This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"?
A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Wikipedia articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent [needs update]Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011.
Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails?
A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email.
Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source?
A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain?
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. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University  and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".
Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person.
A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Wikipedia policies and with the law, per the BLP.
Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article?
A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator.
Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do?
Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content?
A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again.
Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that?
A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Wikipedia's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Wikipedia article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Wikipedia coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Wikipedia in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.
We must have verification from high quality published reliable sources before anything is added, and where allegations are made against living people, the more stringent requirements of WP:BLP apply. Please sign your posts in future. . dave souza, talk 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything exciting from it - just a couple of retreads from v2, which itself had nothing exciting over v1. Looks like a damp squib so far William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Totally uninteresting indeed. All a bunch of yelling from a mountain top, which used to hold snow and no longer has any. Something that has not happened in thousands of years, but hey. These retards are still trying to deny reality. Please, Adam Curry and John C Dvorak, and all you No Agenda type people, go see this, as a whole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xugAC7XGosM&t=13m44s and FOR ONCE try and actually listen to what she is trying to explain here. She has no motive(s) to lie or make shit up on any of these matters. You, Adam Curry and John Dvorak o.t.o.h. have. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Just ... wow. Shaking my head. The belief in AGW is really, really starting to resemble a very bad religion. Like Catholicism during one of its "burn the witch" centuries. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Barking? Got any properly sourced proposals for improving the article? . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a historical note: You might be surprised to hear that the Catholic church banned Malleus Maleficarum in 1490 (three years after publication), and that most alleged witches were burned by protestants. Salem was hardly catholic. Of course, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that most (but not all) of the alleged witches were burned by Protestants. Let's focus first on sourcing. How do you feel about this one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
An editorial citing an anonymous letter? Not useful for factual information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see anything of Encyclopedic Value in that article. The anonymous letter's content is certainly plausible, but it's not independently verifiable, and would fall afoul of primary sourcing guidelines. Can you suggest how or where the context of the article might be useful? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the language used in that anonymous letter indicates that its author is probably Slavic, and most likely Russian - that certainly fits with the use of a Russian FTP site. But I agree that its unverifiability is very problematic. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Larry Bell, according to his bio (written in the first person), is "a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled 'Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax'. It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com." It's reliable enough to report the fact that an unverifiable anonymous letter was released in March 2013, along with a password that could be used to access a third batch of e-mails. You're aware that this event occurred, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Significance? Your source, published on 15 March 2013, is an opinion piece by someone apparerently promoting a global warming conspiracy theory. If this has any significance to the topic, there will be more and better factual sources rather than this questionable opinion. Remember that minority views have to be shown in a mainstream context, and awareness depends entirely on reliable published sources. . . . dave souza, talk 05:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I see. So if the Climatic Research Unit doesn't admit that it happened, it didn't happen? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Leave aside the opinion piece aspect and the dodgy views of the writer, the key problem here is that the email is completely unverifiable. For all we know someone's hoaxing him. If there's a secondary source or some kind of corroboration it might be worth considering but a single unverified source like this isn't a good choice for inclusion. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow dude. I stopped editing this article and Talk page in 2010 (I think), because it was starting to get ugly, and I've just recently returned. As my comment at the bottom of this page might indicate, I was completely unaware (or had forgotten) there was an ArbCom proceeding on this. Judging from the number of topic bans, it really got ugly. I will refrain from any comments about specific editors, but will observe that some of the names on that list come as no surprise to me. ... Let's focus on sourcing. So when three blogs and a magazine op-ed are all saying the same thing, the sourcing is still unacceptable? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not only are such poor sources unacceptable, you (or any other editor) will be liable to sanctions if persistently pushing such low quality sources. As stated above, good quality factual sources are needed. . dave souza, talk 18:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I was afraid you'd say that. However, some blogs are much, much better than others:  Also this is a non-partisan think tank, taking a climate-skeptical position:  Regarding the blog from The Daily Telegraph, I would respectfully suggest in good faith that it's obviously an exception to the ArbCom prohibition. Look at the different treatment it gets at WP:NEWSBLOG when compared to WP:SPS. and the author, James Delingpole, seems notable enough to have his own biography at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Some blogs are much better than others, but those you're citing are notoriously bad, and any blogs should only be used with great care to comply with policies. . . dave souza, talk 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I only intend to use the blog from The Daily Telegraph (the best of the lot), plus the CFACT website, and only to establish that "Mr. FOIA" sent a final message in March, along with a password to an online cache containing what were purported to be more CRU e-mails. Maybe a few other details. I will of course present proposed text here and obtain a consensus prior to editing the article mainspace. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Why would you want to use CFACT? Their website is notorious crap (if glitzy), and in no way close to reliable. I also have a hard time taking serious your claim that they are "non-partisan" (or a think tank, but then that word has outlived its etymology for many years). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, Delingpole's blog is an opinion piece by a blogger with less credibility than Glenn Beck, "an interpreter of interpretations" who doesn't read the scientific papers he opines so forcibly about. If the only attention an issue has received is his blog and CFACT, it doesn't look to have any significance to the topic. . dave souza, talk 09:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
CFACT has been cited as reliable by such other sources we recognize as reliable, such as The Boston Globe and The Arizona Republic. And Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NEWSBLOG, indicates that Delingpole's blog at The Daily Telegraph is also sufficiently reliable. Also I don't believe that with regard to ArbCom, amendment is really necessary. All I'm looking for is clarification of their decision as it stands. Hence the appropriate action would be a Request for Clarification:  There are no amendments or clarifications pending, but ArbCom is pretty busy at the moment with other types of proceedings. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I kinda suspect that your source is http://www.cfact.org/about/, which is a) circular reasoning and b) does not even support your claims ("a Boston Globe columnist" is not "The Boston Globe", and, indeed, might not even have published this in the Globe).. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) Seems odd to bring this up again. Round 3 was even more boring that round 2, and seems to have sunk without a trace. D's blog certainly isn't reliable for anything other than D's own opinions William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
We just got a clarification (of sorts) from ArbCom. According to ArbCom member User:AGK, Delingpole's blog is reliable enough. I'll probably go to WP:RSN, if necessary, regarding the other two sources (CFACT and Forbes), and I really don't plan to write a lot about this in the mainspace. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, AGK is definitely wrong on Delingpole. Being a reliable source means having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and Delingpole has neither, to put it mildly. He's not just inaccurate, he's flagrantly, wilfully and egregiously so. Prioryman (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a very selective and far-fetched reading of what AGK. Delingole's blog is a pure opinion blog and not reliable for anything factual (just like an opinion piece in a newspaper). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I just read AGK's statement for what it says. I'll be posting this question at WP:RSN in a few minutes. Please feel free to participate there, but try to allow previously uninvolved editors to have their say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Does the article still need 1RR restriction?
The edit-warring has seemed to have stopped a long time ago. In fact, no one's even edited the article in a month. Do we still need a 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably not. It's been pretty quiet 'round these parts.... given the existence of discretionary sanctions in the topic area, and the low probability of this article again causing a flare up given the rather tepid responses to the sequel releases, it doesn't seem like the 1rr here is still relevant. On the other hand, I've never seen a sanction like this rescinded and don't really know what the proper metric for judging "no longer needed" is, nor where it should be requested. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The 1RR restriction is a community-based sanction. If you want it lifted, you have to go to WP:ANI. Personally I would support removing all restrictions. It's been quiet for a long time. I'd like to propose some edits here and get consensus for them before putting them out there in the mainspace. There was a new set of e-mails released in March 2013 and I don't see anything about that. Time for a new section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The ARBCC restrictions are not just about 1RR but also sourcing and undue weight in articles in this topic area. As the discussion above shows, those are still very much live issues. Lifting the sanctions would be way premature. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The general discretionary sanction still exist and are important, but I'm not sure that 1RR on this article in particular is useful. Also, @Phoenix and Winslow, while the original sanction was community-based, I believe the ARBCOM case turned all of the community sanctions into arbcom discretionary sanctions. Thus the avenue to appeal them would be Ammendment requests. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
@Prioryman: I'm not suggesting that discretionary sanctions be lifted, only the 1RR restriction on this particular page. Discretionary sanctions would still apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sailsbystars: I read through WP:ARBCC and I don't see where it turned all of the community sanctions into ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but maybe I missed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess we can try it experimentally. If there's a renewed problem with edit-warring it would be easy enough to re-implement 1RR. Prioryman (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments - I've reviewed the page and the comments here and lifted the 1RR restriction. Please remember that the article is still subject to discretionary sanctions so the 1RR restriction could be placed back if edit warring continues. That said, looking over the history of the page, it seems that editing is a lot more collaborative these days and I suspect that further sanctions won't be necessary. Well done on your progress. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
"After Climategate . . . never the same," essay by Mike Hulme
"Has Climategate been a good thing?" – Mike Hulme. This interesting short essay by Prof. Hulme is an extract from his new book Exploring climate change through science and society: an anthology of Mike Hulme’s essays, interviews and speeches. It's an interesting reflection on the consequences of Climategate, worthy of mention in our (awkwardly-named) article.
