as printed in The Independent, reporting "The emails were stolen from the computer network server of the UEA climate research unit, and posted online last month." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

One shouldn't reasonably expect religious fervor to be rational. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So is your point that you think those who accept the mainstream scientific findings on global warming are possessed of a religious conviction? To reiterate an earlier point which you have not addressed, are those who accept other mainstream scientific viewpoints similarly afflicted with a quasi-religious belief? Do you find it improbable that those who accept the science do so because they think the scientists know what they're talking about and they have reached a consensus on the correct interpretation of their observations which has, so far, been vindicated by all further observations? --TS 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about those that are so overzealous that they're pretending that there's nothing to see here. See George Monbiot.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot is entitled to his opinion. He is not, however, a scientist. But you seem to be conflating two things: opinions on the science, and opinions on whether there is any scandal. We won't know the truth about the latter question until the independent investigation concludes. --TS 01:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you seem to be conflating two different things: global warming and Climategate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

..and note that the AP/Independent article already linked above [19] reports on the AP result of just such an investigation by 5 AP journalists who systematically went over all the emais and report "no scandal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the AP piece and it agrees with my POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, IRRC, I was the one who first posted the AP piece here on the article's talk page and added it to the article, but it was sadly removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented somewhat here)

It was, I think, user:Ratel who first raised the matter, on December 12. See Talk:Climatic Research Unit_e-mail hacking incident/Archive_12#AP review of stolen data. On December 18th it was added as a selection of external links without editorial comment, and removed because of the absence of commentary. I think we're still trying to work out how the material should be used. --TS 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Claims of biased editing go unmentioned

There are serious challenges to the credibility of Wikipedia flying around and I don't see any reference to it in the article. The full lock viewed in conjunction with no mention of claims of biased editing and abuse of admin tools is proof of a WP:CABAL of WP:ROUGE admins preventing the spread of The Truth. I propose mentioning the claims that WP has been subject to biased editing and trimming the article down to a bare bones description of the events to avoid a perception of "apologist PR". Let the bloggers handle this one. Dhatfield (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See FAQ Q10. The claims have been investigated, as you will see. --TS 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if my joke was not appreciated, but I find the claim that my comment is soapboxing rather strange, and according to FAQ Q10 the claims have not been investigated, the self-reference has simply been avoided. Is it really necessary to get this high-handed? A little assumption of good faith (which applies, BTW) would go a long way. Dhatfield (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing down discussions goes on all the time here, sometimes without explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, damning [20]. I am not taking this further, but I note here my objection to the way this was handled by TonyS and Wikidemon. Transcluding and/or archiving other people's opinions to entrench your own is simply not on, regardless of how you may view the situation. Dhatfield (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. After you've read it, read it again. --TS 22:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Will that solve the problems I have with your aggressive conduct? Dhatfield (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a qualm about other editors' conduct please work it out directly with that editor and, if necessary, the dispute resolution forums. I closed this discussion because there's no valid proposal here. It's written in the form of a rant - accusation of bad faith and complaints about WIkipedia followed by a WP:POINT-y proposal to gut the entire article. Anything that starts off accusing the editors on an article of being part of a cabal is dead on arrival. That's not going to lead to any improvement in the article. If it's instead a parody of a rant, mea culpa, I should have made a snarky comeback and then closed it as an off-topic joke instead. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It was indeed a parody. The suggestion to gut the article was more serious and I don't believe it was disruptive - I think it will solve many of the problems people have with the article. Dhatfield (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have known and can see that in hindsight. Apologies accepted. Oops, I think you're supposed to say that. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, another lesson for me in irony not working non-verbally. A Merry Christmas to all (if that's your cultural preference). Dhatfield (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any aggressive conduct, but if you have such problems please take them to my talk page in the first instance. --TS 00:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Diversion about alleged censorship of talk page comments

Discussion posts I've made on this page have been repeated deleted within seconds by one of the regular posters on this page without prior discussion. There is no way that this article can in any way be considered a consensus point of view when discussion posts are being deleted.24.87.71.192 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I just checked your past contributions, and noted that here in your very first edit you claimed that the BBC "had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked." That comment was read by me, and I responded to it and I went to the trouble of writing a FAQ question and answer about that: see FAQ Q9. So I really think you're pushing it a bit when you say that you haven't been permitted to contribute to the article. How many people have had a whole FAQ written up based on their first comment on Wikipedia? --TS 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC) That doesn't excuse deleting discussion. I took the time to file a formal complaint. How many people before and after me will simply have their discussion deleted and give up - their voices unheard?24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC) If you look at this diff, you will see that you made two successive identical edits within the space of four minutes (both begin "The BBC reports they had the material "). One of those edits remains on this page, I'm not sure what happened to the other. Perhaps it's in the archive, perhaps somebody noticed the duplication and removed one. Half an hour later you made another identical comment, at which point there were two copies of the comment on the page. Why did you do that? A few hours later you said on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests that you believed your "comments in favor of expanding the article on UEA emails to "Climategate" have been unfairly removed". [21]. You accused ScJessey of censoring you, despite your open quoting of ScJessay's statement that "You are ramming your skewed point of view down other people's throats by posting the same information twice (and now three times). That is soap boxing, and also rude." Please stop acting in this insulting fashion and stop falsely accusing people of censoring you, when you've been repeatedly posting identical messages and at least one copy of the message remains on the page. --TS 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but there's no such thing as a 'formal complaint'. If you think you took the time to 'file' a 'formal complaint' that's a problem right there since there's no such thing. I suggest you take the time to learn how wikipedia works rather then wasting your time 'filing' a 'formal complaint'. In this particular case, it appears that you've misunderstood what some blog said. While as an editor, this is more understandable then the crappy journalists, you may want to read more carefully since the issue was discussed in the comments of the blog you are I presume referring to and in the very next blog entry. As is obvious from the fact it's in the FAQ, it is also addressed many times in the archives Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC) As you have stated, you are not sure of what happened. Yet, you accuse me of fault. That is illogical. If you don't know for sure what happened, there is no way you can know for sure who is at fault.24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I have established that you have falsely accused others of censoring your contributions. Stop doing that. --TS 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC) From what I can tell, it seems we have also established that 24.87 is responsible for adding the same discussion multiple times to the page while it remained on the page (i.e. it appearred on page multiple times). I'm willing to WP:AGF that this was an accident, but accident or not, it was still 24.87's fault in so much as we can assign blame. Definitely no one else can be blamed for 24.87 adding the same discussion multiple times and any deletions of the discussion which may or may not have occured are understandable if 24.87 keeps adding the same thing, accident or not. Perhaps it would have been best to leave one version, but the best way to handle this would have been for 24.87 to calmly and rationally discuss the matter, apologise for adding the discussion multiple times, promise to take more care next time, and apologise for accusations against other editors. Under that circumstance, it would likely be okay for one version to remain. But it doesn't seem necessary now since from what I can tell., the issue 24.87 is one in the FAQ and which has been addressed multiple times Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a double posting, why not request the author to remove the posting? Here is the original message I received (below). I read this to mean my discussion posting was deleted due to the content, not frequency.24.87.71.192 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please don't use the article talk pages for soap boxing your point of view. Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we cover the work and effects of propaganda machines?

The reason this article is generating so much activity and attention is that the right wing echo chamber has created a controversy. There was an e-mail hacking incident, and then there was "climategate", a word invented by disreputable sources and primarily used by disreputable sources. Does the word refer to the hacking incident, or does it refer to the swirl of sometimes-pretended, sometimes-real-and-gullible outrage subsequently generated by right wing media, or does it refer to the actual creation of the controversy by the right wing media? And what is this article about? Is it about the hacking incident, or is it about the manufactured political furor? Certainly we don't want to give the wing nut product legitimacy, but ignoring it or pretending it is of no importance is a weakness, if not a mistake. I've seen a similar dynamic in pages related to Tibet, where China's propaganda machine has produced zealous believers who think that Tibet has always belonged to China and that before 1959, most of Tibet's people were miserable serfs. Eventually, we tried to take some of this head on in Serfdom in Tibet controversy. Maybe Climategate should be more than a simple redirect to an article about a hacking incident. Maybe it should directly address the creation and treatment of the word "climategate", who uses it how and why. Bertport (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's utterly ridiculous to write off "Climategate" as the product of a "right wing echo chamber". Are there elements of the media that are "right wing"? Absolutely. Do those elements hype up "Climategate"? Of course. But that does not mean that basic facts connected to that point of view are disputable. Examine things from the other side: Was Watergate just the product of a "left wing echo chamber"? Was the real "crime" of Watergate the fact that someone sneakily obtained hush-hush information about Republican wrongdoing? Of course not. I know that the issue of e-mail hacking, or e-mail privacy-violation, is more "wrong" than leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein, but you see my point, right? This is Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff here if you think the real issue is the e-mail hacking and not what the e-mails seem to imply. This is only a big story because of what the e-mails say. On the other hand, of course the hacking incident is an important element within the story, but it's not the lead. (Should there be two separate articles? At this point, perhaps. There shouldn't NEED to be two separate articles, but that honestly might be a better solution since certain contributors keep insisting that a violation of e-mail privacy--something that happens thousands of times a week all over the world--is more important than a seemingly gigantic expose of questionable information that is being used as a pretext of restructuring all of human society forever.) Comments such as the one above seem to come from people who are blinded by their dislike of the right wing, and as such they have a skewed view of what is really going on here. They are too caught up in defending "their side" from the enemy, but they are doing a disservice to objectivity and the search for truth. I am not a right-winger; I DO believe that strong efforts should be made to protect the environment. I heard about the strange things going on on the wikipedia page for Climategate and I thought I'd see for myself. Unfortunately I have to say that while this article is not as biased as the "right wing media" might say, there still is a very clear bias as to what the article features most prominently, and this obviously stems from the personal ideology of many of the contributors, who are so on the defensive about this issue that they seem unable to honestly evaluate what makes this story so important (to say nothing of their inability to examine the content and implication of the actual e-mails). As I say, some of this is really Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff. It's almost as bad as taking an article about the harmful effects of tobacco and spinning it so that the whole story questions the morality of whistleblowers for turning in their employers. This is just my two cents. I am not a wiki-contributor. Take me for what I am: if it means anything to anyone, I have a PhD. I am not nor have I ever voted Republican. I am just one voice who is honestly telling you that this important article has something of a bias to it as to how the relative importances of its content are measured. This bias would be very easy to correct if only the contributors would be honest with themselves. I do not expect them to do this, however, because the political fighting seems more important to them than does truth. 66.82.162.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

The above comment is a wonderful illustration of the absurdly prejudicial nature of the "climategate" moniker. It invites nonsensical comparisons to Watergate. Nixon went down because he was guilty of serious crimes, whereas the scientists targeted by this inflammatory moniker have not been shown to be guilty of any malfeasance. Bertport (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to think that the "Climategate" aspect is connected, but still a separate issue from the hacking incident. Although the genesis of the controversy began with the theft of data from the CRU, the "story" has developed into something a little more vague involving the recent IPCC conference, climate change denial and even some ludicrous claims of BBC and Wikipedia bias. I have spoken previously about how much I dislike the idea of creating a content fork, but with other things getting dragged into the general controversy it might now be an idea with legs. I'm not ready to support a fork yet, but I am certainly giving it more thought than I have before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are several important points in there. I do agree that the main "climategate" article (or whatever we choose to call it - there are varying opinions) should cover the entire phenomenon, minus the underlying background of climate change, scientific understanding of climate change, the research unit, and "skeptics" thereof. In other words, it would cover: (1) the particular communications and actions of scientists that constituted an aberration from the normal protocol and decorum expected of the body, (2) the apparent hacking and release of the documents, (3) the way in which it became a public scandal / controversy, including the any significant role of agenda-driven media and other political operatives in constructing and/or deconstructing it, and (4) the denouement, i.e. the effects and aftermath of the whole thing, something not yet known. Done right, I don't think it necessarily gives legitimacy to the thing, but it does give prominence, something that we can't help. We cover the world as we find it, which does include mountains made out of molehills. The making of the mountain is itself a notable event in these cases. It's probably too early to know whether the hacking incident deserves its own article because we don't know what happened or what will be done about it, but note that a vastly larger scandal, Watergate, has generated at least a dozen related articles about different aspects of the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, eventually notable subsection get spun off into daughter articles, but we do that as a logical outgrowth of this article. I don't think it makes sense right now though to spin off a new article right now though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettarda (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, the problem with that approach is that the expected expansion of coverage for the wider controversy related to this incident (that might lead to a daughter article) is being prevented from occurring because of undue weight concerns. If a majority of editors think this growth→spin-off is the way to go, one or two sections would need to be allowed to expand beyond their appropriate size in preparation for the creation of one or more daughter articles. I'm not sure that is an ideal arrangement. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I think sections should grow as due, and then be spun off as approriate. If a topic isn't significant enough, it probably doesn't deserve to be spun off. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant. What I'm saying is this: the sections may not be allowed to grow because it would create an undue weight problem. Basically, some of the notable stuff that is related to this incident isn't able to find a home here because it may not be significant in the context of the data theft, but significant in the context of the overall debate that started with the data theft. It's a chicken and egg situation - we don't want the article overburdened with somewhat related coverage of the controversy, but unless it becomes overburdened it is unlikely that aspect of the controversy will get spun off into one or more daughter articles. Urgh - this is making my head hurt again. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to "fatten up" a section in preparation for starting a stub. If a subject merits an article of its own, a stub comprising a single coherent sentence is enough to start it. An article grows organically from the source material, not from some parent article. --TS 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying earlier. I'd rather see the separate article created than let an undue weight problem arise in this article. I'm trying to balance that with my overall dislike of forking content, because there is a danger that the daughter article will be a magnet for some of the wilder "Climategate" conspiracy theories and fringe views. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is making a lot of sense. I've not yet given up on a single article covering the event and the fallout, still thinking that the split should only occur later, if and when the fallout discussion start to overwhelm the hack related material, but the subject does deserve discussion.--SPhilbrickT 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that encapsulates my thinking. Let us try to keep it to one article for now, but remain open-minded about splitting it up (perhaps using summary style) if it starts to get out of hand. This is something we must bear in mind when we think about rejecting quotes or information with undue weight concerns, because if we do go split it up we will have more room to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done it

Now is a good time to decide whether we want multiple articles. I've gone ahead and created a parent (child? sibling?) article out of the "...-gate" part of the series of events, under Climategate scandal. That's meant to cover the ensuing scandal, public conception, and (if we can source it) the operation of the "propaganda machines", as this section title so colorfully puts it. It is not meant as a duplicate or fork, but rather a separation of different subjects within the larger topic area. I think there's a lot of material about this that has not found a home here, and certainly a focus that has been discounted here, because of this article's stated focus on the question of email hacking. Nevertheless, there is quite a bit here -- too much, I would say -- about the content of the emails, and people's defenses, attacks, and explanation. I ported some of that over to the other article, leaving out the long quotes and the opinions of people who seemed peripheral. That should relieve some of the pressure off of this article to have a blow-by-blow account of what everyone thinks, yet provide room on the project to cover what seems to be a notable, encyclopedic topic, the scandal arising from what the emails are said to reveal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This was an enormous mistake that completely disregarded the apparent consensus in the discussion immediately above. This error has been compounded by a scandalous choice of article title. I am appalled, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good decision. Not great because the title should have been replaced (I don't believe in half honesties but I guess Wikipedia folks need to save face too) Now lets just rectify one more problem: "Climategate" should link to "Climategate scandal". It is as logical as it is obvious. Just ask yourself: If a person searches "Climategate" is he more likely searching for "Climategate scandal" or "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"? Professorteeth (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Climategate scandal

I have nominated Climategate scandal, an article very closely related (and in my view redundant with) the present article, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please consider contributing to the article or the talk page rather than simply piling on at the AfD. jheiv (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see what there is to contribute to. That article is, by any definition, a fork/duplicate of this one. Let's work on making this article better and more complete before deciding that a split is in order. Oren0 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I really am neutral on the split at its current state, but I like the idea behind it. jheiv (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Many here seem to claim that it would be inappropriate to rename this article "Climategate scandal" as I had proposed earlier, presumably because this topic is somehow far enough removed from the issue that all the media are discussing that THEY refer to as Climategate. Given this distinction perhaps it makes sense to have a separate article to discuss the fundametal aspects of what makes Climategate a scandal. --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

From the above section you can see that I am the one who created the article, largely as an attempt to tease apart two different subjects that are vying for attention here with the less prominent of them, the actual theft and unauthorized disclosure of data, currently having the upper hand while the subject of greater current public interest, the controversy climate change skeptics stirred up over the actions of scientists, seems to be an afterthought. It is redundant because in addition to the small amount of new content I seeded the new article with about the origin of the name 'Climategate', I also culled, ported over, and (to my mind) improved a considerable amount of content regarding the public scandal aspect of things, as distinct from the hacking incident. The redundancy occurs because having done so, I am not so bold as to delete the corresponding sections here, which would certainly be hasty. At the end of the day there should not be much redundancy. We just have to decide what topics belong in one article versus the other. Splitting unwieldy articles into two halves occurs all the time here, and is generally not a fork. Assuming the article is kept, it's our responsibility to keep them from becoming forks of each other, but that's entirely a content question for editors to manage. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"also known as Climategate" in the Lede

This seems to be a recent introduction. Previously we had "referred to by some sources as Climategate". The term "Climategate" is not accepted even by many sources that report that others have used that name. and it is not accepted by the more reputable sources. In particular, it is a product of lazy journalism. We are not lazy sub-editors, and we should not give the false impression that we are, by adopting this phrase as an alternative.

