Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Reliable sources

I'll add some reliable (non-blog) sources below as I find them. These are preformatted so that they can be dropped into the article as needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Hackers target leading climate research unit". BBC News. 20 November 2009.
• Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.
• Hickman, Leo; Randerson, James (20 November 2009). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists". The Guardian.
• McMillan, Robert (20 November 2009). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld.
• Staff (21 November 2009). "Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'". The Daily Telegraph.
• Stringer, David (21 November 2009). "Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate". The Associated Press.
• Webster, Ben (21 November 2009). "Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times.
• "East Anglia University Statement on Hacking of Climate Research Unit Emails". UEA CRU. 21 November 2009. Retrieved 21 November 2009.
• Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post.
• Macrae, Fiona (21 November 2009). "Hackers 'expose global warming con': Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data". Daily Mail.
• Johnson, Keith (21 November 2009). "Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor". Wall Street Journal.
• Eilperin, Juliet (22 November 2009). "In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes". The Washington Post.
• Overington, Caroline (23 November 2009). "Hackers expose climate brawl". The Australian.
• Hickman, Leo (23 November 2009). "Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails". The Guardian.
  • Climate change scepticism A dedicated news site of The Guardian. Seems to follow the case quite closely.

Google now has quite a few stories on this now...its gone "mainstream" google.Smallman12q (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but note that many of the articles listed by Google are from blogs and other non-reliable sources; some care needs to be taken here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a cite to BBC for the name "Climategate": 'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications, by Paul Hudson. Called a blog, but appears to be one of the exceptions we can use, "blog" by RS. It's an important source, as it confirms the authenticity of many of the "hacked" emails: "The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic." -- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Personal comments on the blog of a TV weather presenter to not constitute a reliable source.

In Mr. Hudson's blog post of 23 November[1] can be found his personal attestation to the effect that "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October." This should be acknowledged in the Wikipedia article on Climategate if only because it gives good reason to understand that the data dump from the UEA/CRU server had occurred more than a month before 17 November, on which date someone is alleged to have hacked into the RealClimate Web site and uploaded this archive. For those inclined for some odd reason to wish that the Wikipedia reader believe this hacking/insider exposure to have occurred in mid-November rather than sometime prior, it should be remembered that Mr. Hudson's statement is that of a BBC employee speaking by way of a BBC Web site. Can there be any more "reliable source" in the MSM than such an individual reporting in such a forum? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And if you read his later post[2], you will find that he was CC'd or Bcc'd the correspondence ("and I was copied in to them at the time") - this has nothing to do with the hacking. (to me more clear: He received the emails as part of the correspondence). So your assertion/speculation that the site was hacked more than a month before - is entirely without substance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, the blog Realclimate.org ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate ) would not constitue reliable source due to it being a website of personal comments (IE BLOG) but we all know how hallowed that blog site seams to be.--97.92.93.161 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Realclimate blog reference should be removed, per reliable source rules. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sock puppet blocked.[3]

Here's a "blog" as reliable as any, which is usually to say very when coming from about any professional person. Tom Perkins 2009/11/24, 14:04 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.212.7 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Varying Concerns About Climate Files Revkin has another update at the NYT. This looks more blog-like than the first one though, so maybe it should be excluded. Thoughts? Ignignot (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if [4] is a reliable source for something like BBC climate correspondant Paul Hudson stated that he received the chain of e-mails on 12 October. Similarly [5] would be a reliable source for something like RealClimate contributor Gavin Schmidt stated that someone placed the FOIA.zip file on the RealClimate server in the early morning of 17 November and it was downloaded four times before being removed. These are neutral statements attributed to individuals which describe the timeline of events without being POV or OR or worrying about BLP. The secondary sources appear to be much less reliable than the factual statements made by the actors involved on their blogs. --Rumping (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular quotes "'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."", Wall Street Journal should be a reliable source, I suggest as an opinion article it fits best in reactions.174.3.145.178 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PLease consider adding this to the list of reliable sources;

  While the name 'climategate' moniker does not appear in the headline, the news article covers the deletion of the 'raw'  data ( unadjusted historic temperature records). Such deletions were discussed within the 'climategate' E-mails; indeed, data deletions were threatened therein.

RampnatDiselxia (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

tree ring data

From reading round this the key issues all seem to be about tree ring palaeotemperature data. The FOI requests which apparently lead up to the email leak/hack were for tree ring datasets and the most embarassing/ambivalent responses were about tree ring data. If the scandal does have significant potential it is to discredit this method of historical temperature reconstruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Young (talk • contribs) 13:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How can FOI requests possibly lead up to the hacking of emails? That doesn't make any sense. --TS 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The CRU has repeatedly refused FOI requests. The best source of this is unfortunately both "unreliable" and currently down (http://www.climateaudit.org). However, one such refusal is recorded at http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/. The reason FOI requests are suspected to be linked is circumstantial. The file is called FOI2009.zip and the leaker used the name FOIA (see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowjoe17 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FOI? That's kooky talk. If there were any FOI requests the scientists would have answered quickly and fully. Science is all about getting the data out there. In fact, they probably took care to make the data easily accessible on line, so everybody could look at it. No scientist would hide behind technicalities, deliberately make data hard to get, or delete material to avoid releasing it. Right? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there's a conspiracy theory doing the rounds that the university was hiding data rather than releasing it under FOI, and that the hacker was attempting to expose all the data that the university was supposedly hiding. The university has denied the claim, stating that the data isn't theirs to release in the first place due to copyright issues. See the Daily Mail story linked above for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientists hiding data? Bah, that's like the ridiculous canard that journals were pressured not to publish critical articles. I can't think where people get these goofy ideas. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom: How about from the emails themselves(presuming they are legit, and this isn't the only one in the archive that discusses hiding or ignoring FOI requests. Bellis (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there is that, but it doesn't count because it's stolen, and copyrighted, and taken out of context, and probably made up by global warming deniers conspiring with Big Oil to make the scientists look bad. Plus, it's forbidden to link or quote that on Wikipedia, so it doesn't really exist anyway. So there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden to link why? Is it not relevant to the discussion to see the actual content of the emails? For anyone interested (and without a link) the relevant emails are 1107454306.txt 1228330629.txt (sorry I missed the sarcasm before) How about linking to a news article that contains the content? Is that also illegal? (Oh, nevermind, the Illuminati are also blacklisting those sites, too!) Bellis (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If we find whoever hacked the emails, any chance we could do a swap with the Yanks for that young Scottish chap who faces a possible 70 years in a federal prison for hacking the Pentagon to find out the truth about Roswell? --TS 15:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice from these edits that, based on WP:ENGVAR, it's already been decided that, for the purposes of this article, East Anglia can be considered to be part of the USA. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I thought it had been determined to be part of Afghanistan... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not to stop on minor things, folks :) I personally would be interested to insert a more recent opinions of, say McIntyre or Michaels into the article, as soon as they give out one. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WMC: As a party to this conspiracy against science, I think it's appropriate for you to pipe down. i.e. your name is in the whistle blower files.65.12.145.148 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If for nothing else, to give some face for these mysterious sceptics who claim this and that :) Altho I understand that whatever is the truth, 4,000 files takes some time to leaf trough. --J. Sketter (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But McI had nothing to do with the hacking? Oh anon, I recommend reading my mails in there, you might learn something William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read a lot of those emails, and I have to say I didn't learn a thing, but it confirmed a few things.67.141.235.203 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi For me the following quote from one of the emails has to be included. What do they have to hide? The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Climatechangebullshit (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)climatechangebullshit Account blocked. [6]

A further note regarding to sources

I've taken quite a strict line on using blogs in this article, of any political complexion. McIntyre presumably posted his comments on his blog, but they are sourced to a reliable secondary source which quotes him; likewise for the RealClimate quote, which comes from a secondary source. If prominent bloggers' comments are quoted by mainstream sources then fair enough, but we shouldn't be going to blogs looking for convenient quotes. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Let's be patient. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem that should be noted here. If only "mainstream" news sources are trusted by wikipedia, and these sources have a bias to go along with the fellows at CRU and their compatriots without further investigation, wikipedia will be subject to that bias. As well, if a "reliable source" like Reuters provides proof that reuters is reliable, would wikipedia be bound by that assertion? If wikipedia is to be a truly objective source of information, it really needs to grow up about how news is controlled through political means. Epistemology would be nice. Recognize that your politics may be faulty and your worldview shaped by incomplete data.

Secondly, where are the references to Read Me Harry.txt? If ye editors are trying to control this story by promoting the straw men arguments like "tricks" and "hiding the decline" then shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

another reference that should be added

another reference: <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,1,26386720-2702,00.html>

Climate Model Source Code Comments

I believe that some of the most revealing material may be the programmer comments embedded in the climate models' source code. Here's an example:

printf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’
printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’
printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’
printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’
printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,’observed temperatures.’

It's kind of hard to spin that isn't it? FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro from the released docs is the original source. The source code itself was created and maintained using public funding and can thus be presumed to be in the Public Domain.

Is it acceptable to add sections quoting source code from the original ClimateGate docs and if so, would anyone be willing to assist a newbie in doing it properly? GrouchyOldMan (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts galore...

Two cites and one small quote, and people start coming out of the woodwork to revert the same exact stuff?

Have you guys worked together before? Notice I am not accusing, it's just a simple question that can be answered by looking at edit histories. Sukiari (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I have both agreed with and disagreed with User:William M. Connolley in the past. I do sometimes work in climate change related articles (and to a lesser extent a number of other science related topics) so this isn't surprising since that is an active area for WMC. I also recognise User:Verbal and User:Stephan Schulz from a number of places. I don't specifically recognise User:HaeB. And in case you're wondering, other then anything on wikipedia, I've never communicated with any of them in any way that I'm aware of or recall. The fact that they're here is hardly surprising. This is a hot button topic with many watchers and you were adding one thing which has already been discussed and another (initially anyway) without even bothering to check the source that was used. In any case, this has little to do with improving the article so if you have further "not accusations" I suggest you contact editors directly or discuss it somewhere else where it's appropriate, I won't be replying to this here anymore Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Let's both improve the article. Why not add content, instead of deleting it? Sukiari (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it reasonable, since William Connolly is a party to this controversy, that he refrain from comment? It's like G. Gordon Liddy making edits on the Richard Nixon page.65.12.145.148 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. 76.8.236.106 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the habit of making people "refrain from comment." That goes against the entire spirit of collaboration the site is based on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny that.... my comments get deleted all the time when I reply to William or Boris.Cflare (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are commenting on William or Boris's page then their entitled to delete them just as you are entitled to delete any comments on your talk page. If you are commenting here, then they should not be deleted if they relate to improving the article. If they don't, particularly if they are an attempt to debate something unrelated to improving the article, then deleting them is probably acceptable no matter who they are in reply to or who made them. Indeed I have seen a few comments from people with similar views to WMC been deleted (can't remember precisely who). And before someone gets the clever idea of deleting this comment, while it doesn't directly related to improve the article, it does relate to what is acceptable on this talk page and by keeping junk off here we can better communicate about ways to improve this article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Theft, Leaked, or Left