Judith Curry has posted a reaction at Climate Etc.. She writes that "Mike Hulme describes the lessons that we should have learned from Climategate, and it seems that many in the UK have learned these lessons. I am not at all sure that the IPCC has learned many (or even any) of these lessons, and in the U.S. I don’t see much evidence of scientists having learned anything at all." --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
From what I can see, Hulme and Curry have been saying roughly the same things about climate science for some years - e.g. "the publication of private CRU e-mail correspondence should be seen as a wake-up call for scientists" - Hulme, 2009; and "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" - Curry, 2010. Such views are already clearly expressed in the article, and I don't know if there's anything new in these primary sources that makes their repetition noteworthy at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose this perennial proposal, for the same reasons that have always been advanced - it's blatantly non-neutral to accept one party's framing of the issue. WP:NPOV is paramount. Prioryman (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose we also don't use Attorneygate either. If anything the case is significantly weaker than it was ahen it was last made where it this was clearly rejected. This ship has long since sailed and unless there is a significant twist in this story I see no chance of success.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NDESC. The derivation of climategate is clearly based on the word watergate. For those who need reminding, the Watergate scandal started with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. The US government attempted to cover up its involvement and the scandal eventually led to the downfall of that government, the resignation of Richard Nixon, and the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of 43 persons, dozens of whom were Nixon's top administration officials. When the computer hackers broke into the servers at the CRU, and this name was coined, they were clearly hoping that, by analogy, their theft would lead to the downfall of climate science, the exposure of endless lies and illegal activities under the covers and behind the scenes, and the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of numerous lying and scheming climate scientists. Clearly none of this happened. Climate science was shown to be robust and accurate, and the only scandal was that someone had managed to break into their computer system without getting caught. The analogy is so far from accurate or helpful, that to use this term as the title of the article describing the attack would be a disservice to the known facts. --Nigelj (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Another important difference is that unlike the Nixon administration the climate scientists were cleard of wrongdoing when the accusations were investigated meaning that the connection is even weaker.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Ummmm...not really. IIRC, they violated the Freedom of Information act. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I think, per WP:BLP even on a talk page, you need to be able to cite a court case and a conviction before you accuse living people of violating Acts of Parliament. Certainly committees' reports called on scientists to take steps to improve public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their data and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests, but this very different to anyone receiving a conviction for violating the law. BLP policy does not depend upon what we 'recall correctly', but on citations. --Nigelj (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you could start hereArkon (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I think we should start either with a citation supporting AQFN's statement that these people violated of a law, tried and convicted in a court of law, or the remark should be deleted per WP:BLP policy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Considering I see your name in the edit history of the article I linked, I'm sure you can do your own research. Happy trails. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'll help. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Policy (WP:POVNAME) clearly states In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.NE Ent 17:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that arument had already been rejected numerous times on the grounds that most of the articles that POVTITLE apply to historical events with titles agreed on by historians. While it true that some time has passed since the last request its not enough time for that to hsve happened. In short, nothing has changed.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.