I suggest that we were better off with the more accurate "referred to by some sources as Climategate". --TS 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Or just, "referred to by some as Climategate" --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with "by some". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to leave "by all" or "by none", neither of which has the virtue of passing the verifiability test. --TS 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with those as well. Just keep it simple. "Also known as" is the common English expression. No need to change it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush. also known as "Dubya", wouldn't be accepted because, despite this widespread nickname, it would make us look unprofessional. "Also known as" also implies a universality which is not the case. "referred to by some sources as" is in this instance both verifiable and professional. --TS 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor analogy. "Climategate" is the WP:COMMONNAME name for this article's topic, whereas "Dubya" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for that article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<ri> From the source, it would appear that "dubbed 'climategate' in the context of claims made about the emails by climate change skeptics" would seem right. That's the implication of the way it's put in the source, and as far as I know the "skeptics" are the only ones using the term so that should be made clear. . . dave souza, talk 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Checking what the cited source says is, as always, a stroke of genius :-) --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. --TS 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And this source says "dubbed Climategate"[22] while this source plainly calls it "the Climategate scandal"[23]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no actually - the second source uses the word in quotes for the first two occurrences, and only drops them for the phrase you quote. There is more to writing a good article (and even more to writing a good opening sentence) than finding an isolated quote to use out of context. Re-read Dave souza's comment above and you'll see it is well argued, based on a full reading and understanding of the substance of what the sources are actually saying.

Come to think of it, how many reliable sources do we have for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a reliable source for a descriptive title, although I personally do not like the one we have because I am not convinced that it succinctly describes the facts. "Climategate" describes nothing, and is simply the product of climate skeptics and lazy journalism. It is also less well understood in parts of planet Earth not familiar with the stupid "-gate" suffix. I am not in favor of "also known as" (which implies a truth that doesn't exist), or "dubbed" (which is an unusual word that can be confused with other meanings). I prefer "referred to by some sources" (which is accurate, and supported by sources). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as if we're building consensus, with one or two strong instances of dissent, against the blunt "also known as." I suggested "referred to be some sources" and ScJessey and Nigelj concur. Dave Souza suggests "dubbed 'climategate' in the context of claims made about the emails by climate change skeptics" and Nigelj and I find that acceptable. Is that about right? --TS 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would concur. I would also add that "Climategate" should remain in quotes, and there is no reason I can see for it to be in bold type. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no consensus doing this change. Nsaa (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be a "change". "Referred to by some sources as..." was in the article without complaint for a considerable time, and only changed recently by the skeptic crowd. It created an edit war that got the article locked. So what you need to do is form a consensus to not have it say "referred to by some sources as..." if you want something different. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nsaa. There's no consensus doing this change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong. You need a consensus to change it from the "referred to..." language. Look right back here to see where it was brought in. It stayed that way for ages before skeptics started edit warring a different version. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, can you please stop attacking people by stating "skeptics started edit warring"? Please consider what has been said and yes theres no consensus going back to the version you wish. Nsaa (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, and I'm simply calling it like it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a {{cn}} to the title. It's very bad that this title has not been renamed to something in general use and it is in itself starting to look like a scandal. See one of our five pillars Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Deciding_an_article_name Nsaa (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems deliberately disruptive to me, and it has been quite rightly reverted. You should also consider self-reverting your change to the "referred to..." language, since that is the prevailing consensus and you will need to build a new consensus to change it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed that. It doesn't make sense in terms of our policies.

On consensus, obviously it's a good idea to wait a while and see if consensus continues to build for a more accurate characterization of the usage of the term "Climategate". --TS 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lets read together then: "[...] guided by the usage in reliable sources. [...] When no consensus exists, it is established through discussion, always with the above principles in mind. The choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Deciding_an_article_name so please don't play that game "It doesn't make sense in terms of our policies.". Nsaa (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive? What do you call making this change without reaching consensus on the talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was restoring the version that previously existed with no complaint. Besides, a consensus had formed until Nsaa came along and decided otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording that was changed was the subject of a huge edit-war. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"also known as" is the more appropriate language given the prevalence of its use in the MSM at this point, especially in light of the fact that the article's title is currently so lame as to make the entire article a laughing stock in the media. --GoRight (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Also known as..." implies an truth that doesn't exist, as I said earlier. We must refer to sources explicitly. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there was no consensus on the wording in the lead--there was an ongoing edit war over this when the article was protected a few days ago. Let's continue to discuss with a view to getting consensus on a form of words for the lead. --TS 03:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Dave's wording; failing that I would go with the long standing "some" version. Guettarda (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, GoRight and Nsaa have argued quite strongly for retaining "also known as." Guettarda, Nigelj, ScJessey, Dave Souza and I have argued for a change. I think we need to keep discussing this until we have a clearer idea of our thoughts and perhaps consensus emerges. --TS 03:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article is simply about the hacking / leaking / whatever of the emails, that specific incident is not known by that name. If we mean the article to be about the overall series of events, the broader incident is often called "Climategate". "Sometimes" vastly understates the frequency. Four million google hits and 5,000+ current google news hits is not "sometimes". The term seems to be used across the political spectrum and, most importantly, by most of the large mass-market nonpartisan press. Attaching quotes to something does not mean they are disputing its validity. Quotes are used in many different situations - to define new or unfamiliar terms, for example, or to indicate that a usage is informal or colloquial. We shouldn't speculate on the reason without some proof. If we're not going to call the incidate climategate ought to make clear it is one of the alternate terms used for the incident, or we run the risk of spinning off in an idiosyncratic direction on our own, without following the sources. Regarding the rather strained current title, that is not a common usage at all. However, rather than dropping it I think we should follow up on the earlier discussion of how to rename the article. Although no alternate name got consensus, several were better favored than the current one. There is no status quo here to fall back on - the article is a month old and the names have been under continual discussion and debate. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we're not discussing an appropriate name for the article here. We're discussing how to treat the word "Climategate" in the lede.

I take exception to the notion that the word "Climategate" is used widely enough for us to endorse it. It's used by the lazier journalists. Those who have at least some standards mention in passing that it is known by that name.

Moreover the "also known as" phrasing is a very recent addiion, its addition to the article led to edit warring which was only abated hy a bout of protection (the protection involve mainly a separate edit war in which it became entangled in the later stages). There is no consensus for the current wording, and the endorsement by Wikipedia of this lazy bit of journalese is one that has caused some five editors, at this point, to express opposition, and a sixth to just up and remove it.

The previous wording seems to have lasted for a quite a while. Most of those who object to the current wording are reasonably happy with the old wording. It is thus simply false to say that there is no status quo to fall back on. Alternatively we could settle on another form acceptable to a wider range of editors. --TS 13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Also known as" implies that both names are in common usage, which isn't the case. Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a bold edit and replaced the wording with "widely known as "Climategate" in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists." Let's see how that fares. --TS 14:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the use of "widely", but I would prefer "widely referred to as..." if we are going to also drop mention of sources. "Climategate" should definitely not be in bold type in this construct. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"widely referred to as..." might be an improvement, but for now I want to see if this basic form can command consensus. If it does then a tweak or two may be merited, again subject to consensus. --TS 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an odd approach. We shouldn't waste time with trying to seek consensus on incremental changes to a single sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just any sentence, it's the first sentence of the lead section, so we really do need to ensure that it has wide support. --TS 16:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm getting at. My problem is that I don't see the point of seeking wide support for something when we know we are then going to try to seek wide support for something slightly different immediately afterward. Surely there's a pointless extra step in there somewhere? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this as an essential part of diplomacy. Although it might be nice to have your proposed wording, the wording I have just put in hasn't yet been in the article for long (though long enough for us to know it isn't so utterly unacceptable as to get it immediately reverted). We should allow everybody time to get used to the idea and see if it works. --TS 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. The whole thing seems unnecessarily wordy to me. The problem with trying to reconcile differences between two sides that are diametrically opposed often leads to wordy, dreary language on Wikipedia. This one is no exception. "Climategate" is just a bad construct that uses guilt-by-association to imply there is something sinister going on. "Climategate" has become popular because, as has been proven here, it is difficult to come up with an acceptable term to call this matter that is neutral and accurate. So now we find ourselves jumping through word hoops to make everyone happy. I'm starting to think we should cut out "Climategate" from the opening sentence completely, and then actually have a section that discusses how and why the term "Climategate" became widely used. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the "widely known as "Climategate" in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists." wording. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey made a comment above that the reason we don't need sources for the current title of this article is because the title is "descriptive." According to Wikipedia:Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence, "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface". This suggests to me that the name of this article shouldn't be bolded. The section goes on to say, "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." It seems to me that Climategate is an additional name, so it should be bold, correct? It seems like a strange outcome to bold "Climategate" and not to bold the title of the article, so I think the reasonable thing it to bold either both or neither. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is a bit of lazy journalese. We won't be endorsing that as an alternative title because the notion has been repeatedly discussed and rejected as a title on the grounds that we're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag given to endorsing the principles of yellow journalism. --TS 20:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly an alternate title. Whether you like the journalists or not, many of them use this name primarily or exclusively. Ask Google News. This is why there is a redirect here. This is why it appears that most other language Wikipedias title this article "Climategate". "Journalists are lazy" is not a justification to exclude this as an alternate title. You also still haven't responded to the issue about descriptive titles not being bolded. Oren0 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I have mixed feelings on this, while I agree that we're not a tabloid, one side of me is worried that by distancing the article from "climategate" we're not reflecting the actual way its being reported in WP:RS, but the other side of me realizes that if "climategate" ends up being the accepted term in the media when referring to the incident (as I expect it will, perhaps because of Tony's cited lazy journalism) then the article will reflect that when the term has solidified. [If it is ever bolded, however, I don't think it should also have quotes like it did [24]  :-) ] jheiv (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that's it's widely used (and we acknowledge that in the article). "Journalists are lazy" amply explains why the term is common in journalism but not common in the usage of the experts in the field and those intimately involved. I don't mind unbolding any part of the lead, but if we bolded "Climategate" that would be a very serious lapse of the Neutral point of view, because of the connotations of wrongdoing which have not been substantiated. In short, there are BLP implications to any appearance of endorsement of the term by Wikipedia. --TS 20:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats an interesting point, I never considered that referring to the incident as climategate inferred anything, but rather just keeping in line with the way it was being reported. After reading this article however, I realize there are deeper implications as you noted. Thanks Tony. jheiv (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that others take a look at the same article - specifically List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Etymology, usage and history of -gate. The term is heavily loaded with implications which require us to be cautious in using it, as Tony says. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As a result of your comment, I reverted my bolding of climategate until this can be further discussed. Sorry for the premature edit. jheiv (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The cited section does seem instructive, however, and while the wording surrounding climategate is being debated, I think it probably should be bolded and the quotes removed. I do concede, however, that removing the quotes may give the term legitimacy that editors may not agree with. I went ahead bolded the term in the meantime, hoping that we could narrow down what is contested, apologies if that too is contested. jheiv (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I really think we need to distance Wikipedia from that term. There are careers at stake, on no serious evidence of wrongdoing. This is, I think an issue of import to those who are falsely accused, and against whom we can ourselves summon no reliable source to justify the comparison with the scandal that destroyed the career of President Nixon. We should say that it has been so named, and we should identify the context, but for reasons I hope will be obvious, to endorse the name is unacceptable. --TS 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the feeling about WikiDemon's removal of "in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists" from the opening sentence with the edit summary "remove loaded language from lede"? I'm not aware of any loading here. There have been accusations against scientists and that is the context in which the term "Climategate" is used to the best of my knowledge. Without the accusations, this would be no more than a hacking incident. --TS 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, its a clear edit war and thanks for bringing it to talk (although Wikidaemon probably should have). I'm not sure I'd agree with calling it loaded, but its not as concise as I'd like to see in an intro. I mean, the title of the article contains "e-mail" so it would seem that "private e-mails" is redundant. Maybe:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, often referred to as "Climategate" when referencing the public controversy that ensued, began...

or:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, often referred to as "Climategate" when referencing the accusations that followed as a result, began...

or:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, often referred to as "Climategate" when referencing the resulting allegations, began...

Admittedly, I'm not the best wordsmith however, but I do agree that there should be a differentiation between the title (hacking incident) and climategate (the "controversy") jheiv (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a small issue here with what you wrote tony.

in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists

The e-mails were not private, never were. They were all subject to freedom of information requests as the taxpayer funded the research. They should never be called "private" because of this fact --mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, this issue has not been settled. In the US, it has been established in a few state supreme courts that private communications by public employees (or in this case, employees who are supported by public funds) are not subject to FOIA requests. I'm not sure about the caselaw in the UK jheiv (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the uk all publicly funded bodies are subject to foi requests. In fact the released files were more than likely zipped up in response to one and then it got pinched and released online. Hence the name of the .zip file --mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the story of the word 'climategate' is one that can be told. If we did so in the body of the article, we may be able to summarise it better in the lede? The story is that it was very quickly coined, within hours or certainly a day or so of the hacking being made public. (Where is the first use in print?) The term was created by those sceptics and deniers who expected/hoped/intended that something would be found in the CRU e-mails that would bring down climate science as surely as Watergate brought down the Nixon government. This clearly hasn't happened. The irony is that it was Nixon's (men's) men who were the Watergate burglars, but here it was those who hoped to gain from 'climategate' who committed the initial crime. If that little tale, or something like it can be reliably sourced, how about a short sub-section somewhere, that is then summarised in the opening line? --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. Most people can figure out on their own that Climategate is a reference to Watergate. I guess a section on the term's etiology wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this seems like a little much. While the term may have been created as you say (and I do recall the sources originally distancing themselves from the term), most all media has stopped qualifying the term and are referring to the incident as climategate. jheiv (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX?

It looks like this talk page uses {{NOINDEX}} (i.e. so nothing is indexed by search engines). Why and where? Nsaa (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think all article talk pages are set to NOINDEX. I randomly checked a couple that couldn't possibly be politically or legally sensitive (specifically, this one and this one) and they also were noindexed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We obviously don't want talk space indexed. It contains no encyclopedia content, and instructing search engines to index would produce a lot of noise that would tend to drown out our articles. --TS 03:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is no-indexed becaused it has Template:BLP I believe [25] (perhaps other reasons too). No-indexing talk pages of articles covered under BLP was discussed here Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 5#Noindex 2 & Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 5#NOINDEX 3. It makes sense since they can include discussions and content which isn't suitable for the article and even some stuff which violates BLP but isn't deleted for various reasons. I've seen various discussions here both of the people involved in the controversy and climate change sceptic/denier commentators and the like which tells me it was also the right thing here. While some may feel noindexing all talk pages makes sense, that proposal basically failed AFAIK (or at least it received sufficient opposition that it was difficult to pass without significant effort which no one put in to it). See Wikipedia:NOINDEX for a bunch of discussions Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ q4 thoughts

From the official UK government Crown copyright site.

Chapter III of The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 88) describes circumstances when copyright material can be reproduced without infringing copyright. These are generally referred to as the fair dealing provisions. The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2498) amended certain provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. One of the most significant changes was to specify that the fair dealing provisions for research only applies where the copying is for a non-commercial purpose. This guidance reflects these changes. Under fair dealing, copyright material can be reproduced for the purposes of:

Research for non-commercial purposes and private study; and
For criticism, review and news reporting.

Later on the same page is a reference to a further government site, unfortunately which has been closed. Searching on the successor site led to this fair dealing definition:

Fair dealing
In certain circumstances, some works may be used if that use is considered to be 'fair dealing'. There is no strict definition of what this means but it has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing.

So, it may be within the scope of 'fair dealing' to make single photocopies of short extracts of a copyright work for non-commercial research or private study, criticism or review, or reporting current events.

I would suggest that A4 in the FAQ is inadequate because the fair dealing concept is vague, indeterminate, and very well may apply. So far as I am aware, the fair dealing status of the documents has not been yet adjudicated. We should add to the FAQ a short reference making it clear that fair dealing may apply and the documents may be usable in extract form without license but not reuse for profit as a public domain document would. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know whether the crown copyright here would be covered by fair dealing. The question really is just addressing the notion that, like some American documents produced under Federal government contract, their contents are in the public domain. Perhaps some clarification would be in order.

We do of course publish brief extracts from the documents when referring to relevant commentary and fair dealing would almost certainly apply in those cases. We certainly assume so. --TS 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the material was stolen would certainly have a bearing. There is case law on the subject: the issue of fair dealing in leaked documents was addressed in Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] 1 All ER 241 (Ch D), which concerned the leaking of a document obtained by Private Eye. The court ruled that because the document had been stolen, fair dealing did not apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the FAQ is adequate for our purposes. Regardless of fair use/fair dealing laws, the messages remain outside of the public domain, the remain non-free content. Fair use/fair dealing laws address permitted infringements of copyright. They don't put an end to copyright. I think Q4 is adequate. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. We aim to create free content, so permitted infringements are a bit beside the point. --TS 21:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the newbie-like question, but do the laws of the UK even matter? I thought that Wikipedia's servers were located in Florida? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to demonstrate that content used on Wikipedia has been freely released in the country of its origin. That's why we have various templates for the copyright status of content from various countries (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All). Otherwise you would end up with a situation where editors could rip off content from one country and hide behind the US copyright regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hacking" or "Reported hacking"

Where is the proof that an actual hack occured? Why is this wiki so quick to simply parrot the assertions of the center and its media-driven echo-chamber? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that RMHED is now edit warring over this on the article. Do I explain WP:BRD here, or do I edit war back, or do we still have an admin round here who's going to sort this out while we can discuss it? --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to report what is found in reliable sources, rather than to correct them. If you think that the media have got it wrong then you should complain to them. Once they change their reporting, we will be able to change the article to reflect what they say. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is embarrassingly full of seemingly defensive references to the "stolen" emails, "hacked" files, "illegal" actions, etc. It looks like a clumsy way of trying to discredit the controversy. If you actually read the whole thing from start to finish, slowly, it is very sloppy in this way. The encyclopedic thing to do is to sequester the question of how the files were obtained and released and put that in its own section, not to hammer the nail twenty times throughout the body of the document - even if true or likely true, that is not a good way to go about it. This appears to be a content dispute, so threats to edit war on either side are not going to help any one side prevail, and certainly would tend to undermine any calls for administrative intervention against the other. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the "hacked" and "illegal" qualifications appear inside quotations (unless I missed one). "Stolen" and "leaked", however, do appear:

• Line 12: "...a copy of the stolen files."
• Line 21: "The stolen material comprised more than..."
• Line 79: "The stolen files also included temperature records..."
• Line 95: "...had been damaged by leaked e-mails, the Met Office..."
• Line 141: "...ejected the view that the leaked e-mails had..."

