Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC/Death threats against climate scientists

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

Discussion by involved editors (long)[edit]

This long discussion has been collapsed in order to avoid deterring uninvolved parties from contributing

Some discussion on this subject has also taken place elsewhere and is now archived at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 11#Death threats in lead

Yes, I think this belongs in the lead. It's one of the 6 major facts of the affair, and it isn't subset of any of the other topics already covered in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is tangential at best. Inclusion in the lead only serves to garner sympathy for CRU scientists and antipathy for anyone who makes allegations against them. Drolz ⁰⁹ 03:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you argue that we must suppress the facts because you have taken sides and the side you do not support must not be seen in a sympathetic light? Is that what you're saying? --TS 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am saying, crudely, that the death threats are "more prejudicial than probative," to use the roughly analogous legal evidence standard. Drolz ⁰⁹ 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And given that I've advocated the inclusion of far more in this article than you have, TS, that is ridiculous. Though not as ridiculous as pretending that I am the only one with a POV here. Drolz ⁰⁹ 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, I just checked the first 10 WP:RS used by the article [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and only 1 out of the 10 even mentions the death threats. It's obviously WP:UNDUE to feature it so prominently in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I still don't see how you have explained the relevance of these threats in the first place. You say, "they're serious criminal offences resulting from the incident." What does it mean that they resulted from the incident? Presumably it means that they were a reaction to content in the emails, some of which you won't allow referenced here. You're saying that it's relevant to include the reaction of an anonymous (insane) person to the emails, but we can't include the emails themselves? And, "Multi-continent, multi-jurisdiciton investigations into death threats are inherently important." What is your warrant for this? Virtually all wirefraud and many, many non-physical crimes in general are "multi-jurisdictional." The FBI would be involved in any crime connected to the mail, for example. I think you have two burdens here, TS: First, you need to prove that death threats are important. Second, you need to prove that they are significantly relevant to this particular issue to warrant the POV slant that comes with adding them. Drolz ⁰⁹ 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to be a case of double standards for WPRS. On skeptical viewpoints for example, you apply a scientific authority standard, which precludes most people who aren't climate scientists from being quoted in the article. For this death threats issue you are applying a verifiability standard, for which it merely needs to be proved that threats were indeed made/said. I believe the second standard is the appropriate standard, personally, and would support noting the death threats (thought not in the lead) if the same standard was applied to everything. Drolz ⁰⁹ 03:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, it belongs in the lead as long as the material 1) Adheres to WP:LEAD 2) Is mentioned in proportion to other notable aspects of the incident (for example, it doesn't go on and on abut the death threats, but simply mentions them) 3) Is supported by good sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the wording at present is:
Norfolk police are investigating the incident[4] and, along with the US FBI, are also investigating death threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails.
So it's really quite a brief mention. --TS 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. No reasonable summary given to someone asking "what is this Climate email controversy thingy, anyhow?" would mention the death-threats as addressing or giving any insight into the core of the incident. The lede should do its best to concisely summarize the major points. As an aide to objectively deciding, construct a hypothetical explanation of the incident to a hypothetical uninformed friend. Unless you're pushing something, the death threats don't appear in the first several sentences you'll construct. MarkNau (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd, really. I'm not pushing anything, but I find it hard to conceive of a way of describing this affair and its consequences without mentioning two police investigations on two different continents. To say you have to be pushing a certain point of view to find that significant seems odd. --TS 04:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, there are two police investigations? On two different continents? Unheard of. I would still very much appreciate it if you would address my points above, rather than repeating these goofy lines that are designed to convey some awesome scope to a tiny issue. If the issue were as important as you claim, you wouldn't need to do that. Drolz ⁰⁹ 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A great many "important" things are not covered in this article, let alone its lead. Relevance to the issue at