There appears to be a long running low level edit war over whether to describe the incident as data theft. Beyond the fact that data theft appears to be what the majority of reliable sources say, an important point that perhaps people are missing is that whether hacking was involved or an "insider" released the information, it would still likely constitute data theft. In fact our very own article emphasises the fact most data theft is perpretrated by employees and the like, not by external intrusion. The only cases I can imagine where it would perhaps not be data theft is if someone inadvertedly put the information on a public server although even then there may still be some dispute since it is unlikely anyone would genuinely believe the information is intended to be public. P.S. Also, if people genuinely saying it was a hacking incident is inappropriate, they should properly start a discussion to rename the article since it seems to me calling something a hacking incident is more serious then a few mentions of theft Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are hints of insider involvement, but without a credible case that the person leaking owned the docs (which is almost beyond imagination), it was data theft. If backed up by RS, it may be fair to note speculation about insider involvement, but only as speculation, not as established fact. In any event, I suspect that aspect will be resolved fairly soon, so we shouldn't expend too much energy debating the point.--SPhilbrickT 13:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If this is an internal leak, then there are whistle-blower protections. The comparison most apt is probably the Pentagon Papers. This isn't referred to as document theft. Depending on the views of a writer, they might use terms like "whistle-blower", "leak", "security breach", but not theft. Perhaps a more neutral term needs to be used: "unauthorised release" or "data security breach"? The article currently is claiming external hack and theft. This can be viewed as partisan. Slowjoe17 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In a fantasy world, perhaps, but not in reality. There is no evidence of an internal leak. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The unreceptive position that a theft must have taken place because there is no evidende of an internal leak is quite incredulous. Anyone who is intelligent enough to be a regular Wikipedia editor and that hasn't stooped to partisan editing should accede that the possibility of a whistleblower (i.e. an inside job) is a real one, not a far-fetched one belonging only in a fantasy world. And no, we don't have to request a claim that the leak is the work of an insider to accept that this is a real possibility. If there is merit to the plentifold allegations that this entire debacle constitutes a monumental scientific fraud, then it would not be hard to imagine how someone on the inside with a tortured conscience might commit the acts which brought the documents in question into the hands of AGW critics. __meco (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't speculate on Wikipedia talk pages about hypothetical leakers that might exist. This may come as a shock to you, but what we do, is talk about how to improve articles with the best sources that we have at our disposal. A theft did take place, and it has nothing to do with speculating about a leaker. Stop trying to connect the two. Unless you have actual evidence, there isn't a connection. You're either here to write an article about the data theft at CRU, or you are here to push a POV that isn't based on the evidence at hand. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To me this discussion provides a great insight to the wisdom of the no-news-rule. I pledge for leaving it as it is atm, and discuss the matter in future, when this point has been clarified (or if it'll become obvious that there are no intention by RS to clarify it). 84.72.61.221 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We only have allegations of theft. No evidence. No parties. Not only could it be an inside release, it could even be an accidental release as happened at the same site earlier this year. At most, it can be called "alleged theft." Doesn't innocent-until-proven-guilty apply here, particularly with absolutely zero evidence of it being a criminal act?Mr Pete (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it would seem best to refer to an "alleged theft" or unauthorized release, unless directly quoting a RS. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, as of this writing, we have 12 cites to "leak" or "leaked" files, vs. 2 cites for "stolen" and none for "theft" (in article titles). Pete Tillman (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Left? The FOIA material appears to have been on a server external to the CRU. Blog moderators suggest that the most likely cause is the files were placed on an external server without proper password security. Accordingly they were available to the public to read/download. No evidence has been given that this was not the case. See: The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation. The CRU promptly changed all passwords and switched from their external file server to an older data set on an emergency file server. See More on the RC Hack. Security specialist Pete Holzmann has a similar perspective Mr. Pete to Andy Revkin "In my experience, among security non-specialists by far the most common way that confidential information is released is through accidental disclosure. The second most common is purposeful disclosure by someone who either didn’t know the data was confidential, or someone who did know but released it anyway. External attack, particularly the kind that requires some kind of break in, is way down the list." Stating the data was "stolen" without evidence, when timing and CRU actions suggest it might have been "left" is POV favoring the CRU. Recommend discussing each of the options without favoring "Theft" or "stolen". I added "Leaked, or Left" to the section title as an example.DLH (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

George Monbiot

Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see

"It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

That's quite an admission coming from George. Given the obviously notable and prominent place Geroge holds this should be included, but I agree it shouldn't be cherry picked. What context from his opinion piece should be used to balance this? Opinions? --GoRight (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included. It is just his personal reaction. Also, I agree that Fourier is probably responsible for behind the scenes Illuminati plans for the last 200 or so years. It is all so obvious in retrospect! Ignignot (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's moot. I just noticed that this piece has already been added and I am OK with how it was handled. --GoRight (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's just one man's personal opinions, they are not relevant here.
—Apis (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have deleted that section. Sorry but this won't stand. Geroge Monbiot is one of the most widely recognized media voices who regularly champions AGW. As such his comments on this topic are quite notable in this context. He is regularly cited throughout wikipedia to attack the claims and personal integrity of skeptics so it is only appropriate that he also be quoted here. --GoRight (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just restored the quotes from Monbiot, then I saw this discussion. As noted above, Monbiot is a very well known commentator and a strongly activist pro-global-warmer. His opinion counts. GoRight is right. AlfBit (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of well known commentators and activists, you are cherry picking non notable editorials that support your point of view, that is not neutral. Please only include notable and relevant comments.
—Apis (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Monbiot is either not notable or not relevant? If so, what is your reasoning? (I thought that GoRight and the WP entry established notability; relevance seems obvious.) AlfBit (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support inclusion of the Monbiot opinion. His is a leading voice, and unless we should exclude all comments from not directly involved parties his is one to include. __meco (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article as it stands may be putting too much weight on George Monbiot's opinion. He is certainly an important commentator on these matters and his opinion should be there, but I suspect we're in danger of going over the top a little simply because some people like George, and some journalists, are doing so. This is a problem of all current affairs reporting and I assume that all parties will emerge with a more balanced perspective over time, as a result of which this article's content will settle down. --TS 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article as it stands now puts enough emphasis on Mondbiot's opinions, because they represent a significant part of the commentary about this, they are articulate and they cover various aspects. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of responses

This is a suspected crime committed against identified parties. In that context, I think it's wrong to place the response of unconnected third parties first. They may want to gloat and so on, but they have to wait behind the victims of the crime. If their opinions are relevant at all, it can only be in suggesting that they might welcome, condone or indeed have perpetrated the crime. I don't see any suggestion of any of that. So why are those opinions being taken as relevant--andnot just that, but placed before the reaction of the victims? --TS 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The importance of the subject is primarily about what it may reveal about certain scientists involved in the global-warming controversy. Therefore comments on that aspect are the most important. The importance of the criminal aspect is secondary, at best. News organizations often reveal scandals based on documents that had been obtained and publicized in nefarious ways, but our reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect of it, they emphasize the response of the unconnected third parties who are trying to put the importance of the revealed information in context, which is why readers would turn to our article. This isn't primarily a crime story, as the news coverage shows. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this would never be in Wikipedia if it was say, shipping information from FedEx. The criminal aspect is secondary to the controversy. No one is writing editorials about whether stealing data should be legal or not. They're writing about what that data contains. Ignignot (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The criminals certsinly pushed the agenda you describe, but in the absence of an assumption that their motive was justified it is difficult to support the notion that the crime is something transparant and we must only look at the comments by marginal individuals, ignoring both the victims and the wider public.

News organisations are welcome to make of it what they will. Here we follow the neutral point of view. We don't give criminals the benefit of the doubt--and we certainly don't make stupid assumptions about major scientific issues that are subject to heavy political pressure. --TS 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

something transparent and we must only look at -- please don't exaggerate. News organizations are currently our only reliable sources, and what they make of it, we make of it if we're to have an article at all. That's our guide to NPOV. I notice that "steal" and "theft" are in some of the article headlines, but that aspect is not emphasized in the first three or so paragraphs of the articles I've seen. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TS, If you want to be neutral, then stop calling them criminals until conviction. Not doing so could make you look like a hypocrite in some eyes. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is a crime has to be shown first. I'm really unhappy with the reordering of the reactions. before was better. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TS: If there will be no one supporting your view, I kindly ask you to reedit you reorderings in the near future. so far, the consensus is, that the "criminal" aspect is secondary. please respect that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Under the principle of least astonishment in the Wikipedia:Writing better articles guideline, Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman. Therefore, when we mention reactions to what climate skeptics say about the revealed documents, that should be done after we mention what opinions those people are reacting to. That also has the advantage of following common sense. So I'll change the order of some of the quotes to reflect that. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

makes perfect sense. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The basic thing here is the theft - that various media sources and opinionators speculate upon the impact is secondary. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Of course we try to explain the various notable opinions. Please bear in mind what the facts here are, and separate these from speculation and opinions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. the theft has its own section, mentioned first. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A good argument could be made that these documents were stolen in the same sense that the pumpkin papers were stolen from the USSR. Openly presenting evidence of a crime using evidence taken without permission of the criminals is something where most prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion. If this is a release of an improperly spiked FOI request, there was no theft and if the releaser is identified, there will be no prosecution for the release.

It is much too early to be so definite about what crimes have been committed. There are alternate theories. We should not be doing original research and stepping into the role of the prosecutor and definitively stating that this or that crime has been committed. Skeptics are speculating that Phil Jones is going to end up in the slammer for deleting large amounts of raw data to avoid releasing it to MM via FOI. They're also speculating that a great deal of grant money is going to be determined to have been fraudulently given based on fraudulent data. It's too early to say this definitively either.

Let's stick with "it could be theft" until some expert makes a determination, like a jury. Let's stick to there could be scientific fraud, until the first papers start to be withdrawn. Until then, we should keep our options open. TMLutas (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's utterly disingenuous to say merely that "it could be a crime." The police are investigating, which is appropriate in view of the extensive prima facie evidence of a crime.

Since I commented last, the "Responses" section had been divided into three sections on an adversarial basis. This is grossly inappropriate--there may be people who condone crime, but simply by virtue of this sad fact they don't get a section to themselves on articles about a given crime. The most authoritative responses should be given most prominence, the less authoritative responses (such as claims of a conspiracy and so on, which appear to have no factual basis at all) should be given less prominence--if they're included at all.

This article currently still suffers from undue weight, giving far more weight to sensational reports in newspapers than they deserve. We have information from the scientists who are the victims of this crime, and the police who are investigating, and the facts they have presented should be given most prominence. The views of the criminals, needless to say, should not be considered. The views of third parties, such as those on the political and scientific fringes who are skeptical of global warming, should be given appropriate prominence and no more. --TS 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is nasty POV. They're not to be labeled criminals until convicted. The reactions should be ordered chronologically, not according to someones political agenda. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Change title to CRU Unit e-mail SCANDAL?

I am curious if we should change the title, to include the word scandal. The article seems to be evolving nicely, and the media storm appears to be increasing. The damning phrase "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." seems to indicate a scandal afoot. Can we take a vote on changing the title? Thanks. Pullister (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the word "trick" had been well explained as meaning a "neat way" or somesuch, rather than a deception. Am I missing something? ► RATEL ◄ 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. "Trick" can mean clever shortcut or act of prostitution or act of deception. Jones wrote that he used Mike's trick to "hide the decline." Which meaning do you think Jones intended? It wasn't "clever shortcut." RonCram (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scandal is specifically deprecated by Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal: "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, as regards "trick", we have to keep this in mind (from RC);

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[7]

Just saying .... ► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this 'explanations' makes no sense and is contradicting the evidences. as everybody can see here: [8] one set of tree ring data was manipulated by instrumental data, it's not true, that the instrumental data was 'just plotted' along. Nevertheless we shouldn't name it a scandal. IMHO It obviously is one, but to point that out is the job of RS not wikipedia. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For WP to call it a scandal is OR. I don't even think it rises to that level, but at a minimum, multiple reliable sources would have to start calling it that for us to use the term.--SPhilbrickT 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Scandal" is alongside "-gate" and "massacre" among terms that have little in the way of formal definition. In practice, an event is one when it's predominantly called one. The latter, for instance, can range from five killings to tens of thousands. When you give any of these babies into the hands of our huge crowd of oft-acerbic obsessives whose idea of a good time is to pick nits off an encyclopedia, the results are predictable. Also tedious. I've found (and gather that this is the prevailing view?) that it's better to wait for the outside world to finish picking a phrase. --Kiz

or 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy - Recommend CRU email controversy as the issue is obviously highly controversial causing very high public interest. Controversy avoids the term scandal which implies immorality or wrongdoing.DLH (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I've just reverted some completely unacceptable edits by Ducha which attempted to whitewash the incident.[9] Let's be very clear about this. The UEA has been explicit that the files were stolen: this was a data theft.[10] Secondly, the cited sources say nothing about a "whistleblower". This appears to be a meme being pushed by anti-science activists in the blogosphere to whitewash the incident; the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are explicit that the files were obtained by hacking the CRU's server, and the CRU itself has said that "Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems". This claim grossly misrepresents the cited sources and is nothing more than POV-pushing original research. This was a bad piece of editing and I strongly advise against any attempt by editors to whitewash the undisputed criminal nature of what's happened here. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(added) Also, I notice that the same editor has been adding the word "allegedly" to the article, as in "allegedly stolen". Again, this is unsourced POV whitewashing. There's no "allegedly" about it. The data's owners certainly didn't give permission for it to be taken from the UEA server, as the authors and the UEA itself have made clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The behavior in the released information describes the commission of at least one crime, data destruction while under FOI request. Some of the data destroyed might also cross the atlantic and may figure in the CEI/NASA lawsuits that are about to start (CEI just filed three "intent to sue" documents). There might also be scientific fraud and fraudulent grants going back several years. It's somewhat hard to say. And isn't that the crux of the problem this early in the game?