... although not at a frequency that is alarming to me.jheiv (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The ones inside quotations are a problem too, as well as a bunch of other peripheral comments. It's giving the quoted speaker a free penalty kick rather than simply saying what their assertion is. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

I don't own this article but I've been accused of ownership. I'll be "on leave" from editing the article or talk page for a couple of weeks, and we'll see if my absence makes a significant difference. --TS 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame Tony, your administration on the talk page has been exceptional and will be sorely missed. jheiv (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, either - you've contributed a lot, and been earnest and fair even in disagreement. But I can certainly understand any burn-out. I'm feeling that way myself :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible move. Thanks, Tony. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary and would like to see you come back before then. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 05:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your involvement has been essential for keeping the article on the rails. If you're going to take a break, please keep it short! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"reported hacking", "allegedly stole"

There is an edit war going on:

• Original edit: [26]
• Reverts: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]
• Editors: 216.153.214.89, Nigelj, RMHED, ChrisO, KimDabelsteinPetersen, 141.157.189.3, Scjessey, Psb777

It would be nice to get a consensus about the edit on the talk page rather than bumping the rev count. I am fine with the qualified language, and actually don't see what is so bad about it. jheiv (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy about being templated for this. I am not in the business of checking to see what edits other people have been making. I simply reverted the last edit I saw which seemed to put unsourced speculation into the article, and then I found myself being accused of edit warring. I call BS on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

a) I apologized for templating and not simply notifying you, b) That fact is, you made an edit in the middle of an obvious edit war that perpetuated it, if you don't want to check the history, I don't know what to tell you. Of course the edit was in AGF, there was no report made about edit warring, simply a notification that one was ongoing. I'm sorry if I'm trying to stop the edit war -- would you prefer edit wars go on without being pointed out? jheiv (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the matter was brought up here first. 8 different editors, which (assuming good faith) acted independently of one another should not be accused of edit warring. Hopefully, this can be regarded as one of those "teachable moments" everyone seems to be referring to nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was brought up here first. This section was added ten minutes before your revert. I'm trying to be fair here but repeatedly commenting about getting notified about being involved in an edit war is a little weird. WP:EW states: An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Unfortunately, this is, and was, the case -- hence the notification on your talk page. If you have further problems with me or my actions, please take it up on a noticeboard or on my talk page. jheiv (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit different when we are talking about reverting WP:SPA activity, or original research. Arbitrarily declaring it to be an "edit war" because of your strict interpretation of WP:EW is unreasonable when each editor has only made a single edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The theft is alleged, it is not yet established as fact. It is possibly leaked by an insider, and there is even some very very wild speculation that it was deliberately released! In the interim, until someone is charged or confesses, best surely to refer to the release/leak/theft of the emails using a less emotive term. I would prefer "alleged theft" or maybe "leak". "Alleged theft" is factual. "Theft" is not. Edit war or not, surely we must be uncontroversially correct? "Alleged theft" is not controversial. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. Verifiable reliable sources use words like "hacked", "stolen" and "theft" consistently. Read WP:TRUTH for more on why original research like adding "alleged" and other ambiguous terms would be inappropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source for the claim is EAU. They have issued a claim that their data was stolen, and until there is a reliable source that states that the data was actually stolen then it is only alleged that it was stolen. For example, if someone dies under unusual circumstances one cannot state that they were murdered explicitly because that is a statement of fact. This is the same situation. EAU is making a statement that there data was stolen, yet this is only their claim, and to present this incident from their point of view would be aviolation of NPOV. At this time it has only been alleged that the data was stolen, and there is nothing wrong with stating that. WP:TRUTH does not apply since we are not stating a truth. A truth would be to state explicitly that they were stolen or were not stolen without an RS that makes that claim. If anything WP:TRUTH weakens the view that it should not be stated as "alleged" since you are making a statement of truth without a RS to back it up. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Arzel, you said it much better than me.216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Arzel is wrong. For example, The Washington Post: "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center." The Associated Press: "The theft of the e-mails and their publication online..." -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You just do not read what you are replying to, The precise WP-rules-compliant rebuttal to your argument is contained in the posting to which you only appear to be replying. Yours is merely an argument by contradiction, so it is worthless. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ, Sure you won't refuse to address the points I made elsewhere on this page, will you? And by "address" I don't mean the off-topic snideness you posted here. Now, to address the point you make, which is that some reliable sources, OVER A MONTH AGO, simply parroted the center's claims of "hack and "stole"; my answer to that is big whoop! At the time, the media seemed willing to take the center's assertions at face value, this is obvious. What is less obvious is why YOU want to cripple the narrative of this article by refusing to add perfectly true context. When framing an article, decisions must be made by the editors so as to not mislead our readers. At this point, to omit that nothing more than "allegations" support the claims of "hack" and "stole" is to be patently dishonest. The decent way to handle it is to make clear that the hack is alleged and link to contemporaneous articles which directly quote those making the allegations. Its' totem-pole "news" to link to media echo-chamber reports. The BBC article was fine because it directly quoted the center's spokesperson. We are improperly coming down on the side of the accusers if we print unqualified conclusions without reliable source PROOF of the conclusions. That the emails are now out is an undeniable fact. But, how they got out has only been asserted, not proved. It's a conclusion to say "hacked". It's a conclusion to say "stolen". There is NO FOUNDATION for those conclusions to be found IN ANY reliable source other than the allegation of the center. Therefore, it's "alleged". FYI: If someone in authority comes out and says (ie; police) "we have investigated and can confirm a hack/theft", then we can drop the qualifer. Not until. By the way, if your house burns down and you say "it was arson", does that make it arson? No - "arson" is a conclusion regarding a crime. Conclusions of law are made by authorities, not by perceived victims. If the Fire Marshall says "arson" then it's arson. But even with that, if someone is charged, it's still "accused" until convicted. I know this is contentious, but it need not be so - please just be clean about the proper premise. Don't hang your hat on media-parroted allegations. Merely because you rely upon them, doesn't transform those allegations into fact. The fact regarding the hack is that a hack was reported. That's true - a report of a hack was made. What's not clearly true however, is if a hack actually occurred. Until we have better sourcing beyond raw assertion (media repeated or not), this is "alleged" and/or "reported", nothing more. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

216.153.., get a name! You're comment is extremely well thought-out and the comparison a very instructive one -- it would carry more weight with many if backed by a username. jhe_iv (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I tried taking a user name that was the same as my IP and was refused. I really don't even want a name. I want people to read my posts for what they are worth - which is no more or less than if a name was attached. Each edit should speak for itself. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world I cannot even see what the counter-argument is! The theft is alleged. The release of the info is not confirmed as theft and certainly not proven so. I think that we just tone down the language to something emotionally neutral. And that we start now. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources say "stolen", "theft" and "hack". None say "allegedly". Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Could the hacking have been committed by an insider? Yes, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld[35], Reuters[36] and PC World[37] which which quotes an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News[38], CNET[39], MSNBC[40], eWeek[41], InfoWorld[42], USA Today[43] and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[44] Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. Previously, it has been established that the sentence "Robert Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said that "80 percent of the time it's an insider." meets reliable source guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have already established that Graham is anything but reliable, due to the fact that he is a self-confessed climate skeptic. His "expert" opinion is rendered with no access to the servers that were compromised, and no access to the investigators. His tainted opinion carries no weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that his is a skeptic regarding AGW equates to his opinion being deemed worthless? Since when did you become the arbitor of what is or what is not valid? Arzel (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact he is a stated skeptic is part of the problem, but his opinion is basically worthless because he based it (and he freely admits this) on scant information (he only had access to the stolen files, but nothing else). Why are we having to cover this ground again? -- Scjessey (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This conclusion "due to the fact that he is a self-confessed climate skeptic" is quite unacceptable. There's a broad range of views in the gamut of climate skepticism, some of which are undeniably cranks, some of which (e.g. Lomborg) largely accept the IPCC findings. To dismiss someone simply because they could be labeled a skeptic is wrong. Let's not do it.--SPhilbrickT 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. His opinion should be dismissed based on the fact that his "analysis" was limited to the zip file, so most of the conclusions he drew about the workings of the UEA servers were speculative. The fact that he is also a climate change skeptic weakens his credibility further. All this he freely admits in his own blog on the subject, so I don't know why this is seen as "unacceptable" on my part. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he is also a climate change skeptic weakens his credibility further. No, it doesn't. You are imputing causality when even correlation is unlikely. It would be difficult to draw conclusions beyond broad generalities from that appellation, but nothing at all can be inferred regarding credibility. I don't know the person, so it is possible he is not, in fact credible, but that conclusion cannot be gleaned from your premise.--SPhilbrickT 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the word "hack" is that in the common vernacular, it's generally understood to be an illegal intrusion into a computer system (in the computer power-user context, it can mean an unorthodox and/or ad-hoc, make-do solution) therefore, because of the connotation of illegality, unless and until there are reports of some sort of official findings from legal authorities, then it's got to be described as "alleged". There's no reason to be confused about this. Let's take the arson example and apply it to this case: If the center spokesperson said "we suffered a fire" and we found that quote in a reliable source, we would print: "The Climate center suffered a fire". But if the spokesperson said, "we suffered a fire, it was arson", even if the reliable source prints that as "Climate center suffers arson fire", because the allegation (arson) is one which requires an official finding to be true, we must write it as "alleged". Same with this. What the spokesperson says is not determinative of what actually happened - not without more proof or an official finding. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources are specific on this matter, and we say was the reliable sources say. That's all there is to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously correct in terms of Wikipedia policy; this is how the overwhelming majority of reliable sources have reported the matter. But something tells me this isn't "all there is to it." People will keep arguing and pressing and arguing and contending and disputing and contending and pressing and asserting and proposing and arguing and insisting that this is "alleged" until they get their way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable source" is not a carte blanche which we attach to a given list of media outlets - a carte blanche which compels us to accept as accurate everything they publish. Reliability of the sources is a standards test to weed out flaky oddballs, not to blindly force us to parrot verbatim what they publish. The media may not want to concede that this is "alleged" only, but we do not need a source which phrases it that way. We only need the PRIMARY source, which the direct quote of the center spokesperson. And based on that quote alone, it's only an allegation. No source, reliable or otherwise has appeared on scene as an authoratative Primary source. It's a two part test 1) authoritative primary source and 2) printed by a reliable source. So far, prong #1 has not passed muster. This remains alleged only. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. It is a central policy of Wikipedia that everything must be verifiable, and that a preponderance of reliable sources will hold sway over a smaller number of conflicting sources (or any number of crappy sources, of course). -- Scjessey (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The BEST reliable source is one which quotes within it a direct connection to a primary source. If you take two NY Times articles (NYT being reliable) with one having direct quotes by those involved, and the other having only the conclusions of the reporter, the one with the quotes is superior as a source to the one without. Now if you take this further and you have quotes in both, but one quotes bit players and the other quotes the authorities, the article which quotes the authorities is a better source. And to take this even further, if you allege something that only an expert or authority can definatively say is so, then unless your article quotes an expert, the source is deficient - even if published by an otheriwse reliable organization. Unless an authoritative expert weighs in, the claim of "hacking" is nothing more than an allegation. Read definition #3 here 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible soulution. Simply attribute the claim to CRU without explicity stating it is a claim. This follows the reliable sources that Scjessey will accept and removes the statement of fact. Arzel (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not acceptable, because there are many reliable sources (including two I noted above) that describe the incident as a theft, or the data as stolen, that are independent of the CRU statements. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ, the "reliable" sources you refer to are all derivatives of the sole primary source in this issue which is the non-authoritative contention of the spoksperson. Somehow, you seem to think that totem-pole reporting elevates the contentions of the spokesperson to authoritative status. It's now obvious that you are being intentionally obtuse and are refusing to delliberate here. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the reference I just added to the article (which is also used elsewhere) uses only the CRU statement as a "confirmation" to their own reporting, so we now have an independent source that means we don't need to attribute the info to the CRU or stuff in "allegedly"-type language. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - Do you even know how to understand a primary source reference? Yes, the WAPO is a reliable source and yes the Climate center's spokesperson is a primary source, BUT for the assertion being made, that spokesperson is NOT authoritative. It would be no different than if the valet for Brittany Murphy said "she died, of a heart attack". WTH does a valet know about a cause of death? Nothing. WTH does a spokesperson know about the source of access? Obviously nothing. How do we know this? Because the center called in the police to investigate. It's clear that answers are still being sought and have not yet been arrived at. Until they are, it's only an allegation. Once again, please read definition #3 here 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." - like the WaPo article. WP:RS and WP:V trump your WP:TRUTH. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I am simply shocked at your reasoning. Without primary sources, there ARE NO secondary sources. All secondaries are always derivatives and ALWAYS fall in their validity IF the primary source they are derived from is faulty. It is simply faulty reasoning to accept at face value an allegation by a non-authority on the matter of criminal act. The spokesperson IS NOT an authority on what constitutes "a hack". If you can't understand this, there is no reasoning with you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how it is possible for you to reason with me when your logic is inherently faulty. On Wikipedia, we follow Wikipedia policy. Funny, eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not include re-printing unsubstantiated allegations of criminal acts - whether they are directed at actual persons or just lobbed out there as this one was. As for my logic being "faulty" I think the word you seek is "misapplied". If you claim that my conclusion is wrong because I fail to follow policy, that doesn't make my logic is wrong, it means my premise is wrong. Personally, I think you are wrong too, so in that we are equal. It's my view that you can't see the forest for the trees here and are trying legalistically escape from the inesecapable. The assertion of "hacking" is unproven and for that reason, it remains nothing more than an allegation. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting that "hacking" is appropriate. In fact, I have spoken often on why I believe the word to be inappropriate in this article's title. What is not in doubt, however, is the act of theft. It has been covered by a number of independent reliable sources, and also confirmed by the CRU. So we have both primary and secondary sources agreeing that data were stolen in an act of theft. The investigation being conducted by Norfolk police seeks to identify the thief or thieves, not whether or not a theft occurred. You've been reading too much skeptic fantasy blogs, by the sound of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The spokesperson MIGHT be an authority on whether the material was taken without permission, but he might not. We don't have enough information to know. Even so, it's still only alleged that the material was stolen. That is, unless we are going to presume anonymous guilt. I am not willing to presume guilt in criminal matters, that's why I prefer "alleged". Do you see my point on this? Does wikipedia have a policy on the presumption of guilt in open criminal investigations? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see your point. Reliable sources establish a theft took place. Guilt has yet to be placed because no offender has been identified. In otherwords, they have found the mutilated corpse but they haven't found the murderer yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Please show me ONE article that has even ONE SHRED OF PROOF that an actual hack occured or that the release of this information rises to the level of theft. Summations by reporters don't cut it. I want an article with an actual quote by an actual person in position to speak authoritatively. You won't find one because the center's spokesperson parsed his words very carefully to SOUND this way, but in fact nothing directly quoted back to him or the police rises to a standard beyond conjecture. You have simply fallen into the trap of failing to carefully read what's actually been published as quotes. And it's funny you refer to a corpse because that is what I am calling on you to do - show me, the corpse (Habeas corpus) 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have described the incident as a theft of data. That is what Wikipedia relies on. Reliable sources are Wikipedia's equivalent of a corpse. This is basic stuff. Maybe you should actually read some of Wikipedia's policies? -- Scjessey (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerous sources repeat an allegation of theft. Those sources are not necessarily reliable. At present all we know is that there was an unauthorised release of data. This may have been a 'hack', or it may have been a whistleblower, the investigation by UK and US have neither confirmed nor denied any hack. The claims of a 'hack' originate from either the CRU or Real Climate. Whilst they may be reliable sources, they also have conflicts of interest in protecting their reputations. Prior to the FOIA.zip leak, other data had been found on public FTP servers at CRU with weak or no protection. After that became known, access was removed. CRU staff had admin rights on the Real Climate servers and the released emails show lax or relaxed security with passwords being mailed around en clear. Pending any neutral or impartial sources, eg law enforcement statements regarding the incident, I would suggest wiki's neutrality policies be followed to avoid emotive references. But one thing this incident has shown is how hard it can be to avoid emotion and bias in this debate, not to mention speculation from unreliable and/or uniformed sources such suggesting state intelligence agencies were involved. The way this debate is being conducted just highlights how entrenched people's views are, and how polarised the climate debate is.81.130.208.8 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The numerous sources you refer to do nothing more than reliably repeat an allegation. An allegation, repeated by a source, reliable or otherwise, does not become a conclusion. Perhaps you should pay more attention to honing your reasoning, and stop condescending me with instructions to adopt your (mistaken) understanding of how to rely upon WP:RS. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just realized who I've been debating with all this time. I shall waste no further time with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your false allegation is slanderous and is being used as a straw-dog by you to avoid conceding anything. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that the university spokesperson is, in fact, a secondary source. Her only affiliation with the e-mail incident is that she works at the university where it happened. She is not directly involved in the incident itself. So she has no possible hidden motivation to report anything but the truth. One could argue that she, being the spokesperson, must represent the college in as positive a light as possible, but "hack" does that no better than "leak" or "whistleblowing". so why choose hack? Because, obviously, it was a hack. The police are ivestigating a hack too. How is this in cotention at all?Farsight001 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the article which quotes the spokesperson stating the word "hack"? Come back and discuss your point after you find one. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?! Have you read a single citation provided in the article? It's all over the place. It took me literally 10 seconds to click on the first citation of the article body to see mention of the spokesperson calling it a hack. Many of the following citations say the same.Farsight001 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please post the verbatim quote here and a link to the article containing it here and I will reply. I am not going to guess what you are referring to. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you are too lazy to go to where I pointed you to, you have absolutely no business editing or even commenting on this article, or contributing to wikipedia at all. It is not hard to click on the "article" tab at the top of the page, scroll to the beginning of the article body, click the very first citation used, and read the article it directs you to. that you are unwilling to do something so simple reveals to me and everyone else that you're just trying to be difficult. I'm not going to play your game. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. That means we all contribute, not that I wait on you hand and foot and provide you with everything you ask for without you having to do anything. I have enough needy patients as it is.Farsight001 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The spokesperson did not use the word "hack", it was used by the reporters in their summaries, but it has not be attributed to the spokesperson and there is no quote contending that it was. And please don't call me lazy - that's a personal attack and it doesn't belong here. Also, with less keystrokes than it took you to post your harsh retort, you could have simply cut & pasted the verbatim quote and the URL link. This tells me that you can't. I say you can't because it's not there. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In one sentence you say that the spokesperson didn't use the word hack in the article. Two sentences later you claim that the article doesn't even exist. So does it exist or doesn't it? This blatant self-contradition that simply can't be made on accident, in conjunction with the fact that anyone following my instructions can see the article for themselves, just affirms that you're not here to contribute, but rather to make trouble. Farsight001 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to post the verbatim quote and URL linking to the article containing it. You have declined. I do not claim to have perfect reading comprehension, nor do I claim to have read every news article on this subject. However, of the ones that I have read - including the majority of those linked to by this article, I do not see any which quote the spokesperson as using the word "hack". It would be simpler for you to post as I've asked you to, but this is too much trouble for you? Perhaps if you feel that talking to me is "trouble" the easy solution for you is to not talk to me. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to post the quote, yes. Rather than do your work for you I directed you to how to find it. My instructions were simple and just as effective as posting the url and quote. Perhaps instead of telling you where to find it I should have told you where you to stick it instead? Seeing as how you're refusing to check the link I pointed you to, or to even look for it as far as I can tell, both suggestions would be equally effective.Farsight001 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You are asking me to prove a negative, I am asking you to prove a positive. You say the quote exists, I say it does not. You say you know which article it's in, I say you are mistaken in that what you read is not a direct quote. The disagreemnt can be solved only by you posting the specific quote. Also, since link position is relative, anyone following this thread might not look at the same link you originally pointed to. The best, most accurate solution is for you to post the quote AND link here. If you don't, I take that as a concession by you that your assertion made above is false and/or that you are mistaken. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROLLPlease don't feed the troll. Farsight001 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FS- I think you calling me a troll is out of order here and I ask that you remove that post. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell.Farsight001 (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROLL WP:SOCK. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - I am again admonishing you to desist from making unsubstantiated (and false) "sock" accusations. You are far too experienced to make such accusations without checkuser corroboration. If you don't stop it, I am going to flag your user page with a warning about personal attacks and I will additionally post an alert about you on WP:ANI. Your conduct here so far has been deplorable. You should recuse yourself from this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. My suspicion that you are a sock puppet is based on your editing behavior and language. I see from looking back at your own talk page that other editors have come to the same conclusion as I have. I would request a checkuser, but any evidence I presented would have to delve deeply into your past history. Frankly, I can't be bothered. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - You just don't "get it" do you? This talk page is not the place for your suspicions. And it's certainly not the place for your slanderous accusations. Imperious and demeaning comments really have no place here. Please stop. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing discussion. However, it's also amazingly POV-infected. Scjessey repeatedly states that all sources claim this to be a hack/theft and that there are no or not enough (?) reliable sources to support the language of "leaked". This is clearly wrong, many MSMs that copied the statements of "stolen" verbatim from the beginning how now changed their language to "leaked" instead or in addition to*. It's not up to us to decide which is correct, but we should report both viewpoints according to reliable sources - "making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". *) CBSNews [45] Washington Post [46] Wall Street Journal [47] Troed (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just glancing at the URLs you've provided, it appears that you are citing blogs/opinion pieces. Which supports your paraphrase of Scjessey. Yet you seem to take issue with his point. If so, you need to provide evidence which supports your position, not his. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was quite sure I was linking to MSM in accordance to reliable sources to help solve the apparent dispute regarding how MSM are wording this incident. Feel free to correct me if you feel the use of "leaked" in my links is not supported by CBS News ("Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com"), Washington Post (who selected the panel Ben Lieberman is on) and Wall Street Journal (who selects op-ed pieces for publishing). According to reliable sources - "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". Thus, it's not up to Scjessey to claim that the language used in (for example) the links I gave is of no interest for Wikipedia to document. Troed (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something. I was not aware that any reliable source existed that said the data were "leaked". If such a link exists, feel free to post it on my talk page (it is getting all to easy to miss stuff on this page). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The links can be found in my post just above these ones. Since MSM uses "leaked" to describe the data we must, according to guidelines, report it as well. It's not up to us to start a discussion on whether one or another opinion on the matter is more factual or not. Or maybe I've misunderstood the (long!) discussion? Troed (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"I was quite sure I was linking to MSM in accordance to reliable sources" - the articles you linked to were blogs and opinion pieces, not news reporting. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, since we're talking about the description "leaked" in MSM. Please stop pushing your POV here. Troed (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Its completely irrelevant for me to point out that your sources contradict your argument? OK then.... Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All three of the sources provided by Troed are opinion pieces, and not mainstream media reporting at all. There is no mainstream media (and certainly no reliable source) supporting the use of the word "leak" or similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey and Guettarda - you are not, according to Wikipedia guidelines, judges of what to include from MSM or not here. I've sourced MSM as using the word leak, and I'll happily add "allegedly hacked" (Hilary Whiteman, CNN) to that. Why do you believe a Wikipedia article should reflect your personal views and not the material supported by our guidelines? Troed (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're citing opinion pieces and blogs which, per our guidelines are less than reliable for things like this. Please familiarise yourself with the policies you're citing. Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This seems to stem from the fact that you believe we're supposed to take side in what has actually happened. We're not. We're reporting what the MSM says about the subject, and I've clearly shown that they're using (contrary to what Scjessey claims at this talk page) qualifiers as "allegedly" and "leaked" in addition to stolen/theft etc. THAT is what we're supposed to report. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on original research and NPOV. Troed (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to understand them first, before you lecture others on what they mean. Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, exactly. S/he was complaining about your comment that there are no reliable sources which support her/his point. And then proceeded to quote unreliable sources. And when I pointed that out, s/he said it was irrelevant to point out that her/his "evidence" supported your point, not her/his. Which is why I am baffled. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Farsight, I'm not sure why you are refusing to post the quote. It would take far less time to post the quote than to play these games. I've seen this approach used in many online discussions. What often happens is that the other person does search for the quote, pulls together a coherent argument against the quote, only to be told, "that wasn't the right quote". You say it is the first citation. Let's examine it. The first citation is [48]. The first observation I'll make is that it does not contain the word "hack". This is game, set, match, but let's AGF and see if the citation supports the general contention. We could selectively quote and post the phrase "illegally taken from the university", as support for the contention that "illegal" is support by RS. However, note that a fuller quote says" appears to have been illegally taken from the university". The qualifying phrase is critical. The spokeperson is being careful, not definitely saying it is illegal, but appears to be illegal. On the basis of this alone, the wording should be changed, but if someone wants to do an exhaustive survey, and can show that this is an anomalous quote, we can debate changing it back.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, minor update, I see that the current version does have the proper qualifiers. My argument still stands - the onus is on those wanting to remove "alleged" to show why the first RS is not so reliable.--SPhilbrickT 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All: Given the length of the discussion above, it appears both sides have staked out their positions very clearly. I am not seeing a lot of indication that either side is working toward compromise, however. Maybe I'm simply overlooking it.