hand is obviously a necessary criterion for inclusion. Drolz ⁰⁹ 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think I'm finding myself impressed by Marknau's extremely strong conviction. If he and I can have such completely different reactions to these death threats, it's probable that one of us is misperceiving their gravity. While I find the multiple law enforcement investigations, and the clear distress of the scientists, quite significant, and certainly the most significant provable outcome of this entire event, other reasonable people may not. I'm not entirely convinced, but I am less certain than I was. --TS 04:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a clue how important the issue is. But I think that's beside the point. It's clearly notable enough to be in the article. And since the lead is supposed to represent the article, it should be in the lead. It's not like it's an elaboration on any of the other points in the lead - it isn't one more email, or one more reaction, or one more reply. It's categorically distinct.
  A summary is supposed to extract every major point from a larger body of writing. If you can't categorise as a subset of any of the other major points, you need to pull it out, you need to include it in the summary. And that's why this point belongs in the lead. Its inclusion in the lead isn't a function of its importance. It's a function of its distinctness. Guettarda (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guettarda, see for reference the entry on California Proposition 8 as an example. That almost certainly generated an order of magnitude more threats than this case, and yet mention of the threats is in a section set aside for that sub-topic, not mentioned in the summary. I think it's a good example, particularly because it is a case from "the other side." MarkNau (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a B-class article that failed GA. It's not really a standard for comparison. Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC) DisengagingGuettarda (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Guettarda, You misunderstand why I mention that article. It is not a "gotcha - precedent!" comment. What I mean to do is present an exercise of the brain. To provide a gymnasium for one's objectivity. An opportunity to possibly catch one's brain rationalizing due to partisanship. MarkNau (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Disengaging (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not mean to imply that, and I am sorry if I insulted you. I don't think the issue is whether death threats are disgusting or acceptable. It is whether it is sufficiently germane and illuminating to the pertinent topic. Looking at another case is a good way to try to anchor objectivity. MarkNau (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Marknau, what do you mean by "the other side?" Proposition 8 was not to my knowledge related in any way to global warming or climate science. --TS 05:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given the common political viewpoint bundles, it is likely that someone who is predisposed to be biased in one direction on this issue will tend to bias the other direction on Prop 8. That makes it an interesting venue to test one's brain, to try examine it as a parallel issue. Is Prop 8 significantly about the death threats that emerged from the situation? Would you feel compelled to put mention of those threats in the Prop 8 summary? MarkNau (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That possibly applies in your country, Marknau, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is an international forum. You simply confused the hell out of this Brit. --TS 05:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        TS, although a non-USian wouldn't be as familiar with Proposition 8, the political correlation still holds in UK, and so it is rather likely (note moderate wording!) that someone who feels strongly one way about this case will feel strongly the other way about a proposal to outlaw gay marriage. And if not in your particular case, then I apologize for not being able to come up with a more appropriate example. MarkNau (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I feel like I'm miscommunicating badly. Let me try again. As a personal exercise in judging and testing my objectivity, I will often try to ask myself how I would feel if I felt strongly in the opposite direction on a particular issue. Would I still cling to the same principles I am purporting to champion, or would I rationalize them away. I'm just sharing this technique. I don't think I'm too out of line to suggest that Prop 8 has a good chance of providing such a "mind-twisting" position-flip for someone who feels strongly about this issue. Please note the moderation and qualification of my language. I'm not throwing stones here. I'm trying to share the way I approached the problem, to explain why I think the way I do on this issue.MarkNau (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Disengaging Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Guettarda, I've shared what I want to share. People who persistently feel strongly about the contentious underpinnings to this issue are not going to be able to objectively help decide the question "Are the death threats significantly relevant?" I've kindly shared a tool in goodwill, and anyone who wishes might be able to use it to help us decide that question. MarkNau (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