If you publicly release evidence of criminal activity, I think that the law generally looks leniently on such cases and very often prosecutors use their discretion and simply do not prosecute. In any case, the rights of the criminals who had their acts exposed should not be the top priority, don't you think? TMLutas (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you said blogosphere, again, Blatant intolerance by the liberal left to have any kind of meaningful discussion, we all know that global warming is part of a continuous pattern of climate change from who knows when. There are so many variables, such as , electro-magnetics, Earth rotation and orbit, Moon orbit, galaxy motion. The entire universe is in motion and constantly changing. Nothing is static or stable, and until the stars burn out, nothing will be.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my take a crime has been alleged. We are not a jury and until such time as a jury returns a guilty verdict it is an alleged hacking. I thought this was standard but I guess that some of the editors here that like to hide behind the 'we will not publish stolen data' excuse will not allow anything to threaten that defense even the time honored standard to calling alleged crimes ALLEGED until they are proven in a court of law! Bigred58 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is blatant whitewashing here by the AGW lobby to reduce the apparent impact of the response this scandal. George Monbiot has done far more than just call this a "major blow". He has called (in the Guardian) for Phil Jones to resign. This should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.151 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

likely insiders?

I've never edited a news article but i do believe the first sentence in the body shouldn't have the words "likely insiders" in it, neither of the articles, BBC or Time, mention the hackers as most likely insiders. If there is another article someone has seen as mentioning "likely insiders" it should be used to cite. MikelZap (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It's an opinion attributed to Robert Graham, not a fact as it is deceptively portrayed in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing deceptive about it. It is stated as a fact in the source that it comes from:

Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.

Note that "the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community" is written as a statement of fact and is NOT in quotes. This is a statement being made by the journalist based on their investigation. The security expert's quote indicates an 80% probability that this is the case, hence the word "likely" is used rather than leaving it as an absolute statement of fact. --GoRight (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate. The statement is an opinion paraphrased from Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security, just like the article says. There is nothing factual about it. All opinions, no matter if they are paraphrased or quoted, must be attributed to their authors. If you don't understand how this works, then I invite you to read the NPOV policy. There is no "absolute statement of fact" here at all. All opinions require attribution, no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It won't take terribly long to publicize who did this. Then it will be known if it was an insider or not. So just wait. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources using either the term "whistleblower" or "inside job". Either of these terms are supported by multiple reliable sources. Comfort & Joy (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not well-versed in this controversy. I would like to make a suggestion to bring us closer to consensus. In the lede, it states: "The unknown hacker, likely either an insider or someone inside the climate community, anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents." What if we just wrote: "The unknown hacker(s) anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents?" I say this because the first section also points out the hacker is "likely either an insider or someone inside the climate community" I'm not here to argue if the hacker(s) were insiders, though, one would assume they had some kind of inside presence. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it back to this again. Graham's argument is a statistical one, in 80% of the cases it is insiders, but there is no means for us to tell whether this case is one of the 20% or the 80%. Since Graham has no inside information to the case, but is simply speculating it shouldn't be used, except as "X stated that in 80% of such hacker cases it is insiders" or something like that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It also appears from Graham's website that he's an activist climate change sceptic, which casts some doubt on his objectivity on this issue; he's not just speaking as a security expert. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[11]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources and experts that indicate this is an inside job. We should respect those reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Institute of Klimatology (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Account blocked. [12]

fortran, code, programmer comments

From analysis I've read, the bulk of the data is not in the emails, which are trivial to analyze and comment on, but rather in the program code and programmer comments which are more difficult to write about yet could provide a great deal more insight into the nature of this event.

I submit that the words fortran and programmer comments deserve mention. How much of this material is email, code, comments, or other document types deserves analysis. We shouldn't be going for the easy shot but rather a more complete analysis of the whole dump. As an alternative, we could split the article into two, one examining the event as a data breach, the other examining the event as a window into the inner workings of the CRU. TMLutas (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we shouldn't be analysing anything. If other reliable sources conduct such an analysis we can discuss including it here but anything else is OT. If you wish to analyse the material, that's up to you, but your analysis is unwelcome on wikipedia unless it is published in a reliable source. "The words fortran and programmer comments deserve mention" only if they are significantly covered in reliable sources. Of course this is a current event, and things are continually changing & new sources are coming in but I don't know if it's necessary for us to worry too much about stuff which isn't yet available Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am not advocating original research or any wikipedia led analysis. I am saying the obvious truth that emails are easier to read and digest than fortran code. This distorts the early article until the code analysis done by reliable sources starts to come out. We should make an effort to try and not let this natural progression of available RS distort the article. A data dump that is to a great extent fortran code, should have the word fortran in its wikipedia article. A data dump that has far more code than email should not be predominantly about the email instead of the code. This is not an accusation of conspiracy or bad faith. It's just an artifact of how easy it is to analyze the different types of data made available in the incident under discussion. TMLutas (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I should be fair, I was a little unclear when I said "How much of this material is email, code, comments, or other document types deserves analysis". I should have used the word mention. From what I have read so far, the email is about 5% of what is available. TMLutas (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken that there may be more of interest in the code than in the emails, but WP isn't (supposed to be) in the prediction business. The article at present, should reflect the relaible sourced discussion at present. Nil Einne is right that the article can reflect more of the results of the analysis of the code when RS analyze and report on what is in the code. --SPhilbrickT 15:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

a document dump that is 95% fortran code has a Wikipedia article that does not use the word fortran in it. It is a matter of accurate description not speculation that I'm looking at.

I've removed the section on Fortran code as it was completely unsourced. --TS 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And a happy thanksgiving to you TS. There's plenty of sources out there for the code. Sources that are going to survive tendentious use of the RS guidelines are a bit thinner on the ground.

CRU programmer comments in the extensive Fortran code released include mentions of invented data, the impossibility of reconciling different national schemes of invented data, "artificial adjustments" to force model results to come close to actual measured temperatures, as well as poor coding practices. Several programmer efforts to analyze the code for validity are ongoing but none yet completed.

The Pajamas Media news group has a piece out by a Colorodo computer scientist doing some preliminary analysis. Reason Magazine has a piece that relies heavily on statistician William Brigg's ongoing analysis efforts. CBS News also has an item on the programmer end of things that refers to three further ongoing code reviews from various perspectives.

If anybody could help out with better sources or think that any of these three sources are fit for the article, let me know. TMLutas (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The analyses I've seen are extremely poor. One mentions "the core of CRU's climate model," which is a bit problematic because CRU doesn't have a climate model. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can find some reliable sources for analysis of the Fortran code I don't think it's appropriate to include references to the code, except for the fact that it was among the stolen material. I happen to have many years personal experience as a freelance Fortran coder but I'm not about to suggest that my opinion or anybody else's that I have seen so far counts for much. --TS 15:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) From the little I read here, I'm guessing my comment was largely correct. There is insufficient information at the moment for us to be able to say much on the source code. Our best bet may be, if we can find sufficient sourcing, to mention there is a significant amount of source code which has yet to be rigirously analysed. I know this isn't surprising since it takes a lot more time then to read thorough e-mails and pick out interesting things. However it doesn't really concern us as editors except perhaps something to keep in the back of our minds. If and when reliable source start coming in with stuff we can write about, then we write about it. It's no use worrying about it now particularly given the amount of stuff we have to deal with that does having some degree of sourcing. Perhaps the source code will be so boring that there'll never be much to write about. Don't get me wrong, I understand why editors think it's a bit of a waste of time to write so much on stuff which could easily be superceeded in a few weeks. But that affects basically everything here and not just the source code (maybe some other email will become far more significant then the Mike Nature's trick one in the long term) and comes up in many current events. I've seen some of the junk left behind when people write with an extreme WP:Recentism perspective (as of ~2 years ago the 2005 Asian tsunami related articles were a good example, still discussing things as if it happened a few weeks ago. I personally feel people sometimes treat wikipedia as too muchlike wikinews and would be glad if people write a minimal article on this and then leave it be for several weeks. But neither side is going to be happy with that and I've never seen any sign the community is willing to move in that direction for current events and this isn't the place to discuss such a community wide move anyway, so whatever... Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has made a brave attempt at putting together a section on code analysis on the basis of some blog comments and the like. I've removed it because, with the best will in the world, and as a programmer with over a decade's experience of Fortran and a lifetime of coding in all languages, I don't see where this line of investigation is going. Let's be patient. Granting a pulpit to a few people who are armed with nothing but skepticism of the global warming consensus and an ability to critique a subprogram is not what we should be doing. --TS 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blog Summaries of Code

Here is a list of some blogs summarizing and discussing the code. Please add similar links to point reviewers to material to summarize.

• Bishop Hill's blog on The Code is summarizing findings the code with programmer details in comments with citations to the individual files. Note some code is languages other than Fortran.DLH (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Devils Kitchen has Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

DLH (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ecotretas details code sections in: Climate Hide the Decline CodifiedDLH (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral introduction

The second paragraph of the three paragraphs which currently constitutes the lead section is dealing with the controversial aspects of this story. As this paragraph currently reads[13] the sentence "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows a conspiracy by climate scientists to withhold scientific information" is the only indication that the criticism that has been levelled at the CRU researchers may have any merit. The defending camp is being mentioned by name and position. This constitutes a debunking-inclined presentation and the lead section in total does not meet WP:NPOV in my view. __meco (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication (other than speculation) that there is any merit to the criticism? We can't write it as if its more than speculation - its too early (see WP:CRYSTAL). Please separate the facts from the speculation please. Fact is that CRU documents have been released by parties unknown in an illegal manner. Opinions as to which implications this will have, or what the documents mean, are simply speculation, and must be treated as such. No matter if you like it or not, the victims in this case have the weight, since they are the only ones with accurate knowledge of the case... They may be lying but that is something that will be determined in the future (and not here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That the release of documents is illegal is not a fact, but an allegation. We do not yet know whether the documents were taken illegally, or left accidentally on an unprotected FTP site. IIRC, it wouldn't be the first time.--SPhilbrickT 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact. It doesn't matter how the files were taken. The taking of the files was illegal however it was done, as the UEA's statements have made clear - it's unauthorised access to a private server and unauthorised copying of private data, which violates at least three UK statues (the Computer Misuse Act, the Data Protection Act and the Copyright Act). The method by which the files were taken aggravates the illegality. The UEA and RealClimate both say that their servers were hacked, which is a crime in itself on both sides of the Atlantic. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chris, you do not know that. CRU accidentally left material on a public server in the past IIRC. Some people think it happened again. Neither you nor I know whether that happened, so I don't argue that it should be included, but until you can show me a reliable source excluding that possibility with 100% certainly, it's an allegation that the material was stolen. Why is there a rush to judgment to conclude that material was stolen (in the absence of reliable sources, but a more measurable restraint on whether the code has problems, or whether this information will hurt the reputation of climate scientists. All three are allegations. All three are strongly held by some people. All three may turn out to be true or found to be false. Seems like we should have parallel treatment, and separate facts from allegations.--SPhilbrickT 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is now apparent that the lead is being changed in an even more biased direction.[14] Now the balance stands as follows:

Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows a conspiracy by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.	Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous.
	Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.
	Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.

__meco (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version is much more balanced than the two previous versions which I have complained about. __meco (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe

I think it's appropriate to call Jim Inhofe a "famous climate skeptic". As somebody removed that I've replaced it with "campaigning climate skeptic." Senator Inhofe maintains a strongly skeptical, even sometimes conspiracy-minded, campaigning journal on global warming issues on an official Senate website. --TS 12:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to label people. -Atmoz (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's worth mentioning his position, given that he's a very prioment climate sceptic, but not through labelling. Perhaps something like "Senator James Inhofe, who has spoken out strongly against climate science..."? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How about more accuratly: "Senator James Inhofe, who has spoken out strongly against man as the cause of AGW"? the man does not speek out agasint science for crying out loud, simply the religious sect of science for this centruy.--97.92.93.161 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There's the Jim Inhofe you write about above and there's the Jim Inhofe we know. The two will never meet. The Jim Inhofe we know has a most peculiar approach to politics, in one interview mentioning proudly "a speech I made on the Senate floor ... [addressing] from a biblical perspective seven reasons why Israel is entitled to its land." [15] He claims that issues such as homosexuality and abortion are scriptural in nature. "It occurred to me when I was first elected in 1986 that there are no new problems. Things are answered in the Scriptures." (op. cit.) This attitude is fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. Inhofe has moreover repeatedly misrepresented the science of climate change in a way that is amply documented (see here for instance). --TS 15:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Little though I like Sen. Inhofe, your critique of this congresscritter is POV out the kazoo. As the senior ranking Republican on a key U.S. Senate committee (and a helluva Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" opponent) his response to Climategate and his role in a Senate investigation now grinding into gear are both prominent elements in this whole megillah. Like the proverbial "stopped clock," Sen. Inhofe may have found that one time of day when he's right, and studiously deleting mention of him on this Wikipedia page because find his religious whackjobbery and his politics odious is ludicrous. 71.125.155.89 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

I'm making two gnomish changes to references:

1. Some references have been added, not in WP:LDR citation style, so I'm converting them
2. I'm trying to adopt a standard reference naming nomenclature

The standard is <ref name="source date"> Where source is a short version of the source, e.g. "Guardian" and date is the day and month. If there is more than one source from a single source on the same day, I'll use "Guardian 2". I don't believe year is needed in the ref name; while sources may be added a year from now, the source name can just be incremented. I'm spelling out month. Wile 11-21 is unambiguous, 12-02 is ambiguous. For example, I just converted "times-1121" to "Times 21 Nov". The use of LDR style has been discussed upthread. If anyone has a better suggestion for a ref naming convention, let me know.--SPhilbrickT 12:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you created a reference with a name and can't find it, here's the ones I changed:

• cw20091125jtj to Computerworld 25 Nov
• BBC-1120 to BBC 20 Nov
• WSJ1 to WSJ 23 Nov
• Eilperin to WaPo 21 Nov
• Hickman1 to Guardian 24 Nov
• Revkin to NYTimes 20 Nov
• AP-2009-11-22 to AP 22 Nov
• Stringer-AP to AP 21 Nov
• "hickman" to "Guardian 20 Nov"
• reuters1 to Reuters 23 Nov

FYI, Nsaa posted to my talk page, preferring a different standard. I hope they will weigh in here so we can reach a consensus if there is a better convention.