My own objection to the word (last week) was based in part on our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to strive for an impartial tone in all articles: "...Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. ...The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

The term "stolen", even if cited in reliable sources, is an accusation of a crime for which no conviction has been secured AND a characterization favored by one side in a heated dispute. It is therefore inherently partial.

The fact that some media accounts use the term "stolen" does not mean the article must necessarily use it, correct? Could those who favor the use of the term explain to those who do not why they believe it must be included, even with the concerns other editors have raised? Is there a more neutral term you would find acceptable? --DGaw (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. The claim that this was an "alleged" theft is not supported by sources. No reliable sources are claiming that the release of these emails was with the permission of either the UEA or the authors of the emails/files. They were "taken without permission". The claim that "theft" is not substantiated is the opinion of various editors here (and perhaps some bloggers). So the issue is simple - do we follow sources, or do we diverge from sources to include the opinions of various editors? I think the answer to that question is obvious. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, you are demonstrating a clear POV here. Please refrain from doing so. A whistleblower or public release by accident (which has happened before) is also "without permission" but still do not merit the wording "stolen". Additionally, there are NO (zero) reliable sources since the investigations aren't completed. The issue is being reported by the MSM as both "hacked" as well as "allegedly hacked" as well as "leaked". That, and not your POV, is what we should document here. Troed (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, a whistleblower who steals documents still steals them. For the greater good, perhaps. But it doesn't make it not theft. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since we're reporting what the MSM are saying. We're not making the decisions on whether they were stolen or not. There is clear and sourced support for use of the words "allegedly" and "leaked", as I've shown they're in use by the MSM. Troed (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating "MSM" (whatever it is you mean by that) with "reliable sources". A blog published on the website of a major news outlet is still a blog. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And the link above is not, even though your comment is irrelevant to the question. It's clear that you are pushing a single POV at this talk page - I have properly sourced all the statements I've made trying to achieve NPOV. Until the investigations into the incident have completed there exists nothing but "opinions" as to what has taken place. The important factor for Wikipedia is to report upon what the MainStream Media says about the incident up until then - with a neutral point of view. Troed (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The use of "alleged" and "supposed" is nothing more than unsourced personal commentary added by individual editors. That has no place in this or any other article. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since "alleged" can mean "declared or stated to be as described"[[49]], all actual thefts are also alleged thefts by definition (even though not all alleged thefts are actual thefts). So the use of "alleged" is actually supported by ALL of the sources that uses the phrase "thefts."

However, my sense--and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that some editors who object to the use of the word "allegedly" are concerned that the word carries with it the connotation that something is said to be so but isn't really, per the alternative meaning, "doubtful; suspect; supposed". If that is so then both sides here are concerned about the impartiality of the article. So the question remains: how do we work together to make the article more neutral? Our job, after all, is to improve the article, not win an argument.

Let's say we don't use the phrase allegedly. Even if the word "stolen" is factually correct, it's not impartial. What other wording might be used to improve the neutrality of the article, and reach consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGaw (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WTA? Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I haved indeed read WP:WTA and it specifically allows for "alleged" to be used regarding legal allegations. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed, which is why if you look just above your reply, you will see I said, "Let's say we don't use the phrase allegedly." I also wrote, "...both sides here are concerned about the impartiality of the article. So the question remains: how do we work together to make the article more neutral? Our job, after all, is to improve the article, not win an argument" and "Even if the word "stolen" is factually correct, it's not impartial. What other wording might be used to improve the neutrality of the article, and reach consensus?" --DGaw (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it not impartial to use the normal English terminology? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As for consensus - what is the correct compromise between, on one hand, "apply policy" and on the other "disregard policy because I don't like the word 'stolen'"? Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the discussion. It's not about not using the word stolen, it's about not pushing a single POV. The MSM are, pending ongoing investigations by the authorities, calling it a leak as well as the material having been allegedly stolen. That is what we should document. Troed (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, no. You're mistaken. Sorry. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Until you've managed to support your opinions I can't say you're in a position to claim others to be mistaken. You're trying to push a POV, I'm not (feel free to use the word "stolen" as much as you want - in addition to the other descriptions in use by the media). I'm sourcing my statements, you're not. "Mmm, no" doesn't really cut it. Troed (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda important that your sources support, rather than contradict, your assertions. Really, it is. Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, they do. Please refraim from posting falsehood in support of your POV in the discussion. Here is an example where CNN in a journalistic report use the phrase "allegedly hacked and leaked". Troed (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be really nice if this discussion were not so overtly pedantic. When a crime is alleged to be committed, it is always referred to as "alleged" until a crime has been proven in a court of law. There is no point in being obtuse and arguing the specifics to whether this is sometimes referred to as "Allegedly Stolen" to sometimes referred to as simply "Stolen". How can anyone here claim with good concience that a crime actually took place with 100% conviction? It has been almost two months now and there are not even any specific suspects, only vague accusations that it was "The Russians", like some cold war mentality of applying all evil ills to one entity. WP is not the place to "Prove" your case. Arzel (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, re: "How is it not impartial to use the normal English terminology?" You are saying it's not impartial to use the normal English terminology "allegedly." That's how.

The correct compromise between using a word that one group feels is biased and another word another group feels is biased is to use neither word, and find a neutral word both groups can agree on. You have not yet proposed an alternative, so I'll offer one. I propose the first sentence is both descriptive and more neutral when both words are simply omitted:

"The breach was first discovered after someone hacked the server of the RealClimate website on 17 November and uploaded a copy of the files."

"The material released comprised more than 1,000 e-mails..." etc.

The third use of stolen is appropriate, as it appears as an opinion in a quote from CRU.

"The files also included temperature reconstruction..."

If you don't like the above, please explain and/or propose an alternate formulation. Thanks! --DGaw (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Taken without permission" = "stolen", not "allegedly stolen". That's normal English. "Allegedly" suggests that there's some doubt as to whether they were taken with or without permission. No reliable source (AFAIK) has suggested that they were taked with permission. Plain English conveys the meaning accurately. Adding "alleged" adds meaning which is not supported by any sources - the idea that there is doubt as to whether the files were taken without permission. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to be relevant, since the word "allegedly" appears nowhere in the text I am proposing as a compromise. Here's where we are: you and others believe "stolen" is POV. I and others disagree. Other editors believe "allegedly" is POV. You and others disagree. There is no sign that either side is convincing the other, so it appears a compromise is required that uses neither "allegedly" nor "stolen". My proposal is above. If you have an alternate proposal that uses neither "allegedly" nor "stolen", I would be interested in hearing it. --DGaw (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) A policy question: this article has a BLP warning tag. If a specific person were accused by the police (let's say they accuse... Rex Tillerson in a conspiracy with Putin and Al Gore) of hacking the CRU and legal proceedings began to take place, wouldn't we have to call it alleged? In the US, at least, newspapers are guilty of libel if they say someone has committed a crime before they finish a trial and they are later found innocent in a court of law. Ignignot (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The BLP tag applies to accusations of misdeeds by the CRU (and other) scientists. The identity of the hackers remains unknown, so the question of making accusations against them is moot. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if we couldn't simply say that the data/emails were "released without authorization from the CRU," rather than all the inflammatory accusations. Doesn't that present this as fact? Kenckar (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the information simply escaped of its own accord. But seriously, the information "was publicly revealed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillednutria (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking to AfD'd article

Some tendentious editors seem to want to link to a POV fork currently under a deletion discussion. I'd like to formally propose that the link to the "scandal" article be deleted until such time that it survives the AfD (which is unlikely, but that's academic). I tried to delete it earlier, but my deletion was disruptively reverted (surprise, surprise). -- Scjessey (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored some material that was added by several editors and then tendentiously removed. --GoRight (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no support for your reversion to the POV "scandal" language. Please self-revert, or show me where this non-neutral language was approved by consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See [50] regarding whether this is POV or not. It is widely referred to as a scandal. --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you are joking. You need to actually look at the articles themselves and see what the context is. They may be quoting the same skeptic over and over again. You need to build a consensus for using "scandal", backed by cast-iron sourcing before you introduce such a loaded, POV term into the article. Without that consensus, you are simply editing with an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

I am being reverted without even explanation in edit summaries. How can this be happening? I am restoring a NPOV to the article. If you disagree, say so here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reverts without explanation (or ones that are not helpful at all) without discussion on the talk page has happened with increasing frequency and from "both sides". I've requested full page protection for a few days to force the editors reverting to discuss -- we'll see if anyone will listen. jhe_iv (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the avoidance of doubt, I want people with whom I seem to agree to behave well also. Despite having been at WP for quite some time I am disappointed that there seem to be "sides". All we need do is document in unemotive language (i) that which is known to have occurred with the unauthorised publication and (ii) what the released docs and e-mails say and (iii) why there is a controversy about this. I am disappointed that the unauhorised publication of the documents and the revealed behaviour of the scientists are being discussed in one article, especially one as poorly named as this one. I am also disappointed that so much effort is going into demonising the supposed "theft" when everyone, surely?, thinks that there is a public interest issue here. And there is double standards. Those who insist on calling it a theft are very careful about not tarring the allegedly misbehaving scientists. I want to do neither, I simply want that this article reveal what is known. A climate warming sceptic friend of mine says WP has taken a particular POV here, and I would like not to think this is correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was protected for one week -- with the admonition "not again..." -- I do hope we can come to some sort of consensus on the process so we don't have to keep asking for the page to be protected. jhe_iv (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"All we need do is document in unemotive language" - This made me laugh, because "Climategate scandal" is rather obviously emotive language, and Paul supported it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is referred to by the neologism "Climategate"? (reprise)

Now that it seems that what I understand to be "Climategate" and the alleged theft of the CRU docs are both to be documented in the same article I would like to raise the issue again about what Climategate is. I assert there should be common agreement

• Climategate is not the theft/revealing of the CRU docs.
• Climategate is the allegedly bad behaviour of scientists revealed therein.

For illustration I would like to compare with Watergate. Watergate was not the illegal break-in to the eponymous hotel, it was the behaviour of Nixon&Co revealed as a consequence.

OK, so this is WP and you may not agree. If you do not agree, if you do not think Climategate is the alleged unscientific conduct of certain scientists then where will that be documented at WP? Under what article title?

Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict, so added to this new section> Hi, Psb777/Paul Beardsell, I don't think you've quite got the hang of WP:NPOV, and the effect of your changes was to give undue weight to a political viewpoint which is clearly fringe in terms of established science. There are two aspects of this incident. Firstly, private documents including emails were illicitly obtained, through what is commonly described as hacking but as far as I know other techniques have not been definitively ruled out. Secondly, the material was distributed by "climate warming sceptics" to create a controversy which they choose to call "Climategate", implicitly claiming the same legitimacy as the revelation of Nixon's wrongdoing. That's blatantly a politically loaded label, and has to be shown in context to meet NPOV requirements. The "climate warming sceptics" have clearly misrepresented emails, and as this is a scientific subject the majority scientific view has to be shown as such. Similarly, pseudoscientific arguments against global warming have to be treated in accordance with policy. I made some changes before the page was locked, with the last minor edit adding a link to anthropogenic at the same time as page protection was applied.[51] Please take this revised version as a basis for discussion, taking care to comply fully with the policies I've linked above. You may find it useful to make proposals on this page to seek consensus on the best wording. Thsnks, dave souza, talk 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope we don't have to agree to disagree. But I think it is you suffering the NPOV failure. The UEA seems to think Jones has a case to answer. He is being critised not just by the lunatic fringe. There is a controversy, it is natural for us to give things names, what do you want me to call the resultant controversy arising from the content of the leaked documents? Or are you saying we should not document it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The UEA properly wants an independent investigation into the whole affair, including the hacking or otherwise leaking as well as all allegations of wrongdoing. What are they calling it? . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No! The UEA is conducting TWO investigations. One into the leak/hack/theft, and another into the behaviour of its scientists. And I don't care what they call it, they don't get to decide. There already is a widely used term, however distasteful to you, and you know what it is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither do you get to decide, you have to present reliable sources per WP:TALK and make proposals to gain consensus. "Climategate" has already been discussed, and current consensus appears to be that it's an unsuitably loaded term. I await your detailed proposals for improving the article with interest. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some e-mails have been explained and others not. Some e-mails require a most generous interpretation to restore them to acceptability. Some remain embarrassing! Just because the lunatic fringe gets involved doesn't permit us to ignore well reasoned crticisms from respectable sceptics and from mainstream climatologists also. I am sure you are not proposing a whitewash here at WP? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should cover it as reliable information becomes available, but wikipedia is not a news source and we must avoid giving undue weight to fringe views, particularly when they attack the reputation of living people. . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course BLP policy must be respected. That is not the same as saying that the e-mails, the source code, the manipulation of the peer review process, the "trick" etc etc should not be on WP. I am also not suggesting a blow by blow headline by headline updating of WP, but what is known must not be hidden here either, unless WP be considered to have a bias. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And, to answer your new question, "climategate" is a term pushed by one side to describe the controversy they have created by selectively publishing some leaked emails. The controversy includes the actions and behaviour of those promoting this political controversy as well as the alleged misdemeanours and defensive responses of those accused: we have to cover the accusers as well as the accused, using reliable sources. To the extent that this deals with science rather than politics, the standards for scientific sources apply. . .dave souza, talk 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No :-) the controversy is real. That the scientists did or not behave badly is the controversy. It might be settled the way you say but the Jones is still not back in charge. What do you want me to call this allegation of bad behaviour against certain climate scientists, if you don't want me to use the term Climategate? Like it or not, it's the biggest GW story this year. WP should reflect it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, around five emails out of fifteen years of private informal discussion can be quote mined to mischaracterise ordinary debate, including a ten year old dicussion, and in your opinion this is the biggest GW story this year? Maybe politically, thought I'd have thought the Copenhagen summit was bigger, but certainly not in science. We have an agreed heading for this article, and the political term "climategate" appears in the lead. From your comment on my talk page, I'd hope that you're happier with the current formulation. . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, second biggest. Will you concede the point now? All my life I have behaved well except for a few times, when I behaved attrociously. Same with some of these guys, maybe. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of Climategate scandal closed with a recommendation that the name of *this* article be changed. Are you in favour of that? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As for "selectively published e-mails" I know you know that there are not other e-mails which, if published, would neutralise the damage. The unpublished e-mails were mundane, uninteresting. So you create a false impression, I think. But you are wrong also to suggest that this is just a political controversy. many respected scientists do not see it as that only. There is a scientific case to answer. Are you suggesting we do not document that here? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of other specific emails neutralising "the damage", it's a question of how a tiny fraction of the emails taken out of context are being misrepresented to claim a global conspiracy among scientists. The scientific consensus on global warming seems pretty clear, and we don't have to document that here, in accordance with making necessary assumptions policy. The specific scandals or otherwise do have to be documented on the basis of reliable third party sources: that a "paper" published in the Daily Mail is currently cited is shoddy and unacceptable. . . dave souza, talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave, that's simply not correct. At this point, as well as a fairly extensive review of the emails, there have been a number of reviews of different code and data files, and — following the release of raw data that was apparently compelled by an attempt to limit the damage of the original revelation — there have now been a number of efforts to analyze what has been learned. There are significant questions of both scientific misconduct and apparent criminal behavior. Dismissing it as "a few emails out of context" is mistaken. I haven't been joining in the editing because I've been one of the people doing original reporting on this, and while I don't want to scoop myself, there is a lot mor to come out.

Clearly there is no global conspiracy; on the other hand, there does seem to have been misconduct by a small clique of roughly 20 people. That, and the controversy that folloed, deserves to be covered in a calm, NPOV, well-sourced fashion.

Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I too do NOT think there is a global conspiracy, but I do think there has been *some* bad behaviour. I do not think the position of science, the public view of science, is advanced by sweeping anything under the carpet. I cringe at the damage being done to science by this incident. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Watergate is not a close parallel to climategate. Watergate is an undisputed case of bad acts perpetrated by Nixon's foot soldiers, who were caught in the act by the local police. There was a secret informant, "deep throat", who revealed details only after the incident became known. The informant himself was not accused of illegality. Here, the supposed bad acts in the form of climate scientist actions are not clear-cut and were not publicly known before the scandal arose. They were revealed only by the disclosure of files that were supposed to be private. The terminology similarity is due to the use of the Snowclone "-gate", which has become a general purpose assertion that an incident is some kind of cover up and scandal. It seems to have been coined by an activist pundit for his own unstated purposes that have something to do with promoting his position that climate change scientists had engaged in scandalous behavior. Whatever the original purposes in calling it "...gate" the term stuck, and probably means different things to different people. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not a close parallel, but a parallel. Forget I used it if you like. But there is widespread controversy resulting from the info leaked. A different controversy than the alleged theft. What do you want me to call that controversy. Popularly it is called "Climategate". Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The hack/theft/leak of the climategate files should be named something other than 'climategate'. If the files had contained no controversial content, then there would have been no 'climategate' - it would have been reported as a mundane hack with little associated controversy. The content of those files is what has turned this from a mere hack into a career-threatening controversy which can be named 'climategate'. Cadae (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While interestingly Zeinab Badawi uses the word "climate change" the Swedish translator types "Climategate", in this Nobel Laureate panel video. They talk about climategate from 13'50" in to 25'. They're also clearly talking about the scientific behaviour and not at all the leaked CRU material. This would support the viewpoint that Climategate and the CRU leak are separate incidents to report upon. (Note: The link will expire 21st of Jan and links to a Swedish state owned broadcasting channel) Troed (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original question, it is not entirely clear what the neologism "Climategate" refers to. The term was apparently invented by news hounds on or about November 23. James Delingpole claims that he coined the term, using it first in this November 23 blog piece for the London Daily Herald,[52] an assertion backed up by his colleague, Christopher Booker.[53] If so, the term was invented by an anti-AGW advocate to cast aspersions on climate scientists for their allegedly unethical conduct in the affair. However, Andrew Bolt (who is more of a general-purpose contrarian columnist) of Australia's Herald Sun wrote this blog post[54] the day before, in which he asked his readers to submit names for the emerging scandal, himself leading off with the suggestion, "climategate". That claim too is backed up by his own colleagues.[55] If that's true then it is definitely a climate change skeptic term, but intended in a more tongue-in-cheek self-mocking fashion. Additionally, the term has appeared sporadically in reference to unrelated incidents. People just like to add "-gate" to things. Whatever the term was originally intended to mean, a more pertinent question is how pervasive the term is now and just what it means. So far, answering that here is all speculation and WP:OR by us Wikipedia editors. I tend to think that in this postmodern world most snowclones are used at some level as self-parody. But asking what's going on in people's heads when they use or hear a word is a tricky business best left to professionals. I have not yet found a good source. Observationally, we can see that major UK and American media organizations (e.g. BBC, CNN) use it as an umbrella heading to describe the entire ruckus, including the scientists' email and surrounding behavior, the hacking and publication of the emails, the advocacy of the climate change skeptics (or whatever you call them), and the public debate that ensued. But again, making that claim in the context of article content would be WP:OR. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Section "Unauthorized publication" - cherry-picked information from cite

The following text from section "Unauthorized publication" has cherry-picked an attack on scientists from its cited article and fails to mention an attack on a climate science sceptic that appears in the same cited article:

Climate scientists in Australia have reported receiving threatening e-mails including references to where they live and warnings to "be careful" about how some people might react to their scientific findings.[24]

I suggest the text should read:

Climate scientists and climate science sceptics in Australia have reported threatening e-mails including references to where they live and warnings to "be careful" about how some people might react to their scientific findings.[24]

Cadae (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lot of cherry picking going on. The resultant flavour of the article DELIBERATELY (in my view) goes on and on and on about the "stolen" docs to gloss over what the docs say. Your remedy re your example above is to fix the article when it is unfrozen. Note that the cherry picked death threats are in the summary at the top, but the discreditable behaviour of some scientists is not. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is worded in a way that implies that the sceptics have also received the threatening e-mails. Is that in the cite too? I might have missed it.

And Paul - the "discreditable behaviour of some scientists" is not in the lead because they didn't do anything wrong. Read the e-mails (not just the ones the news and the blogs keep talking about). What they did was normal - just largely misunderstood by the public. And being that the police are investigating a theft, then the docs are, by definition, stolen.Farsight001 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That they did or did not do anything wrong is the question. Many respected mainstream scientists and climatologists have expressed unease at the conduct exposed. You really are out on a limb here. Some stuff is easily explained, other bits are easily excused, but some remains, glaringly embarrassing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the question. And we already know the answer - they didn't. If many of these respected mainstream scientists and climatologists have expressed this unease, then please, by all means, provide WP:RS for it.Farsight001 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you really denying that unease has been expressed by respected mainstream scientists, including mainstream climatologists? I cannot believe you cannot know of this. Were you referring to trolls earlier? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply that I didn't know of it. (though I don't - not from any respected scientist in a relevant field at least) I was just pointing out we need something that qualifies as WP:RS to include such information in the article first.Farsight001 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FS- Do you even know the difference between suspected and established? The police are investigating a suspected theft. And why is it suspected? Because the center has made allegation(s) that emails with taken without proper authority. Police investigators ARE NOT the arbiters of the truth of allegations. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the investigative process. PS: Did you ever ask yourself what to call this if the police determine that no authorities were violated by the acccess / dissemination of the emails? In other words, when the police are finished investigating, then we can wait and hear what they have to say. That's why investigations are performed - to acquire a batch of information with more veracity to it than the initial accusation/allegation. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROLLplease don't feed the troll.Farsight001 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the UEA is not sure there was a theft. The ref cited in the article quotes the UEA as saying there "appears" to have been a theft. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Farsight - you have missed the threat to the sceptic - read the cited article to the end. If there was no "discreditable behaviour of some scientists" then why on earth did Jones resign ? Cadae (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...don't know how I missed that. However, it's still a little misleading. The article says one skeptic reports that one e-mail contained a threat to punch him in the face, among other e-mails with other threats. I must conclude that those other e-mails would be less threatening, as there is no reason not to produce the most threatening e-mail. More threatening=more sympathy for him and more hits on the article for the news source. The suggested change above, however, implies that even the skeptic received e-mails containing his address and warnings to be careful. That, however, is not implied by the article.Farsight001 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - my proposed changed wording could be a bit misleading - I'll make the correction allowing for your point when the page is unlocked. Cadae (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The e-mails are just a distraction, it is the code which is a scandal, just looking at the "fudge factor" and "apply a very artifical decline" in the comments prove beyond doubt that these guys were faking their results. Look to the code not the mails. mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Orginal research; there are no reliable sources saying that. What's more, the evidence is very flaky. The allegedly dodgy code is not even active, its use is commented out. There is also no evidence that this code was used in the preparation of any scientific publications. Why on earth has the section on code re-appeared in the article, I thought it was discussed recently and the conclusion was that there are still no reliable sources to cite? Simonmar (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While I fully agree that it's not our place to start talking about what scandal is which - it would correctly be original research - you're wrong in that the code in question was commented out. The same source file was available in several revisions in the leaked material, and in at least one later revision it was not commented out. It, of course, means nothing - but facts are facts even in the talk page ;) see the update at the end Troed (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. As you say, it makes little difference though. Simonmar (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. And as soon as some reliable analyses of the code are published, we'll get to that. There's no rush, there's no deadline for Wikipedia articles. If you're right, we'll see lots of analyses published in the literature over the next year. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 unreliable source

In this section, the paragraph "Stephen McIntyre claims in this paper that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted in discarding the tree ring data starting from 1961, because the proxy data for this years demonstrated a sharp decrease of temperatures, contrary to the real data - casting therefore doubt on reliability of all the tree ring data reconstruction." is sourced to the Daily Mail, a tabloid which is not a scientific journal, or even a remotely reliable source for anything but its own right wing views. The paragraph is unclear, and doesn't note McIntyre's "skeptical" background. Propose deletetion of this paragraph. A clearer explanation can be put together from reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

dave, as you point out, what is at fault here is that the wrong source is quoted. The same conclusion can be drawn from other more reliable sources. But what needs fixing is the source. If you delete the para maybe it will never come back. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, skepticism is NOT anti-science! Any good scientist is a skeptic. McIntyre is not on the lunatic fringe. OK, he is not mainstream either, but several highly respected scientists have said his arguments need addressing. And he has usefully found some errors. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the discussion we had earlier - "skeptic" in this case isn't a descriptive statement, it's a brand name which has nothing to do with skepticism. And yes, there are reliable sources to support this. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph seems neutral and well sourced. Your opinions on the source are your own POV, as well as your views on scientific scepticism. Troed (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The daily mail is the second biggest selling paper in the united kingdom. It does not matter if you think their views are left right up or down, as a part of the msm they are a reliable source. mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that the Daily Mail is reliable for anything in this article. We should be using sources of the quality of AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN and Newsweek. Moreover, should minimise use of other news sources that are normally fine - by that I mean all the UK broadsheets, the NYT and the WSJ. This may seem overly rigorous, but it seems to me that taking the article back to what is covered in the best sources will be the only way to keep it encyclopedic and neutral. Post on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS advises, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." The Daily Mail, while popular, is certainly not in the high-quality end of the market. — Matt Crypto 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Particulary" still does not mean that all other forms of MSM are banned. Until another source of "higher quality" can replace the current quote there's no reason to remove the one we have. The suggestion by dave souza is clearly POV. Troed (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is notorious for its poor science reporting. For example, the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. Simonmar (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but anyone looking at your list will assume that only news outlets with a left wing bias can be used as sources in this article, this article should be treated no different to any other and the usual sources are all equally valid. --mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reality has a well known liberal bias Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean my list? If you see that as a list of news outlets with a left wing bias, then, well what else is there to be said? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what he means is that the BBC by admission of Jeremy Paxman(top presenter of their top news programm(newsnight)) is hardly impartial. Jeremy Paxman; "I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jan/31/broadcasting.digitalmedia "Paxman accuses BBC of hypocrisy over environment"