In that case, have the police given any indication that these threats are unusually notable? Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

That is an unnecessary diversion, we can have the convo here quite easily. It's also a simplification to say that if it's in the article it's in the lead. Death threats pretty much just fall under reaction to the emails, and can easily be included in a phrase like "sparked controversy" for the purposes of the lead. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

You still haven't explained why the investigation makes it relevant, TS. Cf. my above point about the double WP:RS standard. Another question I would ask: If these scientists had received death threats during the controversy, but for reasons unrelated to it, would the situation be significantly different than it is now? There is no assertion that any notable person made the death threats, and no one has explained what import the death threats have to any other aspect of the controversy. There is no evidence that whoever released the documents is responsible for the death threats, and now law would hold them accountable if one were carried out. Likewise, there is no relevance to the content controversy. All inclusion does is create a spurious link between people who make reasoned allegations against the CRU scientists, and the anonymous lunatics who made the threats. Drolz ⁰⁹ 05:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Even this is deeply offensive. You're implying that if someone supported Prop 8, they must also support all the tactics used by its supporters." Geurtarda: Aside from the fact that MarkNau seems very civil to me, and certainly not insulting, you've just shown exactly why the death threats shouldn't be prominently featured in this article. Doing so gives the impression that anyone who questions the CRU scientists supports the death threats as well. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's relevant because you already agreed that it's relevant? Why can't you just answer the questions I pose rather than write them off as red herrings without explanation? Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, but including an allegation against scientists is not a question of scientific expertise. It's simply a question of whether or not we can verify that someone made the allegation; it's not for us to determine whether it is accurate. Likewise, the police/FBI are used to confirm that a threat was made and that investigation is ongoing. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, this is the double standard. You will not report the allegations of skeptics because they are not scientifically reliable, but you will report random death threats because there is reliable evidence that they were made. The same standard should apply to both, and it should be the latter. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

So a statement by the UCS is just cluttering up the page, but anonymous death threats belong in the lead? Does this really seem right to you? Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This "Obviously the FBI and police investigations are of somewhat more import than any statement by an advocacy body" seems incorrect as well, given that an advocacy body represents more people and wields more political power than an anonymous death threatener. It is significantly more likely to have substantive effects on a large scale. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the double standard again. You are holding one statement to a standard of scientific accuracy, and another to verifiability. Moreover, I just looked through the article at the skeptic views you claim to have included, and found precisely one. A US Senator who pointedly makes no actual reference to the specifics of the emails. The emails themselves are presented with incredibly vague statements about what "skeptics say" followed by verbose explanations of how the skeptics are wrong. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the case of the skeptics, the "relevant expertise" is to know that a allegation has been made. The police have the expertise to know that a threat has been made, a publisher has the expertise to know that an allegation has been made. You are swapping the actor and the source. To avoid double standard: Anonymous guy makes a death threat, police report it; Skeptic makes an allegation, publisher publishes it. However I expect that if someone had made a public death threat, you would advocate for the inclusion of that as well, which means that self-published allegations should also be allowed. Drolz ⁰⁹ 07:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm talking about this article, obviously. Drolz ⁰⁹ 07:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, if the UCS does not belong in this article because it has no scientific relevance, how are the manifestly less scientific death threats relevant? Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So does this mean that you are okay with the inclusion of published allegations against the CRU scientists? Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

What is the problem some of you guys have with new accounts? Wouldn't you expect people to jump into the more contro issues as they are the ones people are actually interested in? That's the problem with these protections. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has this RFC achieved anything useful? From what I can tell, there's perhaps been one user here who wasn't an existing participant but it's hard to tell given the very long discussions involving existing users. While existing users are of course welcome to give their opinion may I remind editors the primary purpose of RFCs is to try and get feedback from uninvolved users. Starting very very long discussions is likely to be offputting to any uninvolved user and also may make them think there's already enough participation when in reality all we're getting is the same things which have probably been discussed before by the same people. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we collapse the above discussion and create a new subsection inviting uninvolved editors to give their views. I agree that they're likely to be put off by the mess above. --TS 11:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is a good course of action Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove It is not remotely reasonable that this minor claim deserves to be in the lead. I have no doubt that some idiot somewhere flew off the handle and made such a threat. Happens everyday. Every day. If some threat is considered credible enough to lead to an arrest, then it probably deserves a minor spot in the article, not in the lead. If an arrest leads to a conviction, then maybe it is lead material, but that isn’t even clear. Including this claim in the lead at this time is not a NPOV.SPhilbrick T 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved editors[edit]

Involved editors: in order to keep this section uncluttered, any comments you make here may be moved to the other section.

After reviewing the article, the lead, the arguments in the discussions, and the cited sources, I would offer the following observations: 1. No source has categorically established that the death threats were, in fact, made as a result of the e-mail release. They could be a coincidence of timing, or they might be a direct result, but no RS has made that claim. 2. The death threats were not alleged to have been made by any of the parties involved in either the hacking/leaking or by any of the individuals who might have felt insulted by the content of the revealed e-mails. 3. The death threats have been mentioned only very peripherally by any of the RSs, and have not been mentioned at all by most that I reviewed. Given that, the weight of the threats does not seem to rise to the standard of inclusion in the lead, at this early stage. Inclusion in the article, on the other hand, seems warranted to provide a balanced view of fallout/reaction. (Writeswift 17:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeswift (talk • contribs)