Look at the second references now. It's broken. Secondly its bad to remove the year and standard formate for giving dates according to ISO 8601 and adding spaces in the refname so you need to use "". Nsaa (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the second reference, but I didn't break it.--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Old	Proposal 1	Proposal 2
cw20091125jtj	"Computerworld 25 Nov"	Computerworld20091125
BBC-1120	"BBC 20 Nov"	BBC20091120
WSJ1 to	"WSJ 23 Nov"	WSJ20091123
Eilperin	"WaPo 21 Nov"	WaPo20091121
Hickman1	"Guardian 24 Nov"	Guardian20091124Hickman
...	...	...

Adding a refname-format on the form SourceDateAuthor sounds like the logical way of doing it. As long as the date is on the format YYYYMMDD it's not possible to misunderstands it, and it sorts correctly. Nsaa (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the full numerical date cannot be misunderstood if people know the convention, and read it very carefully. However, the goal of ref naming is a tension between being succinct, so it doesn't clutter up the page, being unique, and being understandable. We could make it unique by putting the url in as a name, but that would be unbearably ugly.
I think my proposal is a good compromise in an article with quite a few references (for a shorter article, I usually just use source and a number if needed).
In an article this long, I think
"Reuters 23 Nov"
is easier for a human to read than
"reuter20091123"
YMMV
You mentioned sorting. I prefer listing my references in the reference section in the order they (first) appear. I suppose an argument can be made for sorting them alphabetically, but I don't believe that is commonly done.--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

More whitewashing, speculation and POV edits

Nsaa (talk · contribs) has been making a number of problematic edits. Dealing with them in turn:

• As I said above in #Whitewashing, it's absolutely unacceptable for the description of the data as "stolen" to be deleted. The victims of the crime have said unambiguously that the data was stolen, and there is no dispute in reliable sources that it was obtained illegally - that's why the police have been called in.
• As discussed above in #likely insiders?, the "insider" meme currently being pushed by anti-science bloggers is completely speculative. It appears in reliable sources attributed to one security consultant, whose own blog reveals himself to be a climate change sceptic (and thus hardly neutral), and is based on nothing more than his own personal speculation. Including it in the lede is gross undue weight, and I'm not sure it should even be in the article. (Disclaimer: I added it in the first place; I'm having second thoughts now.)
• Tony Sidaway has addressed the issue of the multiple redundant references supporting "Climategate" in #Unused references above. I'm undecided about whether we should refer to "Climategate" - it's POV sensationalism - but it's certainly the case that we don't need seven references to the same term. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The "victim" is hardly an acceptable source to determine whether something has been stolen. Furthermore, there are plausible scenarios in which the material could be obtained without stealing. I'm not for a second suggesting that a plausible alternative deserves discussion in the article, simply that alternative means that "stolen" has been alleged, rather than proven. The police are brought in all the time for incidents that turn out not to be a crime. That's why they investigate them. Whether the weight of evidence is in support of a claim that "stolen" is unambiguously correct is the very point of talk page discussion.--SPhilbrickT 16:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation on your part and nonsensical reasoning to boot. The victim is the reliable source for determining whether something has been stolen, since it's the victim's property that was taken and it's the victim's complaint that initiates the police investigation. "Stolen" is a hard fact, since the UEA's data was taken without permission. That's the very definition of theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use terms like "absolutely unacceptable" because it makes it harder to come to consensus, and consensus will determine what's acceptable and what isn't in this case. The word "stolen" has a special meaning when it comes to the copying of data, and I don't think it's the best word, because it diverts readers' minds to thievery in which someone has a monetary loss and someone else has a monetary gain -- that's the first thing we all think of. In fact, the entire emphasis on the illicit nature of the leak is a diversion from what's really important about the article: the information about what the scientists were saying to each other and how that reflects on their attitudes and actions. These people are influencing how billions of dollars are spent, how laws are made, how the economy may grow. Whether or not to refer to the leak as "stealing" or "theft" is trivial beside the question of whether or not these influential people were misusing their authority and resources. I realize that our sources use the terms "theft" and "stolen", so I can't say I have a problem with this trivial aspect of the subject. More work should go into what's been published and broadcast about the controversial parts of the documents, however, since that's where the importance of the article lies, where the debate is and what will affect the AGW controversy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it has no such special meaning. Google "data theft" some time. We even have an article on the subject. If someone hacked into your bank and downloaded your account details and those of your fellow bank customers, I don't think you'd be denying that it was an act of theft. If you don't believe me, try doing that yourself and tell the court that it wasn't really an act of theft. I'm sure they'll take you seriously - just as seriously as they've taken all the Internet pirates who've made the same argument as you, that illegally downloading other people's data isn't really theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove unused references

If we reach a consensus that they will not be used, they can be removed, but consensus has not been reached. Removing references before reaching consensus, as opposed to simply commenting them out, looks like vandalism to me.)--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If references are not being used but are merely commented out, they're no use to anyone, and they merely add to download times for users. The only references that should be included in the article should be those that there is a consensus to include. If there is no consensus to include them they should not be present in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I'd strongly resent calling it vandalism. Refs are no more or less protected than other content (and can be retrieved via the history). However, I agree that it is a reasonable request to leave in references to reliable, on-topic sources as a comment, as long as the article is in a lot of flux. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that most of the references I removed were actually blogs, which shouldn't be used as sources in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing references if consensus has decided not to include them. But in a contentious issue such as this, consensus should evolve over days, not hours. I'm sorry you object to the word vandalism. I assume you are working in GF, I'm telling you how it may look to someone who spent considerable time researching and compiling a number of references.--SPhilbrickT 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's policy that blogs shouldn't be used as sources, as you should know. Someone added a slew of unreliable sources in an effort to provide sources for the term "Climategate". (Why seven different sources should be used for the same thing I have no idea.) -- ChrisO (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nsaa (talk · contribs) and Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) that ChrisO (talk · contribs) edits are starting to look like vandalism and coming close to 3RR on some edits.

• for example the use of "Climategate" is well sourced (even from a New Your Times writer). I suggest finding Consensus among editors before making drastic edits. Also ChrisO (talk · contribs) is deleting sentences [16] and orphaning a reference then later deleting the "unused reference" that is bad behavior in my book. --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text from start of page

It looks like I removed text from the start of page, I can only guess it was due to editing when somebody else did. I have no real opinion on what was removed. I've left it alone as it seems to be under dispute. Bevo74 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've restored a version of what you accidentally removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,I seem to be having a problem today with editing,I even had a problem posting above! Bevo74 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climategate"

I said at the start of this discussion that the term "Climategate" was probably going to show up in non-blog sources at some point; this has now happened. Although I personally deplore it as sloppy journalism (why does everything have to have -gate appended to it?), mentioning it is pretty much unavoidable now. Accordingly I've added a neutrally worded mention of it in the lede, sourced to a Reuters report stating that the incident has "already [been] dubbed 'Climategate'".[17]

I've removed the other six (!) sources that someone had added referencing the same thing. First, as mentioned above in #Unused references, it's simply unnecessary to have so many redundant sources. Second, the other sources were predominately blogs - these should not be used as sources. Third, we are not supposed to add references to examples of a term being used (as this constitutes original research and violates the rule on the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources), but it's legitimate to refer to a discussion of a term being used - hence the selection of the Reuters source, which describes how the term is being used rather than merely being an example of usage. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. We pretty much need to include the term "Climategate"....this is the direction we are headed. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I didn't gather the sources mentioning "climateGate" so this is simply speculation, but the earlier resistance to the use of the term was based upon the paucity of usage in RS. Presumably, someone began assembling multiple sources to show that it was becoming unubiquitous. I agree that some were blogs, so not appropriate for referencing, but they are appropriate for determining usage. Frankly, I don't like the term, but it seems to have taken hold.--SPhilbrickT 17:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we're not in the business of "determining usage" - this is the original research issue that I mentioned above. If a reliable source describes how a term is being used then we can cite that reliable source, but we can't go around carrying out our own research on the subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have used the term "Climategate" so we are OK. No need for original research here. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The following comment from User:Duchamps_comb was merged here from a separate section --TS 14:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a few editors do not want this in the intro. However there is many editors who do. It is a well referenced/sourced usage in regard to the email hacking incident. A quick google search of "climategate" yields 473,000 hits. As well many MSM outlets have used this verbiage as a talking point.

So I believe even if Consensus is not 100% we should error on the side of nondeletion.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd hold off on the "Climategate" references for now. As of today there are absolutely no references to the story on my local (UK) version of the Google News main page, and all climate news stories there are tightly focused on the imminent Copenhagen summit. If as seems to be the case this was an attempt to sabotage the summit, it seems to have failed. The story remains as a talking point on mostly right wing new sources and blogs, but for now at least it seems to have disappeared from the surface of the news leaving barely a ripple. If it re-emerges as some kind of scientific integrity scandal at some point in the future, perhaps it will be appropriate to consider writing about it as such. --TS 14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The name Climategate is coined, use is already widespread. It is not stated anywhere in Wikipedia rules that for word to become legitimate it shall make to the first page of the Google news in the UK (the subject sure is on the main page here in the US). Dimawik (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if Viriditas has slimed into the page and stricken mention of "Climategate" from the article in order to obliterate the word for no reason other than the fact that it really bites him/her in the crotch. Jeez, can't you friggin' fascists just suck it up and admit that the term is in common usage even among your beloved propaganda churners in the MSM? 71.125.159.106 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over use of blog Realclimate

Realclimate is a blog and is not a reliable source. Why is it quoted in the text? Institute of Klimatology (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Its comments have been reported by a reliable source, namely Computerworld magazine. It would not be acceptable to quote it directly, but quoting its views second-hand is acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)B

One of the leaked emails from Michael Mann essentially states that RealClimate.com's administration will help Mann's side in discussions at that website. It should not be a source for anything but its own opinions. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And in what reliable source is it stated that Realclimate.com's "administration" (who is that?) will "help Mann's side in discussions"? Or do you mean that realclimate will reflect the scientific opinion of the blog authors? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann himself said that Schmidt at RealClimate.com would do things in an undherhanded way to favor Mann's side in an upcoming discussion. You haven't read that? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up. The issue of Realclimate being a WP:RS has been discussed several times. So far, no one's been able to provide a reason why it's not a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaclimate is a blog--it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed. Also, contributors to Realclimate are involved in the scandal. So, it is inappropriate as a primary or secondary source. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, it's run by Gavin A. Schmidt, an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. He's been published by over 60 peer-reviewed academic journals, including the highly prestigious Nature journal. If you want to see how many times he's been published by reliable sources, check his NASA bibliography here. Also, check his biography here. The blog itself has been named one of the best science and technology web sites by Scientific American[18]. Time Magazine has also praised the site[19]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, the Church of Global Warming members defend the use of a blog ONLY when they agree with it. Tell me, If a source is not WP:RS (A Blog like RealClimate)... then why would anyone trust the word of a RS that quotes from a blog? thats like saying "Well, Billy isn't a Nazi, he just quotes things from Nazi's alot, so what billy says is totally reasonable." Realclimate is not a blog, it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed. just because other media outlets are okay with sourcing a sub-standard source, doesn't mean wikipedia should start accepting those who quote those who aren't WP:RSs as acceptable. I can't believe RealClimate BLOG's validity as a source is even still up for discussion. Its a blog people. and a Blog is not a WP:RS--97.92.93.161 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. And what is even worse, RC is involved in this scandal. (and yet again: No, I don't need an RS for that assertion) 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does BLP apply to institutions?