--MichaelSirks (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 11#Images show how they used a "trick" to "hide the decline." (see my comment) says it all. Do we really want to be using a source which continued to spread nonsense arising from misunderstanding a 3 day old blogger post (which other people had recognised was probably nonsense early on in the comments on that same blog) and which had been explained by said blogger in the very next post the day after i.e. 2 days before they wrote the story? Surely any sensible definition of a reliable source at a minimum requires they actually bother to read subsequent blog posts to make sure they aren't missing something that was later addressed when screaming conspiracy based on a single sentence? Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording can be improved, but this source isn't being used for anything scientific. It's being used to source that McIntyre said such a thing. Does anyone seriously doubt that McIntyre is making these claims? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's even worse. I shudder at using the Daily Mail for anything which hinges on BLP Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That, and per the discussion you linked to before, McIntyre isn't an expert on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Except we have a primary source[56] which seems to corroborate the secondary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't whether McIntyre said this, the issue is whether McIntyre's contribution is appropriate. If a reliable source reports on his opinion, we need to consider it. If a somewhat unreliable source (the Daily Mail on science) reports on McIntyre's blog post, it does nothing to validate the importance to McIntyre. It's like a blogger quoting a blogger - the second source doesn't make the primary source more reliable. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, sorry - you're saying that McIntyre citing an article quoting McIntyre attests to McIntyre's reliability as a source? Um, no... Guettarda (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a blogger quoting a blogger. That's just plain nonsense and more POV-pushing to keep content one doesn't like out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, using an unreliable source to validate an unreliable source is like using a blogger quoting a blogger. And seriously - lay off the insults and the assumptions of bad faith. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's pure nonsense. Per WP:SPS, a self-published source is reliable for the viewpoints of it's author. The fact that the primary source seems to corroborate the secondary source proves that it's reliable for this particular claim. Sorry, we'll need another excuse to keep this out of the article, which is locked so the point is moot anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<ri> The current wording "Stephen McIntyre claims in this paper" implies a scientific paper, which would be expected of a scientist. What it should say is "Stephen McIntyre claims in this tabloid newspaper" and it should make clear McIntyre's part in the controversy if it's being used to show what he's saying. As phrased, it gives an unreliable source for a scientific claim, indeed a source famed for pseudoscience. If McIntyre is claiming scientific credence, why isn't he publishing in journals? . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably becuase the peer review process has been compromised leading to this whole incident, but he has been published nevertheless. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's not about whether this reliably reflects McIntyre's opinion. The question is why we should care about McIntyre's opinion. As has been discussed previously, we don't care about McIntyre's opinion simply because it's his opinion. He isn't a notable source on the matter, so his blog fails SPS on that level. Now if a reliable source quoted his blog, then we'd have a secondary source that attests to the importance of McIntyre's opinion. And then it would be a matter of editorial decision whether we would want to include it or not. However, it seems to be fairly well established that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on science reporting. So the fact that an unreliable source cited McIntyre's blog piece does little to add to its credibility. It's still a self-published opinion by a non-expert. And being cited by the Daily Mail does not add enough gravitas to the post to make it a worthwhile source. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntrye is probably the most well known scientist (he has been published) skeptic regarding AGW the main reason why this is a global incident. The Daily Mail is a reliable source for the opinion of McIntrye. I would ask why are people so intent in trying to censor McIntrye and in general any information relating to this incident? Arzel (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. McIntyre is not a scientist, and has only a single publication in the peer reviewed literature that I'm aware of. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC) This misconception has already been covered - check the archives. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you have no idea what a scientist is, there is no specific number of publications required to be suddenly declared a scientist. That other editors are also confused does change this fact either. Now you may not like his POV or his research, but that is an entirely different subject. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What research? He seems to be noted for criticising statistics in the press rather than publishing research. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<ri> What I'm puzzled about is why we're citing the geologist turned amateur critic of climatology for the astonishing revelation that the long known divergence problem cast "doubt on reliability of all the tree ring data reconstruction" when exactly that doubt, and how to deal with it, was discussed in detail in this paper (pdf) – note, that's a scientific paper, not a tabloid. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually an advanced degree in a science, coupled with active research and a record of publication is required to be considered a "scientist", although the term is often applied to people with PhDs who are in primarily teaching positions. McIntyre lacks an advanced degree in science, and has only a single peer-reviewed publication. That makes him about as much a scientist as does an undergrad who has coauthored a pub based on research done under the supervision of one of their professors. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, an advanced degree is not required. Normally, scientists do have an advanced degree, but it is not a requirement. It is obvious by your disdain regarding his "Research" work that your bias is strongly linked to your attitude towards this issue. You personal feelings are irrelevant towards his scientific research regardless of how much you personally dislike him. Arzel (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is, again, your POV and completely irrelevant to what we're doing here. McIntyre is a published scientist in the relevant area, named in the leaked correspondence this article is about and regularly interviewed by the mainstream media on the subject. All three items above qualify the paragraph in question on their own. It's strange you're arguing against it if you're trying to uphold NPOV (and the same of course goes for dave souza). Troed (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. It's standard usage and the long-standing norm on the project. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to support your claims. It's trivial to find many other Wikipedia articles where the items I supplied above are enough for inclusion, and you know that as well as I do. Troed (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my job to do your research for you. If you refuse to WP:AGF and take more experienced editors at their word, the onus is on you to raise it on an appropriate noticeboard or do your own research. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude is making it all but impossible to assume good faith when you present a personal attack against McIntrye as you did regarding his research work. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack against McIntyre? What the heck are you talking about? I made no comment on McIntyre, I was simply correcting your misunderstanding. If correcting the factual error in your statement makes it "all but impossible to assume good faith", that's a problem you'll have to sort out on your own. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, you disqualified yourself from WP:AGF by on more than one occasion at this talk page posting falsehoods knowingly. If you want to be taken in good faith I'd suggest using your experience to reach NPOV, something that seems to be very hard for some to do here. We have WP:RS referring to the incident as "allegedly stolen" and "leaked", but in spite of me having sourced that at several places you continued to claim further down that this is not the case. Feel free to start explaining your actions and sourcing your statements instead of pushing your own POV. Troed (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you're funny. Nope, you aren't allowed to make up your own exceptions to policy. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate as to what you are referring to. You seem to rather deal in personal attacks than in helpful editing, which I find curious, especially since your posts show a very one-sided POV including posting complete fabrications. Troed (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre is clearly not a scientist by either training or occupation. He is a notable writer on climate issues though so his reaction to the events described here could be relevant. But with the important proviso that it should not be sourced to the Daily Mail. If his comments have not been taken up elsewhere in the news media then they are not notable, but if he were, say, to be interviewed at length in The Financial Times then that should be considered for inclusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre interviewed at length by Fox News (linking to part 2 of the program, the interview continues in other parts). McIntyre interviewed by CNN (link to part 1 of 2). Both of these links are relevant to this article and the paragraph in question. It's also not up to us to judge his "scientism" - he's factually a published author on the subject of statistics in climate science. Troed (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC requested

I propose a request for comment, to seek input from the wider wikipedia community regarding the following question:

What is wikipedia policy regarding the description of unproven allegations of criminal activity?

I contend that "hack" and "stolen" are criminal activity and therefore should be prefaced as "alleged" until such time as a reliable source reference shows these points to be proved true. As it stands right now, we have a group of editors who seems to be willing to accept that we MUST deny the use of the word "alleged" because the mass-media is not using it. It's all well and good that the mass-media is willing to publish "news" that gets ahead of the official investigation, but I advance the question: What is Wikipedia policy on open allegations of criminal acts? Is the absence of the word "alleged" from news reports sufficient to excuse us from noticing that NONE of the reliable sources have contended that the investigation is complete or that the allegations have been proved? The media seems content to advance the original storyline without deviation, but they are clearly leaping to conclusions. I am pretty sure WP:RS does not force us to also leap to conclusions. We can read the sources and since none of the sources have reported the allegations proved, it's not WP:OR to use the word "alleged". Not so far as I see anyway. That said, I think we need to limit the debate to a single question: What is wikipedia policy on how to describe unproven criminal allegations? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You will need to phrase the question much more clearly if you want to get a lot of useful outside input from an RfC. Having said that, I do think that an RfC could be a good thing. I hope that those of us who have already edited the page will refrain from flooding the RfC and let other views come in. There is nothing more off-putting than trying to contribute to an RfC that is dominated by an existing row. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I leave the precise wording to be formulated jointly, hence I offered in several nuanced flavors. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I support your proposal. --DGaw (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, an RFC may be overkill. The lede does have "alleged"; we now need to copy edit the main text to match the lede (if someone still thinks that the word alleged is no longer needed, they can make their own case, but the citations support the qualification.)--SPhilbrickT 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet others disagree, and I see no sign of consensus emerging from the debate. It seems to me that an RfC provides a possible mechanism for resolution. Meanwhile, those who don't believe an RfC is necessary are under no pressure to participate. --DGaw (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see little merit to this proposal. Perhaps if there was a specific someone or a group of someones who were suspected of committing a crime, then yes, we would have to take steps to be careful of being accusatory of criminal wrongdoing. Since that isn't the case here, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc - it matters from the standpoint of editorial clarity. Either the allegations are just that - allegations or they are facts. And in either case, we have to decide how to present them. The sources used so far do nothing more than parrot the several piecemeal assertions. If it's a fact that these were stolen, then there has to be an informational basis to support the fact and we need to cite that information basis. So far, all the citations selected do nothing more than lead back to assertions - unsubstantiated ones. And unsubstantiated assertions are by definition allegations, not facts. Substantiated facts do not need qualifiers, but unsubstantiated allegations do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

False premise is the start of dispute

This statement "Reliable sources establish a theft took place" made by SCjessey (above) is the sort of false premise which is roadblocking us here. The "reliable sources" we have pointed to are all news sources and news sources DO NOT "establish" legal conclusions, they only report them. A finding of fault in a legal dispute is not adjudicated by the media, this is axiomatic. The only actual facts we have so far are:

1. The center's spokesperson used carefully parsed words to announce this issue. The quoted words attributed to that spokesperson DO NOT include the word "hack" or the word "stolen" - See the link to the BBC article here.
2. The various police/officials began investigations
3. Since this story broke, much of the media have been using the terms "hack" and "stolen", without the qualifier of "alleged".

It's clear that the media has been putting on a full-court press to disregard the unproven nature of their own characterizations of the spokesperson's comments. This is why we need to have the RfC I've suggested. We must remove the impediment that SCJ and others are clinging to. Do the news reports "establish" that a theft took place? Or does the news REPORT that officals have established such a thing? If the news reports that a cow jumped over the moon - with no proof, do we print that without any qualifiers too? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What reliable sources suggest that the emails were taken with the permission of either their authors or the UEA? Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your error of logic is that you equate "taken without permission" with "stolen". The terms are not interchangeable. Clearly the center is able to state authoritatively that the release lacked permission -if they were certain of how it occured - which they have not claimed to be. But even so, when the media itself converts that to "stolen", then the media impedes the story and attempts to substitute its POV for the facts. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What center do you refer to? The nearest thing to a "centre" would appear to be the CRU, and their update 2 includes a statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research, that "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. 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." You were saying? . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement you refer to was from the professor who made it only. It's his personal characterization of events and is not an official statement from the CRU - please read the page for yourself and see. On the same page, the CRU itself asserts only "Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained...". The inability of people to distinguish what has actually been said by whom astounds me. And even with that, CRU saying "illegally obtained" DOES NOT mean the emails were stolen, nor does it mean they are even correct when the say "illegally". Rather, the CRU is alleging illegalities. Can't you understand what is happenening here? The CRU asserts this or that and the media runs with it, embellishes the language and some here want to reprint those embellishments verbatim. The current phrasing of "unauthorised release of documents, allegedly obtained by hacking of a server" gives more than enough weight to the position of the CRU speakers, without adopting their allegations as proved. This is the best way until the investigations conclude. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What source do you have that claims that the files were legally obtained? How else might the files be illegally obtained without their being stolen? Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it's the same. It is in English, anyway. Which is the language we're using here. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, of course. I highly recommend you to brush up your understanding of English words theft and larceny to see that, at least in plain English, not everything taken without permission is stolen. For example, things of no value cannot be stolen - thus a guy rummaging through your trash is not stealing from you, permission or not. Dimawik (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In Great Britain, in particular, the term "theft" does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property. :-) Dimawik (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• [personal attacks removed by Guettarda (talk)] Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took offense at these (imo) rather innocouos remarks: [Repost of personal attacks removed by Guettarda (talk)].

I notice you didn't respond to the substance of my remarks, which were: it's an alleged theft, until trial & conviction. Innocent til proven guilty, y'know. Do you agree? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reposting links to personal attacks is equally unacceptable. Policy does not permit you to call other editors stupid. That's all. Try to follow our policy. It isn't that hard. Guettarda (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no. It's not an alleged theft until the trial is over. It's a theft from the start. The defendant in the trial is the alleged thief until the trial is over. It's not the same thing. When police say they're investigating a murder, it means a murder has taken place and they're just trying to figure out who did it. Theft is theft. There need be no suspect, conviction, or even trial for theft to have occurred. Muggers steal money on a daily basis and never get caught. We still call it theft.Farsight001 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FS - You are kidding right? You are just repeating yourself and ignoring all reason to the contrary. We can all benefit from a RfC. but just in case it helps, please read definition #3 here "Allegation: A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations." You do understand that the assertions of the CRU associated staff, in absence of supporting evidence, are not "proof", right? And you do understand that there are certainly sometimes when police investigate for murder, but ultimately find that what happened was not murder, right? You need to step back and look at this with a fresh set of eyes. There is no proof to the assertion of theft. The investigiation itself, is not proof, An assertion without proof is an allegation. Do you understand this? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(reply to FS001) I hope we can all agree that the hacking(?) incident was considerably less serious than murder <G>. It is discouraging that we can't come to consensus regarding such simple things as this dispute, and even the name of the article -- which remains just awful, and makes Wikipedia a laughing-stock. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

What happened to the " ... neutrality is disputed ... " tag? I wasn't aware that they expire, and I am unaware that the neutrality of the article was no longer contested. Nightmote (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was removed by Viriditas here, but I do not see any indication is was discussed. Can someone point me to the discussion? If not, we should request it be replaced, and Viriditas admonished.--SPhilbrickT 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur we should request it be replaced; the ongoing discussion and periodic edit warring serve as ample evidence that the neutrality of the article is disputed. --DGaw (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the POV tag seems premature, and I move for it to be re-instated at first reasonable opportunity. Perhaps Viriditas did it by accident. That's the only good faith explanation I can come up with. After reading the comment on your link, I have absolutely no idea what good faith explanation could be tendered. Nightmote (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the grounds for including the tag? Are there serious, ongoing disagreements over NPOV? Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You seriously wonder whether the neutrality of this article is questioned by a significant minority of editors? Nightmote (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. But I'm questioning whether there are serious questions. You know, ones that don't require us to cite blogs or insert OR. Can you point to any serious, unresolved questions? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How many archive pages are there, now, for this article? How many reverts have there been? How many edit wars? How many protections? How many names have been proposed for this article by editors on both sides of the issue? Is the data leak/theft/hack the central point, or are the ramifictions the most important point? Was this the result of a whistleblower or carefully-scheduled disruption of Copenhagen? TS has started an outline for a completely new article, and that stupid paragraph on Rielke (sp - which I put in, to my chagrin) has been reverted a dozen times by folks who can't decide if Rielke hates the IPCC, *hates* the IPCC, or hates the IPCC. Half of the editors maintain that this was nothing more than a university data theft with no fallout. The other half of the editors believe that this is a Watergate-style exposure of scientific malfeasance with earth-shaking consequences. There has been little or no consensus on *anything* in this article, which is why it keeps getting longer and longer instead of better and better. So, yes, I believe that there is a POV issue, here, and that until we can agree to prune this rose bush there will be no flowers. Nightmote (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have outlined content disputes, you have outlined disagreements over article format. But I'm looking for unresolved NPOV issues. Guettarda (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, editors on this article have been routinely seeking "consensus" by stating that other points of view are "fringe", don't exist, or are biased. Some people believe that the scientists involved behaved indefensibly. Others disagree. And the article is being repeatedly disruptively edited to reflect these positions. Your activities relating to this article are archived, and there can be no doubt that you are aware that questions of neutrality exist, and go well beyond "formatting". Nightmote (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If the POV tag hasn't been replaced withing 24 hours, I will request that an editor administrator review the situation and replace the tag. Nightmote (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many serious WP:NPOV issues with the article. There's the WP:UNDUE weight given to the death threats in the lede for starters. I can't believe anyone's even asking if there are WP:NPOV with this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Before adding the tag, would you mind detailing precisely your concerns? The tag has been there for a long time, but there hasn't been any recent discussion to establish what the issues are and how they could be resolved. Simonmar (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. We are unable to agree on a title. We are unable to agree on what to call the method by which the data were removed from the servers. We are unable to agree on the consequences of the dissemination of the data. Finally, we are unable to agree on which experts opinions are relevent. Have I missed anything? As for how they can be resolved, that is another issue altogether, and far thornier. But it has nothing to do with whether or not POV questions exist. I believe that they do, and I think that Viriditas should have - in good faith - disussed the tag removal. Nightmote (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Much as I dislike NPOV tags on articles (too much like a badge of shame), there is little doubt that disagreements exists on both "sides" about the neutrality of a number of aspects of the article. At this point, I would endorse the restoration of the tag with the proviso that we seek its removal as soon as possible, by working out our differences amicably. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the NPOV tag belongs on this article, for the reasons Nightmote so colorfully outlined above. As for a badge of shame, the shame is on us for not being able to work through our differences collegiality, without attempting to defend or advance our personal agendas. --DGaw (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some reasons why the article might not be viewed as neutral:

1. Undue emphasis. The opening paragraph, presumably where the most important aspects of the article are summarized, includes a reference to personal information being compromised. While compromise of personal information should not be trivialized, in the context of a controversy with literally trillions of dollars at stake, to mention this item in the lede sounds like emphasis on the wrong aspects of the incident, in an attempt to create sympathy for the alleged victims.
2. Undue emphasis. Similarly, the opening paragraph mentions death threats. This inclusion has been the subject of intense debate. Not all agree that the very unspecific charges deserve inclusion at all, but many of those supporting inclusion feel this aspect deserves minor coverage in the main article, not the prominence of a mention in the lede. After prior discussion, the aspect was removed form the lede, but it has crept back in again. One more example of an attempt to create sympathy for the alleged victim, over the goal of presenting the most important aspects.
3. Misleading conclusion. The second paragraph properly summarizes some of the charges arising from the material, but the construction of the paragraph can be summarized as: "charges made, charges refuted." In fact, it is far to early to leave readers with the impression that this was merely a smear campaign intended to sabotage a summit. Perhaps it was, but until investigations are concluded, a neutral POV would leave readers with a sense that the issues are open, not resolved.
4. Questionable word choice. The debate over whether "hack" and "stolen" can be used in an unqualified way has been intense. While those in favor of the unqualified term can point to RS without the qualifier, those who feel that crimes should be proven before assumed to have occurred can also point to more circumspect RS. I don't know whether WP has definitely settled how to address word choice when RS disagree, but many readers feel that the choice most sympathetic to CRU seems to win the day in most cases. It is hard to understand how a qualifier such as alleged, when not a single person has been arrested, or even charged, is clearly the only wording option. Some feel it would be more neutral to take more care, and state as fact those things which are known to be fact, not those things which may turn out to be fact.
5. Balance. The section on Climatologists includes many examples which translate to "nothing to see here. move along", while containing almost no examples of critical comment. In 13 paragraphs, I find only three including criticisms of the actions of the scientists. I do not for a second argue the mix has to automatically be 50/50, but has someone established that the reaction is so overwhelmingly critical of the release?

There's more, but this is a start. I'll emphasize that one should be careful about imputing my position to any of the above comments, I've attempted to summarize what I think those concerned might believe. To some extent, it does reflect my personal view, for example, I do not feel that the name of the article should be Climategate, and some who do might add that to the list.--SPhilbrickT 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that certainly presents one "side" of the reason why it needs a neutral tag, rather pointlessly if I may say so. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, why don't you add a list that presents the other side? It might be helpful having the list of issues to be resolved together. --DGaw (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to represent the story as reported in mainstream media (MSM). While it may be that the media has failed to recognize the significance of the case, it is not the role of this article to correct that. Is there any reason to believe that this article is reporting the case other than how it has been presented in MSM? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces. With all due respect, did you read the list? Not a single item attempts to make the case that the media are getting it wrong and we should get it right. Every one of my points can be substantiated with media references.--SPhilbrickT 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these points have been made, but not how they rise to the point of violating of our NPOV policy?