Claiming BLP applies to institutions seems spurious. The source supports the claim that the institution has refused to share data. Perhaps "resisting" would seem more neutral to you?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

People at the institution have certainly refused to share information in some circumstances. They've refused FOI requests. That's not a BLP violation if the sourcing is there for it. If the sourcing isn't there, it may be a violation -- I would say in that case it would be a violation. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to people at institutions. Statements such as "so and so at that institution refused to share information" needs the most reliable sources, otherwise they should be deleted. Sourcing to newspaper reports that quote the opinions of others about the matter is not acceptable. LK (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Among other problems, that claim is original research by synthesis - joining two sources to make an unpublished novel argument. Wikipedia:Original research specifically prohibits this. The claim of FOI refusals pre-dates by months this hacking incident. One of the citations, to National Review, is an opinion piece, which should not be used to make statements of fact. You can say "National Review argued..." but not state National Review's argument as an undisputed fact. If you want to draw a connection between the apparent FOI refusals and this incident, you need a source that makes that connection. One cannot simply take an old source and present it in support of an unpublished argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You should stop reverting sourced text. You've already broken the three revert rule. There was already a reference in the paragraph connecting the dots, so your claim of synthesis does not hold water.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What reference are you talking about? Both your sources pre-date this incident - one is from August, the second from September. You have no source from November connecting the incident and the FOI refusals. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Theft (2)

The denial by some editors that the stolen data was stolen is getting surreal. The UEA has said explicitly in two statements that the material was stolen:

• "The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers..."
• "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit..."
• "this email correspondence has been stolen and published..."

Let's be in no doubt about this. The only reliable source for whether the material was stolen is the UEA. It owns the material, it was the victim of this breach and it's the body which referred the matter to the police. No other source is competent to determine whether or not the material was stolen; the UEA is the undisputed owner of that material and it's the UEA's rights which have been infringed. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was an insider, it could be considered whistleblowing, which is covered by some laws. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whistleblowing is a defence to charges of theft; it does not change the fact of the theft, it merely provides an argument that it was a justifiable action. But that's a side issue, since it's pure speculation that a whistleblower was involved. Whoever hacked the RealClimate server certainly wasn't blowing any whistles there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if whistleblowing was a valid excuse under UK laws, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a whistleblower provision in English law, but I very much doubt that it would fly in this case given the hacking and the indiscriminate nature of the data theft. The situation might be different if it was a matter of an individual leaking a few documents to expose a particular issue, but all the reporting on this incident indicates a brute-force hack and an indiscriminate gathering of any material the individual could find - the vast majority of which appears to be innocuous and frankly boring. A number of writers have already made the point that the critics are focusing on only a handful of e-mails and documents. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The whistleblower common law act does seem to be in play here. So the term theft likely does not apply, particularly since many POV sources are using it. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. We operate on the basis of what reliable sources say, not your personal views. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. It is the legal opinion reported by reliable sources (I'm not an attorney). Please try to keep up.Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In the UK employees who release information that is in the public interest enjoy some limited immunity from dismissal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (note my emphasis on the words "employees" and "dismissal"). This Act is enforced through the Industrial Tribunal System. On prosecution, the case of Clive Ponting establishes a defence from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act when an employee subject to that Act leaks information in the public interest.

It's difficult to see how either of those cases applies here, where all the available evidence is that the data was obtained and disseminated by accessing computer servers without authorization and there is no evidence of the involvement of employees (who moreover are not subject to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act). The indiscriminate nature of the release (described by the criminals themselves as "a random selection") would also make it difficult to assemble any kind of public interest defence. --TS 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Stolen" is the term the University of East Anglia (UEA) wishes used. "Copied" is more precise (the material, after all, was not erased or otherwise made unavailable to the officials and employees of the UEA/CRU). As for the intent of the hacker/whistleblower, doesn't anybody else find meaning in the fact that the archive containing this information was uploaded with the name "FOIA.zip"? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Times blog ref

The user ChrisO has been objecting to using the NYT blog. Stating that, "the NYT source is (a) a blog and (b) says exactly what Reuters says."

• [20]
• [21]

As per WP:BLOGS a personal blog is not to be used, however a reliable/credible one can be. "Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used."

• As above [22] please do not delete references without consensus.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First, as mentioned ad nauseam in this discussion, we should not be citing blogs in this article unless they are cited by a reliable source. Second, the blog adds nothing. It says that the affair has been "dubbed ClimateGate". Compare this to the Reuters news report, which says that the affair has "already [been] dubbed "Climategate"". Tell me, what does the NYT blog add? It says exactly the same thing as the Reuters report, almost word-for-word, on the issue of what the affair has been dubbed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We should also remove references to the Realclimate blog. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussions ad nauseam above. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(After EC) Again, scroll up. The issue of RealClimate being a WP:RS has already been discussed several times. So far, no one's been able to provide a reason why it's not a WP:RS.

It is a non-reliable blog, since it is not fact checked and not peer reviewed. It cannot be used as a source. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, RealClimate is not being cited directly; the citation is to Computerworld magazine which quotes RealClimate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter. It's produced by an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Institute of Klimatology, stop wasting our time with nonsense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It does matter--particularly since contributors to the Realclimate blog are involved in the actual scandal. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, where in WP:RS does it say this? Please cite the specific section or paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the Wikipedia rules. An RS is need for

This aspect is not covered by WP:RS. That is common sense not to cite as a primary source a party involved in a scandal. WP relies on common sense as well (see WP:IAR). Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the Wikipedia rules. An RS is need for statements made in a article, not in a discussion about the article. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words you're pulling it out of your backside. Please stop wasting everyone's time with such nonsense. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they guy is totally right. According to your reasonging I could demand from you a RS that he's waisting your time. that's ridiculous. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If a blog is not a rep. source (which aggreed its not, including a blog from the Church of Global Warming there at RealClimate) then a article that sites a blog as a source for quotes is obviously not a WP:RS. --97.92.93.161 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is when it's produced by an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by third-party reliable sources. Read the guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

redirect and (disambiguation)

This has been repeatedly deleted. Why?--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" still exists as a redirect. But you're abusing "Climategate (disambiguation)" to turn it into an effective POV fork of this page. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation to see how disambiguation is supposed to be used. What you were creating was not a disambiguation page, and there is no disambiguation needed of a term that was only invented a few days ago. It has now been salted to prevent you or anyone else creating it again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I realize that WP is not a crystal ball however "salting" the page is ridiculous. "Climategate" is a neologism soon to be another Lewinskygate. However a good example of such uses is moneybomb coined in 2007 to describe a grassroots fundraising effort over a brief fixed time period. This word was created in the MSM and is now part of the vernacular.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To seresin

• Speedily deleted page recreated already

Climategate (disambiguation) has already been recreated. I've re-nominated it for speedy deletion; could you please salt it this time? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the situation. Note that climategate exists, just like Lewinskygate. What has been salted is Climategate (disambiguation) which is as useless as Lewinskygate (disambiguation). If you are still confused, read WP:DAB to understand what disambiguation is and how it works. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

adding the word falsification

I tried to add the word falsification here [23] it was struck down as POV.

here are three references [24], [25], and here [26] that use the quote:

• "About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend." I think with this word falsification should be able to be used.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers and blogs are not reliable sources for scientific staments. Accusations of scientific fraud do exist here, but it can only be stated as a fact when the scientific journals say so and retract the articles that are based on the data that is now under discusson, as they did in the Jan Hendrik Schön case. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the input, please took at the first link to the PDF file (press release) by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "falsification" does seem to be warrated here, based on the reliable sources provided. I supports its inclusion. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition not a reliable source, none of the sources talks about the CRU hack and data at all. Reading seems to be on the way out... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is as reliable as the blog Realclimate. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. But its also irrelevant. The NZCSC has not made any statement on the CRU hack. It misrepresents a completely different issue in the sources listed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, IoK has been indefinitely blocked (I presume as a sock). And I know I should resist but I can't. Anyone who quotes Ian Wishart other then in jest... Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Query

Whose sockpuppet is User:Climatedragon? Does the style ring any bells? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Scibaby to me. Note that the sock made just enough token edits to other articles to allow him to edit this semi-protected one? He could hardly be a more obvious sock if he tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry to disappoint your paranoia , I'm nobody's "sock". Now if you wnat to discuss INDIVIDUAL changes that I made go ahead.

"Stole" means theft. Theft means removing something. Using hyperbolae may suit you personal spin but is not correct for wiki.

Technically it was probably computer misuse. Arguing the toss over which statute applies probably doesn't help your defence. --TS 00:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to defend criminality

Attempts to defend criminal acts, particularly by linking this theft to alleged attempts to dodge requests to share data, have entered the article. This is unacceptable. We don't engage in advocacy. In particular, we don't engage in advocacy of crime. --TS 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we do not advocate crime. The text you deleted does not advocate crime. Exactly where do you think the deleted text advocates a crime? The deleted text is well sourced and gives relevant background to the Phil Jones quote that follows. The hacking incident has a context in the FIOA requests and in the prior refusals of the CRU to share data with colleagues. Wecan reasonably discuss how to present this relevant background and context, but pretending the background does not exist is a violation of NPOV. How would you suggest the well sourced background of the CRU's refusal to share data and the subsequent FOIA requests be included?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If we as an encyclopedia make a link between this crime and the allegations that FOI requests have been dodged, we are indeed advocating criminality. If we claim that the crime was caused by dodging FOI requests, then a very good source is needed. We don't have a good source for that. The criminals have attempted to defend their crime by reference to such allegations, perhaps. Well they would, wouldn't they! --TS 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Math.geek3 hasn't bothered to answer my question posted above in #Since when does BLP apply to institutions?, where I pointed out that his sources pre-dated the hacking incident. Using old sources to link FOI to this incident is, of course, pure original research by synthesis. Unfortunately it seems that Math.geek3 has the same view of Wikipedia's basic content policies as a dog has of a lamppost. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course we engage in advocacy. Not only do we engage in it, we wallow in it. What planet do you live on? Been watching any ID articles lately? Been watching this article lately? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, but the rampant idiocity on display in this article and its talk page - sockpuppeting, weaselling, outright fabrication, ranting about "the liberals", continual BLP violations, copyright violations and so on - is all coming from one side here. I don't normally edit articles relating to global warming but from the evidence of this article it's obvious that the topic area is being targeted by some shamelessly abusive editors. If this is what the the regular editors of this topic area have to put up with, they have my sympathies. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that's what it amounts to: that an editor has decided to sketch a line from some FOI requests during the summer to the recent hacking. Yes obviously that isn't going to work. --TS 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The 20 Nov Guardian article explicitly connected the FOIA requests with the hacking incident, and it was referenced. The position that we cannot possibly describe relevant circumstances and background without advocating the criminal act borders on the absurd. In the article on Lincoln's assassination, does describing Booth's southern sympathies or Lincoln's plan to give blacks the right to vote constitute advocacy for the Lincoln's murder? In what other case would one argue that using verifiable sources to document relevant background consitutes advocacy for a serious crime?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Recall the issue of FOI was brought up in the emails. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that the conduct that led to the release of the emails may be protected under whistle-blower legislation. It's far too early to be assert that a crime has been committed. Ronnotel (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We need to be careful about sources which are speculating without any evidence. We can indicate that "sources report theft..." etc. if that is what they say. But to call it criminal without any charges being filed and reported in a RS would make calling this incident "theft" premature. Meltdown36 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

response to the original editor

Determining criminality is something that the legal system does. There have been no charges. It is unclear whether there shall ever be charges. To defend criminality one must have a crime. What crime was committed? Do you have a reliable source that can survive the heightened scrutiny of BLP? This unsupported assertion of criminality is POV pushing, playing at being a lawyer, and in general putting the cart before the horse. If you want to assert theft unconditionally, you have to support this just like anything else in Wikipedia.

For myself, I am not a lawyer. Specifically, I am not a UK lawyer. I do not know what laws cover the situation. I concede that theft might have happened but there very well could be exceptions in UK law for whistle blowing that apply to this situation. The recent greenpeace protesters who were acquitted of trespass and damaging property used a defense which surprised me but the jury ruled in their favor and thus they did not commit an offense against the laws of the UK. Distributing data that was arguably being criminally withheld might come under the same or another legitimate defense under UK law. Irrespective of whether it was illegal or not, it was the right thing to do. Exposing the crimes against the laws of the UK and against the normal practices of science was a justifiable act in my opinion, given what I know of the situation so far. TMLutas (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since those claiming that the background material advocates criminality have not explained how, nor have they suggested how to include this well-sourced material without advocating criminality, nor have they responded to the real issues at hand, I'll go ahead and give it my best shot without their input, since they have declined my request for their advice. My edits will mention the alleged criminality in a way that is mindful of the views expressed here that there is not yet an overwhelming conclusion of a criminal act.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What "background material" are you referring to here? --TS 12:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading User:TMLutas's statement here, he seems to be actively denying that there is prima facie evidence of a crime. He might be surprised to know that the police were called in at an early stage, it's pointless pretending that no crime took place. Counter-allegations attempting to defend the crime by alleging that it was committed to stop another crime are somewhat disingenuous. --TS 12:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no support in the RS (or on this page) for labeling this a crime - doing so at this point is OR. Ronnotel (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very odd thing to say. Hacking is a crime in the UK and in the US. One or two people may disagree with the facts but if so they're on their own. --TS 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, hacking is a crime. However, there is also the possibility that whatever happened could be protected under whistle-blower legislation. Determining criminality is a matter for the legal system, not this page. Ronnotel (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Police investigating the matter does not even make it a crime. If someone falls down a flight of stairs, the police will investigate as well - if they eventually find that the person is just clumsy, there is no crime. Wknight94 ^talk 13:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

However, we know a crime was committed. We do not know if a whistle-blower was involved. Let's stick with what we know and discard the rest. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I don't know that at all. Unless there is a WP:RS to say it for sure, neither do you. Wknight94 ^talk 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That almost sounds like an argument from ignorance. Are you saying a crime wasn't committed? The e-mails hacked themselves? Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Read above - there may be a justification for the released e-mails. It's not a crime until someone says it's a crime. Wknight94 ^talk 13:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence for such justification, only wild speculation. And consider this: If there was a whistle-blower, that would imply wrongdoing. And since there does not appear to be any wrongdoing, what need is there for a whistle-blower? The entire incident was staged to distract people from the upcoming climate conference. A crime was committed in the process. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"The entire incident was staged to distract people from the upcoming climate conference." Now who is engaging in wild speculation? Again, it is not a crime until someone says it's a crime. Someone besides you that is. Wknight94 ^talk 14:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's standard dirty tricks, right out of the playbook. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

TS: This is absolut nonsense. There is a link between the tho issues, that's not something Wikipedia has made up, to not mention it would therefore be a fault. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the criminals would like us to excuse their crime by drawing an inference, but that doesn't mean the two issues are actually linked. The suggestion that there is such a link has not been taken seriously. Every opponent of science who resorts to petty crime and smearing wants to justify his acts by depicting himself as a popular hero uncovering serious wrongdoing. It isn't our job as a neutral encyclopedia either to support or to oppose such attempts. We should present the facts with due weight. The facts as known do not support the claims of the criminals. This could change over time, and then and only then would we be able to write that the criminals acted with justification. --TS 14:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss something? As fas as I know, the 'criminals' (not convicted yet) have made no claims aside that the files were too important to keep secret, we dont' even know who did it, do we? So to call them 'opponents of science' is a bold interpretation. Claims have been made by other people (not by the criminals), pointing out, that the files show misuse of scientific methods. Some of these claims are justified, as a look into the files shows. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot reaction

I am aware this gentleman is a signficant supporter of AGW: [27]

Should this be included in the article? Thanks. Meltdown36 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. It would be poisoning the well. Monbiot is quoted as a columnist in The Guardian. If readers want to know his views they can with one click access our article on him. The only other option is to leave out mention of him altogether, on the basis that his column was op-ed rather than news. A debate about this would be valuable - in fact it raises an issue about how we handle the op-ed/news distinction which I shall take to the talk page of WP:RS our sourcing guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. To describe Monbiot as merely a columnist would be very misleading. The last time I looked at the article he was described as an environmental activist or something along those lines, which I think is appropriate. We should characterize our sources correctly. --TS 12:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to describe him at all? "Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot said...". I am more concerned, as I said on WP:FTN, that his comments appear to be cherry-picked. We must avoid the WP:SYN of an implication "look, even people like GM are saying.." But even that is less important than some of the other things that are appearing and reappearing by the hour. This topic is going to remain controversial. We need a balanced article on it and shouldn't be making snap decisions and falling into recentism. There are a number of reliable sources available. They need to be revisited to make sure that they are used as fully as possible and written up according to the high standards we aim for in articles on controversial topics. Perhaps the article needs a to-do list. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To leave something out, because it could be politically misused, is a political misuse itself. And your concerns could be attached to climate sceptics as well: "of course they say the files are scandolous, they're are sceptics." Everything can be abused, if we'd adhere to your requests, wikipedia would be an empty space. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's important to point out that both AGW deniers and believers have criticized the comments made in the released emails. In the lead and elsewhere in the "Reactions" section, we've identified AGW skeptics as a group commenting on this, which is fair and informative. Why on earth would we not identify the fact that someone who supports the mainstream view would criticize what was in the emails? Readers should know where the people reacting are coming from. If you were reading the article without knowing Monbiot's POV, you'd feel better informed if you were told. This is common practice in Wikipedia's coverage of controversies. JohnWBarber (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You say it is common practice: can you give examples? I don't know where it is in policy or guidelines, and as I said above, Monbiot's name is already linked. I have not come here with strong feelings on every point that should or should not be included. I do want to see the article follow good practice on controversial articles. Most of all, I counsel avoidance of recentism. It's not necessary to follow every twist and turn of the controversy. There are some excellent news sources cited here. If we stick to what they say then we won't go far wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiny proportion?

The text of the article contains the following unsourced statement (inserted by WMC): The vast majority of the mail was innocuous plain scientific correspondence. A tiny proportion included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics. By my count, more than 10% of the emails mention Stephen McIntyre by his last name, so the statement appears to be factually incorrect. Absent a reliable source, I would suggest to revert the WMC's change. Dimawik (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the word "tiny" a problem here? Even if it is true that 10% of the emails refer to the editor of Climate Audit blog by name, it follows that "the vast majority" (90%) do not. --TS 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is in a total absence of sourcing. The statement also seems to be factually incorrect (10% is not a tiny proportion in English) after a cursory look of data. Note that I did not even try to find names of other skeptics. My number, by the way, is 100% WP:OR, and I am not looking to insert it into the article - but so is the text inserted by WMC quoted above. I am therefore looking to revert this change unless WP:RS is provided. Dimawik (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This has now been modified by Short Brigade Harvester Boris here [28] Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This change is not sufficient, as the current text of the article still has totally unsourced vast majority. Dimawik (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is unquestionably WP:OR without a source. It should be removed or sourced immediately. In addition, even if true, it is quite irrelevant. --SPhilbrickT 14:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite error

This is appearing at the bottom of the page, and should probably be fixed by somebody with proper privileges to edit the page:

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "regalado1" defined in <references> is not used in prior text.

--Lewis (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; I did it myself. I thought the page was protected, but apparently it's just "semi-protected" and I have the right permissions, after all. --Lewis (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?

The article begins by assuming that an "unknown hacker stole" multiple emails and source code files. This is valid as these statements are sourced and this is in fact how the story has been widely reported. But we should be aware that this may not be what occurred. Evidence for this is:

1. The files appear to have been preselected for FOIA request. Evidence that this is the case is that there are no personal emails included in the emails (almost all employees send SOME personal emails from their work account) and the emails cover several years; and source code files are stored separately from the files in an email server. In addition the emails stop at a date right before an FOIA request by McIntyre was rejected.
2. There was a previous release of a file collection like this "by accident" by CRU. Under similar circumstances McIntyre had requested a set of files, they were in fact gathered and zipped, and then Phil Jones copied the zip file to a directory on a publicly accessible server. There was in fact a CRU "mole" involved in that incident who tipped off McIntyre as to the location of the file.
3. Because the file was on a publicly available server, McIntyre was able to access the zip file and download it. No crime was committed.

The current circumstances are similar. All that is really known is that a zip file, organized in such a way as to appear to be a collection of documents gathered for a FOIA request (that was denied) suddenly appeared on public FTP servers. While CRU claimed a hack, and called the police, we don't actually know that a hack occurred.

So. Because we cannot use original research, I am not posting any of this commentary to the article. While the previous release to McIntyre did occur the way I describe it here and CAN be documented with public sources, it is not DIRECT evidence that this occurred in this circumstance. But I am saying that everyone should be cautious because it is very possible that this current incident being referred to as a hack and a crime may in fact be no such thing. So all the emotional ranting about "criminals" and "crime" may turn out to be about no such thing. Be cautious is my suggestion. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unauthorized release of emails is a crime in most Western jurisdictions. It doesn't matter whether it was done by a hacker from the outside or a disgruntled employee on the inside. Unless you're proposing that Jones himself released the emails there's little doubt that some form of criminal activity occurred. The only other possibility is that Jones's supervisor or someone else in a higher-ranking position authorized release of the emails, which stretches credulity to the breaking point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The legal position of someone who purposely "broke into" the CRU system to steal the data would be quite different from, say, someone who had been involved in collecting the material for such an FOIA request. In the latter, it would be much more difficult to prosecute someone like that for unlawful access to computer systems if they had a legitimate reason to access the material in the first place. This is all speculation, of course, since we don't know what the situation actually is. We should be careful about labeling this a crime until RS's report on it. Ronnotel (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

All this is so much special pleading. You rely on a tendentious argument to support the notion that we're speculating when we say there is prima facie evidence of a crime. That won't wash. --TS 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If that were true, it would be in WP:RS. Wait for it. Wknight94 ^talk 15:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What won't wash is making wild, unsupported claims. In which WP policy will I find the "prima facie" standard? Ronnotel (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"prima facie" is a legal term. You demand "reliable sources" but both the victim of the crime and two separate independent servers have confirmed that their systems were accessed without authorization. Even if the original access had by some change been legal, the other two were not. --TS 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what prima facie means. My point is that there there is absolutely no mention of the term in WP policies and thus no support for arguments. Ronnotel (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, if an employee of a company copies files to a FTP server with public access used by that company, making the files available, then anyone accessing the files is not committing a criminal act. It may however be a firing offense for the employee if they did not have permission to do that, but that must be defined within the corporate HR policies and the corporate IT policies, and in most circumstances would not be considered a criminal act. Now if an employee copies files to a PUBLIC FTP server (e.g. not controlled by that company or organization) then this may absolutely be considered a criminal act for that employee. It is not however a criminal act from that point for anyone else to copy those files around or publish the contents (see US Supreme Court case related to "Pentagon Papers"). I suggest the 2nd scenario may have taken place, see Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why. If so it was not what would be considered a "hack" nor were any "criminal hackers" involved if this scenario is correct. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation without a thread of fact from which to hang it. Emailing documents to a journalist may be legal. Hacking into a server to plant the documents there is not. Your reference to a non-existence public ftp server is a simple misdirection. That isn't what happened. --TS 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You speak about "what happened" but the point I am making is we don't know what actually happened. There evidence is that the first actual release of data was to a public FTP server in Russia. You talk about hacking into a server to plant documents -- did that occur? Did any documents get planted? Where? SunSw0rd (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is that uploading someone else's email to a public FTP server in Russia is somehow legal? Really? Try doing that with your boss's email and let us know how it works out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. My argument is that uploading a file already prepared for an FOIA response is not a hack crime. Not that it is legal. Do you grasp the distinction? I am not arguing the legality per se but the use of the term hack or hacker. That is why I titled this section "Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?" and NOT "Did A Crime Actually Occur?" SunSw0rd (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid getting into this whole 'editor speculation' thing but since so many others aren't... People keep mentioning this 'accidental upload to public server' thing. However it seems to me that even if that was the case, it wouldn't definitely mean no crime was committed. Perhaps downloading the information was not a crime since they may not have known what it was or that it wasn't supposed to be there and so I'm not sure if data theft would be involved but it seems to me redistributing content you know to be private and not intended for redistribution could easily be a civil violation (at the very least copyright infrigement) and maybe even a crime. In some circumstances they could claim they weren't aware the information was intended to be private but that's a rather difficult claim to make when you upload the information saying it was "too important to be kept under wraps". Continueing with the random examples trend, if someone at Microsoft uploads the Windows source code to a public server by accident, ignoring the people laughing at Microsoft and the many heads that will roll, good luck trying to win the case when you argue "well it was on a public server so I thought it was okay to redistribute it" (your punishment may be less then if you'd hacked into Microsoft or broken in to their offices but you're unlikely to get away scot free). Yes when people 'fuck up' they're asking for trouble but it doesn't negate the requirements for people to operate within the bounds of the law Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source indicating a charges have been filed by a local or international legal authority? This is the ultimate test of whether a crime may or may not have been committed, and whether or not is in a proper form for Wikipedia. SonixBoom (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Account blocked. [29]