1. Personal information compromised

   there's actually a dispute over this that has reached a stalemate? In the most recent mention of this, it is unchallenged. It's also mentioned in a long complaint by an anon, but it isn't discussed by anyone else. I don't see how this deserves {{NPOV}}

2. Death threats in the lead

   This is a discussion related to an interpretation of the MOS, not of NPOV.

3. Misleading conclusion.

   Where was this issue raised? Where did we deadlock on how to resolve it?

4. Questionable word choice

   No matter how you choose to slice this, it's not NPOV issue. To me it boils down to "should we follow sources, or replace them with the opinion of certain editors?" At a most charitable reading, it boils down to "should we ignore WT:WTA?" A disagreement as to whether we should follow or ignore guidelines is not an NPOV dispute, no matter how far away from consensus it may be.

5. Balance

   Again, where was this discussion, and how did it fail to resolve it? I don't recall a deadlock over this.

Seriously, I see disputes, but not nothing over NPOV that rises to the point of requiring that template. Guettarda (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I contest your summarization. On item 4, it is not a case of following sources or following certain editors. Some sources use the word "stolen" without qualification, but many others point out it isn't yet clear the documents were stolen and still others use caveated language. So we as editors should have a discussion about how best to represent the consensus of the RS. In the absence of a consensus that the unqualified word "stolen" is absolutely correct, a fair person would agree that taking the cautious approach is a better choice. That isn't the case here. Certain editors who want the article to convey that illegality has certainly happened have prevailed. That doesn't sound neutral to me. Does it to you?--SPhilbrickT 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT #2, it is clearly a matter of WP:WEIGHT, which is very much a part of NPOV. Where is the documentation that the death threats have been mentioned in so many articles that it deserves mention in the lede. There's really only a dozen or so points in the lede; I seriously doubt that a formal analysis of the RS coverage would place the death threats in the top ten or so issues.--SPhilbrickT 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of those seem fairly straightforward to address. For instance, the third point could be addressed by simply concatenating two paragraphs, turning "charges made, charges refuted" into "charges made, charges refuted, investigations ongoing". Personally I don't think it's necessary - the reader ought to be able to avoid forming a conclusion until the end of the lede - but it wouldn't hurt much. The final point about balance in the climatologists reactions seems straightforward too: just find some critical climatologists and quote them. If the section got too long, then some of the less notable quotes would have to be cut, of course (perhaps it's too long already).

I agree with Guettarda above that there doesn't seem to be much actual NPOV disagreement. Simonmar (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that all points can be addressed, including the possibility that in some cases, the evidence will show that no change is needed. However, the point of the template is to show that we haven't yet achieved agreement that the article is neutral. Accordingly, the tag should be there until we reach such agreement (which is obviously not the same as saying we have resolved every open issue, that will take longer.)--SPhilbrickT 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The point of {{NPOV}} is for NPOV disputes that cannot be resolved. I don't see anything that merits this. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is obviously not true, or the template wouldn't say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". It most obviously applies to situations where a dispute exists, but has not yet been resolved. As in this case.--SPhilbrickT 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are confusing {{NPOV}} with the {{Disputed}} tag. The burden is on the person adding the tag, and there is currently no reason to have a NPOV tag. Based on the discussion above, most disputed aspects of this article can be easily solved. Is there a reason, Sphilbrick, you are not working towards resolution of these issues? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Is there a reason, Sphilbrick, why you have not stopped beating your wife?" Gah. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you removed the NPOV tag from a hotly-debated article without seeking consensus or demonstrating that the neutrality issues were resolved. To suggest that Sphilbrick is not working to resolve consensus and resolution is uncalled for, as there was no issue until you acted unilaterally. In the absence of a formal statement to the contrary, how about we get rid of the NPOV tag when there have been no major edits for one week? Nightmote (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Viriditas, "There is currently no reason to have a NPOV tag". Are you saying that you haven't read this article's talk page, not to mention the multiple complaints about the lack of WP:NPOV that have been levied by numerous editors in this archive? If not, I suggest that you go through this page's talk page and archives and familiarize yourself with the issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I've read this discussion and see no reason for a NPOV tag. Is there a reason you aren't working here to resolve the disputes? It looks like you are intentionally promoting and creating disputes to promote your POV. This can be best described as dispute whoring. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you even being serious? I've been working to resolve the dispute from day one. Because this is not a topic I don't particularly care about, your personal attack of intentionally creating disputes to promote a POV falls flat on its face. My only POV is in making sure that WP:NPOV is followed. Do you have a problem with WP:NPOV? If so, I suggest that you try to get the editors of WP:NPOV to change the policy. Please let us know how it goes. Until you convince the WP:NPOV editors to change policy, we should follow this policy regarding this article, don't you agree? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been working to resolve the dispute? Really? That explains why there are multiple instances of the same, exact discussion in the archives and on this talk page. When a particular issues is resolved, it is immediately raised again, and again, and again, until you get the answer you desire. That's not a resolution. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been working on resolving the dispute. The reason why the same issues keep being brought up is because they remain unresolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so... you have read the discussion and see no reason for a NPOV tag. Unfortunately, other people have read the discussion and believe there is a reason. If you can convince those people to agree with you--or, better, work with them to address their concerns over the article's neutrality--a consensus can be reached, and the NPOV tag can be removed. --DGaw (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the burden is on the person adding the tag. Your contribution history gives you away. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, at several places throughout this talk page statements are made by several editors (administrators) to the effect of there being no WP:RS referring to the incident as anything but a "hack" and that the material was "stolen". This is factually incorrect, which I've shown by providing the necessary sources. In spite of those sources having been added to the discussion, some editors/administrators continue to claim that they do not exist (in this sub-thread, for example). That is the (current) problem. Troed (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's address it, again. This has been discussed many times, so let's get a survey of the discussion results for this particular "dispute". Looking at just the FAQ, there is a related entry for Q5:

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.

Troed, what's wrong with this FAQ entry? Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. An investigation into the incident is not a conclusion. Until the investigation has something to report it's all allegations, unproven. Thus, even the name of the article is questionable - we do not know, and there are no WP:RS who do either, that this is indeed a "hack". Additionally, WP:RS do refer to the incident in several ways (which is the reason I'm here, I saw editors claiming otherwise in error) - "allegedly hacked" and "leaked". We should strive for WP:NPOV and we do that by refering to what the MSM is saying up until we indeed have WP:RS resolution on the issue. That can, at the earliest, happen when the criminal investigation has reported - or a non-disputed source says otherwise (which for example could be if a whistleblower steps forward). HOWEVER, claiming (as some editors have done) that the MSM isn't at all refering to the incident as anything else but a "hack" or that there's been a "theft" is clearly in error, and continuing to do so after sources have been provided indicates POV. Troed (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

←Jeez. This talk page is like the United Nations or something. Obviously there are various editors who think there are neutrality issues, and that's enough to decide whether or not the article should be tagged. Why do we need yet another gigantic thread on the matter? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and it seems this has been resolved by an administrator already. The tag has been readded. Whether Viriditas acting knowingly out of consensus in this matter or not I leave to others to debate. I still feel there are serious problems with POV statements at the talk page, however somewhat less so at the current article. Troed (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No one should be happy that the neutrality of this article is questioned. It behoves us to fix the article. It would not be becoming of someone to be happy with the article being the way it is because it reflects their POV, so surely that is not the case!  :-) [Hey, isn't the United Nations a good idea?] Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I hate seeing that tag (I refer to it as the "badge of shame"). I created a todo list a week or so ago (see top of this page) that mentioned the need to resolve issues and work toward removal of the tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

Whose idea was it to put that warning on this article? How can we possibly harm Mr. Incident here?Jarhed (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that warning. The article contains allegation of wrong-doing by a number of real, live people, and accordingly, the BLP concerns are valid.--SPhilbrickT 23:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, but could you please point me to where in the reference it says that BLP rules apply to non-biography articles?Jarhed (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:BLP says, "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.". This article has information about living persons.--SPhilbrickT 23:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being so accomodating. Here is what I don't understand. The allegations about Connolley in the Solomon article have been picked up by hundreds of sources. A discussion about the allegations does *not* belong on Connolley's bio, but it *does* belong here. I have read the archived discussion, a distillation of which seems at least reasonable, and I don't understand the rationale for not including such a description in this article. I think that Wiki users should be able to expect to find here a reasonably NPOV article on just about any controversial issue, not silence.Jarhed (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What does Connolley have to do with this article? Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Connolley emails are in the East Anglican reveal.Jarhed (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What do allegations about Connolley have to do with this article, specifically? Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the same question again, and I already said I don't understand what you mean. Try asking it differently and I will try to answer you. Frankly, your repeated question is pointed and confrontational. I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith.Jarhed (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever. It's merely that WMC is the latest hate figure for the far-right, irrespective of anything he's actually done. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What has "far right" (which is your POV) do to with anything? Connolley is named in the emails this article is about, especially in reference to the work he's doing on Wikipedia. Now besides the actual emails themselves there are no good WP:RS as of yet and thus any inclusion would have to be carefully worded and sourced, but your comment above is clearly out of line. Troed (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be attacking me personally, which is pretty strange since it is a policy violation and I haven't even said anything yet. I will thank you in advance for keeping your comments to me civil.Jarhed (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In theory BLP applies to every page with respect to article content about living people. I think the notice is just a courtesy to let editors know there may be special BLP concerns. That's obviously true with every page on the subject of a living person, but there are reasons to take extra care in an article like this, where living people have been accused of things. Is that right? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I am fresh from reading the talk page on the Sarah Palin article, and there are many editors there who will be glad to tell you that anything that can be reliably sourced is fair game for a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, that's correct. Particularly as there is no confirmation that said living people have actually done anything wrong. By all means document wrongdoing once the "verdicts" are in, but in the meantime it's a case of "innocent until proven guilty". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find this discussion frustrating. Some of you act as if this notion of yours that reliably sourced allegations and investigations are off-limits for a WP article is something that is settled and that everyone here already agrees with you. I do not and I would appreciate it if you could show me your policy source for that. As I mentioned, on the Sarah Palin article, there are plenty of editors that disagree vehemently with you. Personally, I agree with you. Unproven allegations clearly should not be put in a BLP. However, I will point out again: THIS IS NOT A BLP. This is an article about a controversy, and it is absurd for editors to not be able to include reliably sourced information about allegations and investigations. I am really having problems understanding your stance on this, and I would like to know more. To the point, I would like to know how you justify your rationale in light of the fact that what you are doing can be used to push a POV just as easily as including unproven allegations and investigations.Jarhed (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, BLP applies to all pages on wikipedia. This includes talk pages, user pages and wikipedia pages. In terms of this specific case, I've seen no evidence of any particular relevance of the allegations against WMC that have only appeared in opeds and blogs (and which have been widely discredited by wikipedians to boot) to this article. If anything, adding them here is even worse then adding them to the WMC article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be adopting a condescending tone toward me, but I will let that go. Of course slander should not be allowed anywhere in Wikipedia. However, you are wrong if you think that BLP applies to non-BLP articles, and in fact, I can show you instances where BLP *barely* applies to BLPs (Sarah Palin). When an investigation or allegation is reported in a reliable source, you have *no* policy grounds for excluding it, especially on a non-BLP article. I have a whole list of reliable sources that I am ready to put into this article, and I would like to get it straight right now that this is the correct thing to do. If it is not, I would appreciate a clear explanation of why not, and not "as has already been explained to you" and what other editors have said to "discredit" these sources, of which I most certainly am not one.Jarhed (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he's right - BLP applies everywhere, not just in biographies of living people. BLP isn't about "ground to exclude" something, it's about standards for inclusion. BLP simply means that the standards for inclusion of information are higher when it comes to statements about living people because the things we say about living people can hurt their reputation. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The classic BLP issue was the Siegenthaler affair. The statements that led to the creation of the BLP policy would have been equally unacceptable even if they had been made in the JFK article, which is not a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section for the page.

As I was reading through the page I noticed that there wasn't really anything on the implications of the incident. I was thinking we could add a new section discussing the role that groupthink and confirmation bias played in causing to the incident. What do you guys think? Spoisp (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Spoisp

I posted a number of such suggestions, now at User talk:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal after the last round of renamings and deletions.

I can't say I'm optimistic about getting anything into the article that's critical of the AGW Saints. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway to subvert their will? Surely there must be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep using the multiple SPA accounts, you know the ones that were created years ago, but showed up out of the blue en masse to edit this article in December. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for that claim of multiple SPA accounts Viriditas ? I suspect you've misunderstood the new public interest in climate science that climategate and COP15 has awakened. Cadae (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

More than enough good evidence, all supported by ANI, SPI, and CU reports. Welcome back. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In the subject of spa accounts, I was looking at the vote for the AfD for "Climategate scandal" and being bored at work (patients were all asleep), I decided to look at the edit history of the voters. It was a casual look, not an investigation, so I didn't keep exact tallies, but I'd have to estimate that about 2/3rds of the people who voted "keep" are either accounts created about a month ago that have edited only global warming related articles, or accounts that have been inactive for months until about a month ago and have only edited global warming related articles since. In contrast, I recall only one account that looked like an SPA that voted "delete". That article is not this article, but there is of course quite a lot of overlap in contributors. There may not be any formal wiki investigation into SPA accounts right now, but Viriditas is definitely right in at least saying something fishy's definitely going on here.Farsight001 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, this is disgusting. Sockpuppets are intellectual maggots and should be banned.Jarhed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm what Farsight says. I had a look at the "keep" !voters as well; many of them look very much like sleeper sockpuppets. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought about the "delete" voters too! (Actually I did not, but that's the quality of debate here.) As soon as people wade in then somehow there's a conspiracy of sock puppets. Now, there might be some SPAs, but what you're actually doing is calling into disrepute the reputation of those who voted against your POV. And that is a dishonest trick. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter in an AfD discussion. The closing admin is supposed to consider the implications of !votes by possible socks and obvious SPAs, but obviously that doesn't always happen. That is why it is so important for regular editors to note the existence of SPAs with appropriate tags like "{{SPA}}", and point out obvious or suspected socks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF Paul. If you read Farsight's comment, it's clear that s/he looked at both sides. Making unfounded accusations - both against 'delete' !voters and Farsight - really isn't cool. Stop trying to get a rise out of people. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on this article

Someone has made an allegation that some of the editors on this article are sockpuppets. I don't know how to check that and frankly I don't care to know. I do know that if this accusation is true, it is damning. I would appreciate it if you administrators and other experts would please check for sockpuppetry and ban the instigators immediately. This is an article about a controversial issue, and frankly, I can't imagine why this has not already been done.Jarhed (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you worry, the investigation has likely been done. The unfounded allegation of sockpuppetry is often a dishonest trick used to cast aspersions against the other side in the argument. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are three suspected sockpuppet editors in the 'Opposed' section on the title change. So, when you have sockpuppets causing problems on a controversial article, what do you do?Jarhed (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You name them. Then you ban them. What is improper is to make unfounded allegtions of sockpuppetry. Not that I say you do. Just name them and get them banned. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

HEY LISTEN UP. I am here to help with this controversial article and I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth. I did not name a single editor because anyone can use the search tools as well as I. Go look them up yourself and stop acting as if it is not a problem. I would take the steps necessary against these editors, but I don't have a clue what those steps might be and I don't care. I would appreciate it if all of you good faith administrators would simply take the appropriate steps.Jarhed (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now. It is obvious that sock puppetry and meat puppetry are a constant problem on controversial hot-bed articles like this. Let's not pretend otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.Jarhed (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tackling NPOV issues - "personal information"

One of the items I mentioned is that the lede includes mention of a concern about compromise of personal information. This does have a proper source, so the issue isn't whether someone actually said this, the issue is whether, in the hundreds of thousands of words written on this subject, does this issue rise to the level of importance to be included in the lede? Our WP:LEAD section notes that the lede should "summarize the most important points", but it gives no guidance on what metric should be used to determine this. Not a surprise, as it probably doesn't lend itself well to a formula. However, one would expect that something rising to the level that it could be considered one of the most important aspects would be included in a material percentage of the coverage, and possibly the main subject of multiple articles. I see three questions to answer:

1. Is it the function of the lede to include the most important aspects of the story (as opposed to, say, including a mention of everything in the article)?
2. What is the right metric in this instance to determine importance?
3. Does this aspect meet the hurdle?