The test is typically that a complaint has been filed with the relevant law enforcement authorities, which has been mentioned in several RS. Your test is relevant only to the identity of the responsible party, not whether illegal activity occured. Slowjoe17 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's a cynical and disingenuous redefinition. If someone mugs you on the street and steals your wallet, a crime has occurred. That's a verifiable fact, not a matter of interpretation - someone has assaulted you and taken your property without authorisation. In this case, the victim of the crime has stated repeatedly and explicitly that its property has been stolen. The reason why some anti-science activists are making this absurd argument is that - presumably because they still have a vestigal conscience or sense of shame, albeit withered - they recognise the hypocrisy of relying on criminally obtained material to make complaints about allegedly unethical behaviour. Therefore they feel a need to redefine the theft of the files as not really a crime at all, deny that there was any hacking involved and invent a supposed whistleblower out of thin air. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context, that is your interpretation/original research. We require facts reported by reliable sources here. Trundlex (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone mugs you on the street and steals your wallet, a crime has occurred. And that's how news organizations report that kind of thing. And our reliable sources here say "steal" "stolen" and "theft". This is not worth a lot of discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources saying charges have been filed? I could not find them. Trundlex (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has been charged with the crime because the identity of the culprit is not yet known. Obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is getting a long way from the reservation. Obviously hacking did occur, we have documentation for that and we won't be removing that documentation from the article simply because somebody insists that we wait until charges have been filed. --TS 03:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that we do know that "obviously hacking did occur". What we pretty much know is that a crime occurred -- but not necessarily a hacking crime. See the wikipedia page on Hacker. There is no evidence that any computer security systems were circumvented. If an insider released the files, then a crime occurred if they put them on a public FTP server. BUT that is not a hack. That is why I started this section with the question "Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?" and NOT "Did A Crime Actually Occur?" The thing is this article leads off with "e-mail hacking incident" and "hacking of a server" when in fact no hacking may have taken place. Apparent theft yes, hacking no. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you say "no evidence" as if you mean it, yet here we have statements from a university and from third parties that speak of their respective servers having been hacked. Even as I write, the Climate Research Unit's website is running on an emergency server. Pull the other one. --TS 04:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's let the authorities judge if/what crime occurred, let's let a reliable source report that fact...and then we can include it. Trundlex (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what we're doing. We report those reliable sources on the respective hacking incidents. I presume that the originator of this thread is suggesting that we should ignore those sources for reasons he hasn't completely explained. --TS 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A crime can't be reported if charges haven't been filed. Not all reliable source are reporting a crime. 71.84.241.177 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only ones that aren't reporting it as a crime are commentators, pundits, and op/eds. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is highly likely that a crime did occur, and I'm not surprised that many news outlets are running with that story. However, I thought Wikipedia held itself to a higher standard. There is a plausible scenario under which the incident could have occurred without theft (as SunSw0rd has explained.) Consequently, absent proof of a crime, it behooves us to use the word "alleged" until such time as proof emerges.--SPhilbrickT 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, a crime is the default position. We know that the e-mails and data were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit. That is a crime. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hide The Decline"

A viral video is making the rounds on YouTube. It's a very catchy tune and after three days it has now 200,000 views. Now, this topic is currently so infested I would not (based on my Wikipedia experience) be surprised if someone tries to remove this section from the talk page even, and obviously we still lack references from reliable sources on its notability, but I suggest we begin to contemplate inclusion as it is so professionally made that I'll be flabbergasted if the mainstream media does not pick up on it very soon. __meco (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw a reference somewhere that the video was produced by the Jib Jab design studio, which is notable in and of itself. If this can be verified, then it might be added to the list of notable videos on that page. Ronnotel (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No sourcing = doesn't belong in the article. I doubt that this would be of sufficient notability to mention in the article even if there was sourcing though. Per Ronnotel, if the producer has a article and there is sourcing to establish it was a significant creation of theirs then it may belong in their article but that should be discussed there Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course this is now a snowball growing beyond control and "Hide The Decline" is also a catchy meme that might even get a life of its own if the snowball gets even bigger. __meco (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if that does happen then we can discuss including the video in the article on the meme when the time comes. And once we have the article we can discuss how much to mention it here. But until then... P.S. Looking at the Jib Jab article, it's in a rather poor state with almost no sourcing establishing the significance of most of the videos so adding this one will probably not be hard but that's no guarantee it'll survive a cleanup Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually made by JibJab. For those unfamiliar, you can put whatever face you want on their videos. Someone spliced up parts of JibJab videos ("Tree Slaughter" is one) and dubbed over the audio. If it gets big enough, it might belong at list of Internet memes but it certainly doesn't belong in this article, at least until it's reported on by reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh has reported on the video and there's a link at his web site. But I bet Limbaugh doesn't pass the "notability" test around here.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not random stuff that someone's seen on You Tube. Get a grip. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh is not a WP:RS Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now you've done it. Don't you know he has talent on loan from God? Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it doesn't really matter since God is not a RS either :-P And for the record neither Al Franken nor Rachel Maddow would count as RS either, except perhaps for their opinions. But Rush Limbaugh's opinion that the video is interesting (or whatever) is somewhat irrelevant to this article the same as if Rachel Maddow's opinion that the earlier video, or some other video related to this controversy is interesting. I get the feeling though we wouldn't even be discussing such a video Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the video makes the cut for inclusion. Not even close. However, it is obviously related to this article, so the discussion belongs on this talk page.

The only discussion which belongs on this talk page is that which relates to improving the article. If some people genuinely feel that (mention of) the video belongs in the article we can discuss that. However the talk page is not for discussing videos which people find interesting but which doesn't belong in the article which I'm guessing was Itsmejudith's point Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Could some pictures be added of the building where this research took place, or of the people involved?Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

FOIA section restored

We had a good start on one, with RS cites & statements from concerned parties such as UK law enforcement. Removed by editor Tony Sidaway, diff, with the comment "This doesn't seem to relate to the thefts or to the documents themselves." I don't agree -- a good portion of the controversial leaked emails involve apparent attempts to evade compliance with the UK FOIA, and this has been widely reported & commented on in the media. And recall that the original leak/hack was entitled FOIA. So I'm a bit mystified that anyone could consider this topic peripheral.

I've restored the section, and would request that problems with it be discussed here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if somebody in the Ministry of Truth has just jerked it out again. 71.125.159.106 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Pete. This is an important aspect of the controversy that this article needs to cover. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The 20 Nov Guardian article and 24 Nov Nature article also link the prior FOIA requests to the incident, and the filename "FOIA.zip" is widely reported. Other relevant background is CRUs prior refusal to release the data to colleagues they perceived as unfriendly but to share data with colleagues perceived as friendly. The Michaels book has an insightful quote: We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? (Letter from Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes, Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, Patrick J. Michaels (2009) p. 66, p. vii)Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all it is WP:UNDUE focus on a single persons comments - second the blog at Science is not reliable to these kinds of allegations, even if Science blogs would (sometimes) be RS's. The golden rule is SPS only when they are sources to a persons opinion, where the person is an expert - and never if the opinion has a possibility of being libellous - and this fails on both counts. (this goes for really reliable sources as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, "one person's comments" are not that long. His reporting is mentioned after that. And that isn't WP:UNDUE, either. This aspect of the controversy is important, as other reliable sources have focused on it in their commentary, including The Wall Street Journal and a columnist in the Detroit News. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I've removed the section as an obvious BLP violation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation to point out that certain acts are against Freedom of Information Act laws. None. The journalist stated (emphasis added): "[U]niversity researchers may [...] find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." Nor was Jones or anyone else actually accused by the journalist of doing that. The blog is a news or news analysis blog at a reliable-source publication. There is no good reason to remove it and it is an important aspect of the controversy that has been much commented on by reliable sources. Chris, weren't you the one intensely interested in violations of the law when it concerned the hacking? Yet not with discussions of potential violations of FOIA law? What gives? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the identity of the hacker is unknown and the fact of the hacking is reliably and extremely widely reported. The implicit accusation in the paragraph and the blog is directed against specific individuals whose identity is known - it cites e-mails between two named individuals - and the claim is made solely by this one blog source. As WP:BLP#Reliable sources says, "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article." Re-read what Kim has said above. I've asked for a second opinion on the BLP noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A blog by a journalist is considered reliable. This blog is not self published. It is part of the website of a reliable source, Science magazine. Look at the web address: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/climate-hack-up.html WP:RS states: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The magazine is at least as reliable as a newspaper. This isn't an "implicit accusation", it's the context of the potential problems with the FOI aspect of the controversy. The bald statements Jones wrote in the e-mails bring up a possible FOIA violation, which is an important aspect of this controversy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's blog-sourced speculation directed against specific named individuals, which is never acceptable. Why not wait to see what the uninvolved people on the BLP noticeboard say? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given Phil Jones' statement in the email, (Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise) it isn't "speculation" to say "if" and "may" -- it's called reporting. It's what news organizations do. BLP was not meant to squelch legitimate description of an encyclopedic subject important to readers. It certainly isn't meant to protect WP:WELLKNOWN people from legitimate scrutiny. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones has acknowledged that this and other contentious emails appear genuine [30]. Mann replied to Science, acknowledging the email as genuine. Perhaps we need to add additional RS's, since two editors object to this source, but, as JohnWBarber notes, this is just good reporting. No BLP violation is apparent. Removing this important and widely-reported incident is a disservice to our readers. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are three additional sources, all UK newspapers that mention the idea that the emails may point to FOIA violations: The Guardian [31], Daily Telegraph [32], Daily Mail [33] I've given quotes from all these over at the discussion at the BLP noticeboard Now we have four reliable sources, three of them subject to UK libel laws, that make this simple, obvious point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And here's Source #5, The Financial Times [34] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• And here's another, from Prof. Mann's hometown newspaper: "Other e-mails involve Mann in related controversies. In a May 29, 2008, email titled “IPCC and FOI,” Jones asked Mann to “delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4.” AR4 is the fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, of the International Panel on Climate Change.

Mann said that was an email sent to him, “and can in no way be taken to indicate approval of, let alone compliance with, the request. I did not delete any such email correspondences.” Pete Tillman (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of the importance of the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act in this brouhaha, wouldn't it be best if mentions thereof on the ClimateGate page were set to carry links to the Wikipedia page on this legislation? Non-British readers might like to learn about the character of this law and how it differs from (for example) the U.S. Freedom of Information Act signed into law in 1966.
Considered mention might also be made of the appearance in the CRU communications of actions taken to deceive, deflect, and suborn the officers of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and of H.M. government (at the Information Commissioner's Office[35]) charged with the supervision of compliance with FOIA requests submitted to Dr. Jones and his associates at the CRU.[36]
71.125.159.106 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

POV versus POV

It would be very admirable if a balanced opening paragraph could be penned. One half of this story is the hacking of the emails, the other half is the contents of the emails. These points should appear together in the first paragraph.

And with regard to preventing the accusation of rigging a straw man, the full sense of the skeptics views on these emails should be presented. For instance, the alleged collusion among scientists is only one small part of the complaint arising from the leaking/hacking of these emails. The terrible state of the databases and the suspect manipulation of data in the climate models are also essential points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources, then we can discuss it. Rants from partisan blogs are not usable. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, with respect, you appear to be in denial. Please have a look at Monbiot's Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away. He seems to be one of the few prominent commentators on "your" side who has a clue that this is a seismic event, that won't be wished or "spun" away. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris0 isn't in denial. The only crisis here is the one facing the criminals who broke into the university system and released the e-mail. No matter how loud you scream, nothing about this incident changes the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. This entire incident is a distraction that only serves to discredit the people promoting it. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of a cover up--with use of words like "tricks" and a desire to not allow the release of data. This is all covered in reliable sources, with further amplification from reputable editorial boards. Trundlex (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, a cover-up of what? Of nothing, that's what. Op/ed's aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia because they tend to represent a non-neutral POV that tends to be unauthoritative and inaccurate. Your personal belief about the word "tricks" does not a cover-up make. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming hasn't changed. At all. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction: "The manufactured/alleged scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming hasn't changed." --GoRight (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fringe opinion, and will be treated as such. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we be careful not to refer to the material as simply "emails"? While it is understandable that much of the discussion so far has been about the emails, some of the material released is other than emails. In fact, the vast majority is other than emails. The current title of the article helps mislead. Helpfully, the article does mention the other contents, and it isn't critical that the talk page show the same care, but it would be helpful to avoid ingraining a mistaken meme.--SPhilbrickT 15:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we simply swap the word document for e-mail? __meco (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, "data and e-mail" works just fine. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Breather?