I think the answer to the first question is clear, based upon the reading of the guideline, but I've seen other editors take a different position, so I don't take this question as settled yet. I've hinted at how I would answer the second question, but obviously, others should weigh in. The third question should be tackled after we settle on the second question, although I suspect they will be discussed together. Does this sound like a good approach for tacking this question?--SPhilbrickT 14:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One consequence of the leak was that usernames and passwords were divulged (and I'd gladly link but I'm unsure as to what our policy is with linking to the emails directly at the talk page). That's considered personal information and could be seen as serious. I'd vote for it being important, and if WP:RS could be found as to why then that should be added. Troed (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead must indeed include the very most important points. What makes the unauthorised publication of the information notable is not the leak/theft itself, but what it was that was leaked. Like it or not, the conduct of some scientists is being called into question as a consequence of the contents leaked. That is the story, And that should be noted in the very first lead paragraph. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of WP:WEIGHT and specificity. The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The central matter of this case is a theft of data. All other aspects are a result of this core incident, so obviously they are accorded less weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That something reveals something else, that something precedes something else, that something causes something else does not necessarily make the antecendent the more important of the two, A butterfly flaps it's wings, a cyclone causes havoc. What is the story? The butterfly or the cyclone? If you lift a rock and find a nest of vipers, what is the story? the lifting of the rock or the nest of vipers? If the consensus becomes that this story is not about what is popularly known as Climategate but is about the unauthorised publications of documents, and that Climategate will just get a mention in passing, then where is Climategate documented at WP? Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is an important part of the "story" as you insist on calling it, but it must be treated with the proper WP:WEIGHT. Bear in mind that it is still very much a fringe view that the documents stolen from the CRU are synonymous with your "nest of vipers" analogy. The controversy is the product of the fringe hype machine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that some entities, such as the UN, consider the data theft to be the most important part of the story. However, the UN has its own POV and can't be considered the authority on this. The U of East Anglia is conducting an investigation into the email content itself, as is Penn State. There are rumors that the Dept. of Energy has put a legal hold on all East Anglia material including emails pending their own investigation. So clearly some entities weight the aspects of the "story" differently from others. I see no reason that all of this can't be explained in a NPOV manner in this article, and I see no reason at this point to exclude anything from this article that is sourced reliably.Jarhed (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Internal investigations by Penn State and the UEA are just for covering their asses, quite frankly. It's SOP to ensure there is no appearance of impropriety. I've not heard of any Department of Energy "rumors", and so I can't offer an opinion on those. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is one those cases where you're clearly wrong. I'd urge you to watch the link I've already posted to the Nobel Laureate panel by the Swedish state television where they spend a large amount of the total time talking about Climategate. Not the "email hacking incident", but the fallout as to how that is reflected upon and by the scientific community. Calling this a "fringe view" is POV, plain and simple. Troed (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a link to a Swedish video? I'm only interested in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. The programme is in English, with Swedish subtitles, and the Nobel Laureates are of course speaking English. As for "reliable source" - are you even serious? Troed (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article from top to bottom and the two biggest issues IMO with regard to WP:NPOV are the article title which focuses on the initial hacking rather than the subsequent controversy surrounding the e-mails, and the undue weight given to the death threats in the lede. I think if we can address both of those issues, a lot of my concerns are alleviated. I also think that Wikidemon brought up an excellent point about the excessive use of "stolen" emails, "hacked" files, "illegal" actions, etc.[57] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the story?

Prompted by the above section I have re-read the opening paragraphs of the article again. Anyone would think that the story is about the theft of personal information, about a violation of the Data Protection Act. But violations of this magnitude are reported weekly. Bank databases are accidentally left public; a hacker reveals the criminal records of everyone called Smith. Countless, countless examples not noteworthy enough to be in the encyclopedia. But we *all* know that the theft/leak of personal information is not this story, the story is about the conduct of the scientists revealed in the leaked information. If this article is not about that, then where on WP is the description of that controversy to be found? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you peruse the archive, you will find several discussions that cover this ground already. The article is about the theft and dissemination of data from the CRU, the investigation surrounding that theft, and the impact of that theft (which covers the controversial aspects you seek to highlight). You must understand that the controversy largely arose because misinterpretation and misinformation was hyped by skeptics, giving it disproportionate coverage. This article must acknowledge that controversy without adding to it, which is quite a difficult balancing act. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance on this matter, but I have already perused. I bring the matter up again. I note your repeated opinion that the matter has been hyped, and thank you for it. I see it for what it is, your opinion. My opinion, which I ask you to take as my opinion, is that the matter is being squirrelled away here on WP, and that you seem to be in favour of that. If the matter is hyped and there is no story then it would be consistent to suggest this article be deleted, as it is not noteworthy. But we all know that the story is noteworthy. The story is that for the first time since almost ever have scientists of this pre-eminence been under investigation for alleged misconduct. By their own Universities! That is the story. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you want that to be the story, but it isn't. Get over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Simply a conclusion drawn from coverage in a preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

With "reliable sources" being colleagues of the scientists against whom these accusations have been made. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you are unfamiliar by what is meant by "reliable sources", I recommend reading WP:RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have worked on Wikipedia for years, and am quite familiar with what constitutes a reliable source. The issue here is the trend in this article of discounting as non-notable any source which does not meet an unwritten set of extra criteria. Other sources discussing the controversy surrounding the content of the emails cannot be included, even if they are clearly attributed to their specific authors, if they suggest scientific misconduct at East Anglia. I've no wish to become embroiled in the politics of the thing, but this is a trend here that is becoming difficult to ignore. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You put a needle on it.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some people who believe that this issue is not getting enough coverage. For example, because of these emails, Dr. Mann is being investigated by Penn State on the orders of the state legislature. That is a notable fact that should be covered in this article.Jarhed (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not familiar with the ins and outs of every aspect of this matter, but it would seem that something like that would need to be covered at Michael E. Mann and then briefly summarized here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Last I looked, the See also link to here had been removed (repeatedly) by The Cabal, and the only mention of Mann's involvement was (wait for it) Yet Another Whitewash of an AGW Saint. Truly absurd, and why no-one (with any sense) uses Wikipedia for info on any controversial topic. Sigh. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter for whoever edits Michael E. Mann, not here. And please assume good faith and quit the "cabal" bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you think that mention of an incomplete investigation belongs in a BLP. I think that it absolutely does not. On the other hand, I do not understand why you think that mention of an incomplete investigation into a controversial matter does not belong in the WP article about that matter. If you have an explanation for this, I would be glad to have it.Jarhed (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it belonged in a BLP. I said it was a matter for the BLP. Unless Mann is found guilty of something, it shouldn't be covered anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand what you are saying. I want to emphasize that what you are saying is *not* policy, nor is it even settled on this article. It is your opinion only, and my opinion differs. I think that editors would be foolish not to mention what is already known by anyone who is following this issue in the news. I think that we editors can cover it in an NPOV fashion that would make this a halfway decent article that all editors could be halfway ok with. What I think is *wrong* is the exclusion of reliably sourced information for a POV reason. I just don't think that is fair to anyone or a good idea.Jarhed (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that just about the biggest GW story of the year be subdivided up so as to hide it away. This story, covered here at this article not called Climategate becuase of it's -gate suffix or some other manufactured reason, will be covered here. and if not, please tell me the title of the article where Climategate will be documented. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough of the "manufactured reason", "hide it away" bullshit please. Assume good faith or go and edit somewhere else. There has already been a discussion about whether or not to move toward a summary style article in order to give us more room for the extra detail you are seeking, so obviously editors (including myself) are aware of your concerns. Although a consensus formed for holding off on that for the time being, someone went ahead and created an article called "Climategate scandal" anyway - and you know how that turned out. Clearly anything about an investigation of an individual should first be worked out on their BLP (to ensure proper treatment). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the BLP policy is that editors should take care not to introduce defamatory information into one. Clearly, a discussion of unproven allegations do not jump this hurdle. At least I think it is clear. Can you explain your thinking to me?Jarhed (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm? "biggest GW story of the year" - hmmm - strangely enough no matter what measure i use, the biggest GW story of the year was COP15. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on where you are standing. For some people, the biggest GW story of the year was getting a White Christmas, proving beyond all doubt that the Earth is getting colder! </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"just about the biggest" is what I said. But maybe "biggest" would be correct: The damp squib of Copenhagen delivered nothing except a 1,000,000 airmiles of CO2. 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psb777 (talk • contribs)

Implementing the recommended title change

In the closing assessment made of the discussion as to whether there could be both a "Climategate scandal" article and this article the recommendation was (1) that the former be deleted and (2) the name the latter (i.e. *this*) article be changed. I think the suggested name was a reasonable compromise, and I intend to implement that name change when the article is unfrozen. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing (and nauseatingly dull) discussion about the title of this article. I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to seek consensus before making any change like you propose. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In the closing assessment made of the discussion as to whether there could be both a "Climategate scandal" article and this article the recommendation was (1) that the former be deleted and (2) the name the latter (i.e. *this*) article be changed. I think the suggested name was a reasonable compromise, and I intend to implement that name change when the article is unfrozen. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am getting a weird sense of having heard this before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Jarhed (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Titling this article with -gate is a fine example of flagellating the equine carcass. Per accepted Wikipedia naming conventions on neutrality and NPOV, linked to in many places on this talk page I'm sure, it just isn't going to happen. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I recognise that the consensus is that this article will not be called "Climategate", I am not suggesting the article be named that. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then what are you suggesting? Even though you posted the same thing twice, I still don't know what your intention is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In the closing assessment made of the discussion as to whether there could be both a "Climategate scandal" article and this article the recommendation was (1) that the former be deleted and (2) the name the latter (i.e. *this*) article be changed. I think the suggested name was a reasonable compromise, and I intend to implement that name change when the article is unfrozen. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think posting the same cryptic message three times is deliberately disruptive. I have requested a clarification, and I do so again. What title specifically are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To the title recommended in the ruling you welcomed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which was what? Spit it out, man! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Any title change should reflect consensus at the RM for this page. If we can build consensus for a move, it should be moved. Until such time, any attempt to short-circuit the discussion would be disruptive. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As for Rd232's AFD close, obviously any opinion he expressed on a page move was just his opinion, not a part of his close. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I didn't express an opinion. My AFD close said "Appropriate followup to issues of titling and article content/focus of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident would be at... drum roll...Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Possibly using appropriate dispute resolution, most obviously Request for Comments." The only recommendation is to discuss here and to use appropriate dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 17:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS FYI, both Climategate scandal and Climategate controversy now redirect here. Rd232 ^talk 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - My point exactly. User:Psb777's repetition of the same paragraph didn't shed any light on what title he was talking about. In fact, I still don't know. Another thread of wasted time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that there are editors on this article that are not willing to come to any reasonable common ground and that insist on pushing a POV agenda. I have seen this happen before. One side will just keep up the contentiousness until the other side goes away in disgust. I am curious to see which side wins.Jarhed (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agenda-driven editors are unlikely to be able to oust neutral Wikipedians, because ultimately there are more of us. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we will win in the long run, but in the meantime we all look like idiots running around in circles.Jarhed (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this helpful? Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to Scjessey and I was not trying to be helpful. It was a lament.Jarhed (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged hack

If one takes the time to read all the direct quotes attributed to the CRU spokespersons/press releases, one finds out that the CRU itself has NOT alleged a means by which the emails were accessed. As an example: the "update 2" press release asserts a conjecture/conclusion of "illegally obtained", but has no information or contention regarding any actual computer break-in. In fact, to date, no information or statement has been released or made public by the CRU (or any authority) which actually asserts that a computer break-in occured. This, combined with the fact that the police had not released findings, is why "alleged hack" and "unauthorized release" (used in tandem as they currently are) is appropriate. When further details emerge, should the information released corroborate the CRU's assertions of "illegality", then "alleged hack" can be changed to "hack". Also, at that point, I would support the word "purloined" but still not the word "stolen" - not until there was a theft conviction. Misuse of electronic records falls into a legal gray area and in many ways does not meet the traditional definition of theft - and certainly not in a situation like this where the releasors have given no indication of any efforts to personally profit from the release. Comments? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Legal grey area" is an understatement. Some of the incident appears to have taken place in Russia: would anybody like to hazard a guess as to when any of the legalties of this issue will be settled, if ever? It is foolish for this article to flail around on such shaky terms. This incident is clearly controversial so let's just call it so.Jarhed (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the ambiguities regarding the law make using the the words "theft" and "stolen" problematic. But if it becomes clear in the public record, that there is actual proof of a computer break-in (a "hack") and that hack is indeed clearly connected to this data release, then the released copy of the records can honestly and neutrally be described as "purloined", which means "to appropriate wrongfully and often by a breach of trust". It would be the released copy which was "appropriated wrongfully", if indeed unlawful access to the records was the pathway to them. This entire dispute rests on the fact that the CRU is not an arbiter of law, so when they say "illegally" without releasing supplimentary information, because they are not legal experts, their conclusions are only alllegations. Everything here hinges on a public legal authority releasing findings (conclusions of the investigation and/or criminal charges) of illegality. Only such an authorized statement is determinative, not the conjectures of the CRU itself. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• When something is taken without permission, it's a theft. The CRU did not "release" the information. They did not give permission for the information to be released. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that a whistleblower "leaked" the information, it would still be without permission of the CRU and still be theft. There is no doubt that a theft occurred. What we don't yet know his how it occurred. Personally (and I've stated this repeatedly) I am uncomfortable with the use of "hack". If reliable sources supported it, I could support "alleged hack". But not "alleged theft". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - Your conclusionary contention discounts the very real possibilities that the servers were improperly secured and that the data was accessed with no violation of law. In this case, the release is possibly illegal, but the access not. Another scenario you overlook is that an authorized user accessed the data properly, but either alone or in concert with others, contrived a means of releasing the data. Again, the access would not be an issue, but perhaps the release was. In fact, the CRU's statement of "illegally obtained", which is their harshest language used, is sufficiently imprecise that one can't be sure if they are saying they initial access off the server was "illegal" or that those who access the released copies are obtaining it illegally. And in any case, the center is not a arbiter of what comprises an "illegal" obtainment. They are only authorities on their own policies and rules - and those policies and rules do not have the force of law. It simply does not automatically follow that any breach of CRU policy is a breach of law - this is the error of logic you are making. Suffice it to say, at this point, there simply has not been enough published details for any news reports to be grounded in fact regarding the means of data access or the illegaility or lack thereof of the data release. None of the reports from the souces you have pointed to have done anything other than make their own conjectures. Conjectures, even if published by reliable sources remain only that, conjecutures. That there was a "theft" is only alleged at this point. Strongly alleged. Forcefully alleged. But alleged nonetheless. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the keys in your car and someone takes it, the fact that you failed to secure your car doesn't make it "not a theft". Not to mention that you'd still need reliable sources to support this conjecture. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that taking the car would be "theft", but the CRU itself has not alleged theft, they have alleged "illegally obtained" which is sufficiently imprecise as to be uncertain what they are contending. And in any case, they are not authorities of law. A better illustration of law would be if your neighbor went away for the weekend and left his back door open, not merely unlocked, but actually open. Your teenage son enters the house, but because the door was open, there's no break-in. After entering the house, your son goes to the homeowner's hidden DVD porn stash that he knows of (because his buddy lives there) and he makes copies on his own personal laptop. Did he steal anything from the homeowner? Clearly not. Did he break in? Clearly not. Did he trespass? Possibly. This would depend on what he was previously told by the neighbor such as "you are always welcome here". Did he violate copyright law? Possibly. In any case, he didn't STEAL from the homeowner. Now do you see what we are talking about here. This issue is not so cut & dried as some are trying to make it. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Whatever. Not really interested in your opinion, as I have stated previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. We characterize the incident as it is reported in reliable sources. If you want to do your own analysis of of what happened that's fine -- but Wikipedia policy says it's not going into the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk about Wikilawyering... it looks like my decision to mostly stay away from this topic was the correct one, for my own sanity. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone needs to stop providing legal advice. What the reliable sources say should be sufficient for this article.Jarhed (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And this is precisely why we need an RfC on what the wiki rules are regarding unproven criminal accusations. Simply because a media source makes an unproven criminal accusation, does not mean we are to repeat it without qualification, hence the word "alleged". 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Media organization?

I noticed the template above saying that "This article has been mentioned by a media organisation". Is this really accurate or helpful? It was, in fact, discussed in an opinion piece, or rather a hate-filled attack screed against Wikipedia and WmC that seems to be crusading for "The Truth". I don't see how linking to attack pages, even if published by a real news source, is a good thing. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is controversial, I agree that we should be stringent to ensure that our sources are reliable. We should probably avoid editorials and include only hard news from accepted sources, no blogs. That said, once we have a source, if someone doesn't like it, they can include their objections about the source in the article. That way, the user can get the whole NPOV picture and make up his or her own mind.Jarhed (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed that before and there was no consensus to re-add it. It's inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Hack 2

In a section above, another editor states If reliable sources supported it, I could support "alleged hack".... I disagree that this is the correct way to look at this. A reliable source is supposed to be used as a secondary source. In other words, the newspaper reports what a witness/participant says. The person quoted is the primary source and the paper reporting it is the secondary source. However, in instances like this case, when the term "hack" is a characterization being advanced by the media itself - with no attribution back to a primary source, then the media become the primary source and the term hack is disallowed. In order for us to use "hack" in this article on a non-qualified basis, two conditions must be met, with the 1st condition having two elements which must be met.:

1. The term must be used by a person who is qualified to make that assessment - this requires that person must be A) knowledgeable about computer "hacks" and B) have specific knowledge about what transpired in this case.
2. The person quoted must be reported in a reliable source.

So far, what we have is media sources, ones which we typically do count as "reliable", bandying about the word "hack" without attribution to a qualified person. As a consequence of the deficiencies in the sources so far, because the conditions are not met, it matters not that the media is using the word "hack". If it's the media themselves using the word "hack" then the media becomes the primary source and is not a reliable source for that word. There is no requirement on us that the media use the word "alleged" in regards to "hack" in order for us to use it. Rather, the duty is on us - to not accept the word "hack" as offered by the media (except on a qualified basis of "alleged"), because the media sources offered do not support it's usage on an unqualified basis - owning to the fact that it's not properly attributed. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't jibe with Wikipedia's policy. The Verifiability policy, reliable sources subsection says nothing about splitting hairs in the way you've described. [[58] <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read the rules. The media itself cannot be the source of the allegation, which in the usage of the term "hack" it is.216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LiveScience has named Climategate one of the most controversial stories of 2009

"Nothing spells controversy like climate change. And global warming skeptics got plenty of fodder this year when thousands of private (and seemingly incriminating) e-mails and files of prominent climate scientists were hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia in England, a leading climate research center. The e-mails, which were made public, appeared to show scientific misconduct with some addressing ways to combat skeptics, whether certain data should be released and some derisive comments about people known for their skeptical views, according to news accounts.

"Here's how LiveScience's Bad Science columnist summed up the debacle dubbed Climategate: "Personal e-mails between climate scientists may be ill-advised and embarrassing, but by themselves do not provide hard evidence of scientific fraud." He added, "The fact is that the evidence for climate change does not hinge upon data from the East Anglia University researchers whose e-mails were exposed."" [59] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Another source that puts "Climategate" in scare quotes, verifies the words "theft", "stolen" and "hacked", and thoroughly debunks to nonsense of the controversy. Good find. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - Once again you are advancing media-initiated allegations (this time from an opinion-piece) as fact. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)