The article is a mess. It's mostly a random collection of comments from various POVs in no particular order. How about if everybody on all sides takes a break long enough to get the article into a reasonably organized form? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at the Official UEA/CRU reply... section for some ideas on organizing it. More commentary continues to roll in from more reliable sources. Wall Street Journal, [37] [38] Wall Street Journal Europe [39], the Detroit News editorial page editor [40], David Frum (writing in This Week magazine) [41], Megan McArdle at The Atlantic website [42] [43]. These people all have influential platforms. We can organize and summarize a lot of this, especially anything repetitive. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

More: editorial in the Washington Post [44] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WSJ is a very reliabe source for the scandal. Let's see if we can include these references. William Dulsok (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Except of course that each one of those sources are Op-Ed's or editorials. They are opinions on this, not "very reliable to the scandal". Please people try to separate opinion from fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the its a random section of comments from various POVs comment which started this thread was specificly about the "Reactions" section, where we've tried to segregate opinion from the rest of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob Graham

I removed a reference to Rob Graham's report [45]. While he did some good work, it isn't very conclusive. According to The Register he tested a server he believes was used by the hackers, and found that it adds a tell-tale header to some requests, which he thinks would enable the originating IP to be traced. He then speculates that the identity of the hackers may already be known by at least one of the recipients of the material. Well that's an interesting story but it's still speculation. --TS 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But they did use an open proxy, obviously, and that should be on the page, cited if nec. to expert Graham's blog. ► RATEL ◄ 04:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob Graham isn't the originator for the suggestion that open proxies were used. That would be standard operating procedure for that kind of hack. --TS 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and unless the hacker is an amateur he wouldn't make such a simple mistake. The most likely scenario (and this is 100% speculation based upon personal experience) is that the hacker used several bridges over "safe" systems to cover his tracks. (ssh tunnels or chains of proxies). Graham apparently ignores this possibility. But we will find out if he's found, or when a report comes out that isn't based on speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Graham's blog shows him to be an activist climate change sceptic, so he is not exactly a disinterested party. For what it's worth, The Guardian has reported that genuinely uninvolved security experts consider an insider leak to be the least likely possibility.[46] Be that as it may, the passage that's currently in the article is a combination of POV original research and undue weight on the views of a single partisan individual, so it needs to come out. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I read that article very differently than you do. You emphasized reference to "genuinely uninvolved security experts" but they are not even identified, much less characterized.

The article claims there are only three possible ways for the data to get out, and their list omits a fourth way, which has happened recently. Perhaps the university has established procedures to ensure that the accidental release cannot possibly happen again, but the article makes no mention of it.

The credibility of the article is also in question when the opening theme is that the hackers had access for over a month. IIRC, the evidence supporting this claim has already been refuted.--SPhilbrickT 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not unusual for hackers to have an unnoticed "foothold" on a server before doing anything with it. I've cleaned up servers from such many times (and have had servers attacked from such servers magnitudes more times).

There is also nothing strange about us not knowing anything about the ongoing investigation - that is standard procedure - this is something that will eventually come out. As for now, its all speculative. Please keep in mind what wikipedia isn't, and that as an encyclopedia we always will (and must) be way behind other media.

I've said this a lot of times here: Separate speculation from fact, even if you do not trust or like the facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

The word "climategate" is a loaded term used by global warming skeptics and deniers and their associated pundits and opinion peddlers. Looking at every major controversy since Watergate first occurred, we can see that some pundit or another has added "-gate" to their incident du jour, from Clintongate[47] to Gatesgate, to Bushgate[48] to Bankgate[49], the result is the same. The politicization and polarization of a topic, resulting in loud headlines, but little substance. None of these terms that I have just mentioned are in any wide use and fell quickly to the sidelines once the press got tired with the stories. And this is just a small sample. We should not be following the lead of "if it bleeds it leads". We are an encyclopedia that takes a NPOV. It is not significant or important that pundits and crackpots are reframing and renaming this incident to suit their agenda. What is significant is that we remain neutral, and do not play into the hands of those who wish to manipulate history. I am removing this non-notable term from this article. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times can hardly be termed a skeptic. --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

More deception. Revkin wasn't using the term. He was reporting that the term was being used, in this case, by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a known anti-global warming group. You are basically astroturfing for them here, much as you have done for your entire Wikipedia career, as your user contributions show without question. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"He was reporting that the term was being used ..." - No offense, but isn't this exactly the point? --GoRight (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He was reporting that the term was being used by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Why should this appear in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted. However, Climategate is well-sourced and widely-used, so it's here to stay. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Others apparently agree with me, as the same thing has been said in the thread above this one, titled Unused references. We simply do not use sensationalistic terms to frame an article, and that's what "Climategate" is, and I've given you examples above regarding past uses of "gate" appended to many controversies. They simply do not hold up historically, and are soon forgotten, so they are a good example of recentism. We need to avoid short term perspectives and focus on the long term benefits of writing articles that stand the test of time. The sources you and others provide as support for using "Climategate" simply don't meet the criteria. I suppose some mention of the term might be possible in the article given better sources, but placing it in the lead is not neutral, as the term is primarily used by global warming skeptics and deniers. On Wikipedia, we try to stay away from using sensationalistic terms in the lead, especially if they are primarily used in partisan blogs and opinion pieces. Let's describe the article in the most neutral language possible, and if necessary, talk about what terms specific people are using. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"They simply do not hold up historically, and are soon forgotten, so they are a good example of recentism." - And yet you have managed to produce an extensive list of terms that use it. Hmmm. Regardless, it is well established as a term that refers to this incident and so it is legitimate content. --GoRight (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See the link provided by User:Schizombie below: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. How many of those are redirects and make no mention of the term in the lead section, GoRight? I've already proved below that the term "climategate" is an artificially created talking point used by partisan anti-global warming lobby groups funded by oil companies. It has no place whatsoever in the lead section of this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this matters, of course. The primary questions are: Is the term used in WP:RS? Answer: Yes. Can this be WP:Ved? Answer: Yes. You personal WP:OR analysis of anything beyond that is not relevant to this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All of it matters, of course. Fringe and lobby groups using the term "climategate" aren't important enough for us to cover in the lead section. Just because a reporter says "some groups like CFACT are using the term" doesn't mean we place it in the lead. It means we look at who is using the term, and when we realize that they are not neutral and are paid by outside interests to promote a singular POV to spin this topic, we either discard the term entirely, or write about it using the best sources we can find. Since there are, at this time, no sources that describe the use of the term other than in passing, we have nothing to go on. The fact is, it is you who is performing OR, because you are claiming that the term is important and representative of the topic, when we have no such indication. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who keeps adding the word "climategate" to the lead section. Since this word is being used by anti-global warming activists and pundits to push their POV and does not seem to be widely represented in neutral sources, there is no reason for us to include it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who keeps adding the word "climategate" to the lead section." - And I have provided it in the form of 3 citations, all from WP:RS, and all from DIFFERENT, widely respected media sources. --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you have cited discuss the term, they only mention it in passing. It isn't appropriate for the lead unless it is notable. Aside from skeptics using it as a sensationalistic talking point, I don't see why you are obsessed with it. We're primarily focused with describing the incident in the most neutral terms possible, and that should be your concern as well. Can you tell me why it is important to add "climategate" the lead? I don't see many sources using the term. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have more than adequately sourced the term using WP:RS. You personal aversion to the term does not negate its use or existence. I will remind you, Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not simply drop a word into this article merely because a source uses it. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, and we write articles in a different way. The so-called reliable sources you are using actually say something entirely different than what you are claiming. Let's take a closer look at the sources you are using:

• In the NYT, Andrew C. Revkin writes: "Some see in the e-mail correspondence...evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, 'Climategate.'"[50] To support this claim, Revkin links the word "Climategate" to a website, climatedepot.com, which is owned and run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which according to Wikipedia, is a conservative organization whose funding partially comes from or came from The Exxon Mobil Corporation and The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund. CFACT is a "member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which aims at "dispelling the myths of global warming through sound science and analysis." The Cooler Heads Colation is described by Nicholas Confessore as "an Astroturf group funded by industries opposed to regulation of CO2 emissions." CFACT is not a neutral source for an article on Wikipedia, and their deliberate reframing of this article using the term "climategate" is a talking point passed on to other conservative and partisan blogs. It should under no circumstances be represented in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-gate is a rather idiotic, lazy and overused suffix as List of scandals with "-gate" suffix shows. Putting it as the main AKA of the article is maybe overdoing it at the moment, and the sources are somewhat overextended. The NY Times, for example, notes that the conservative Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calls it that; the NY Times or the NY Times writer do not themselves employ it. Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that, so that source is relatively useless. And then conservative James Delingpole of the conservative Daily Telegraph calls it that. So one conservative organization, and one conservative writer, and it gets a redirect and featured in bold in the lede sentence. POV push much? Шизомби (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The NY Times, for example, notes that the conservative Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calls it that; the NY Times or the NY Times writer do not themselves employ it." - And in so doing they highlighted the term's notability and legitimized its use.

"Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that ..." - Doesn't matter. The entire point here is that they TOO have noted the term's use and thus legitimized it.

"And then conservative James Delingpole of the conservative Daily Telegraph calls it that." - Gee, you seem focused on the political leanings of those employing the term. I don't recall WP:RS or WP:V stating that if a conservative states it that it doesn't count. Can you point me to where they do? --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a conservative talking point. They are deliberately using the term to reframe a crime against scientists into a crime by scientists, and they are turning the original meaning on its head. The Watergate scandal originally referred to the Republican-funded breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex. The goal of the burglary was to place electronic surveillance equipment in the Democratic offices to get information which would help the re-election of then, U.S. President Richard Nixon. In this case, the word is being turned on its head, and its meaning is being reversed. This is propaganda, pure and simple. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"It's a conservative talking point." - No it isn't. It is a term being used and discussed in the WP:RS media. That makes it notable. --GoRight (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, GoRight. The New York Times may note that some groups compare Obama to Hitler, or his health-care reform package to the operation of Dachau. That does not automatically "legitimize" such terms, or validate a decision to use them as "AKAs" in the lead of Barack Obama or related articles. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your analogy is not really analogous to this situation. Comparing Obama to Hitler is not at all the same thing as simply coining a term to refer to this incident. Even so, if the NYT DID discuss those things according to WP:RS and WP:V they are fair game to be used in an article. No? --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"And in so doing they highlighted the term's notability and legitimized its use." Hardly. Maybe you could make a case for it being notable insofar as it was noted, but it wasn't highlighted, and... legitimized? How do you see that? "'Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that ...' - Doesn't matter." It absolutely does matter, that kind of terrible sourcing may do for journalism but not here. "they TOO have noted the term's use and thus legitimized it" No, they didn't. That's no way to write an encyclopedia. "Gee, you seem focused on the political leanings of those employing the term." Logically, we should be. "I don't recall WP:RS or WP:V stating that if a conservative states it that it doesn't count." Here at least we agree. That a con or a lib says something doesn't mean it doesn't count. However, see e.g. WP:PROMINENCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I'm not saying the word shouldn't appear in the article somewhere, if that can be justified, or that there shouldn't be a redirect, if that can be justified, and perhaps both of these things can be. But right now having it in the lede as an alternate name for the article is really not justifiable at all; that's a prominence that among your sources only James Delingpole gives it, which again reflects his own admitted bias. Шизомби (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Google news (US) count for Climategate is now at 377. We have a week to cool off and check if the number goes up (my bet) or down. After that, we can resume this (third on this page) discussion. Dimawik (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the term is totally appropriate. We can hold off on using it now, but its eventual inclusion is inevitable. GardiaP (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, although WP:GOOGLETEST. A count doesn't tell us what kinds of news outlets are using it, article or opinion, featured or mentioned, whether the article's author employs it or attributes it to someone else and if so who, etc. Шизомби (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jonsson, Patrik (2009-11-28). "As Copenhagen summit nears, 'Climategate' dogs global warming debate". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-28. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That CS Monitor article shows the term is one of the widely used names for this subject, used by more than just one POV but by reliable sources trying to avoid POV. We put alternate names in the lead to inform readers, and a reader who had vaguely heard of "climategate" and wanted to know more about it should be able to be told, in the lead, that this subject is what's referred to. It's NPOV rather than bias for us to recognize that this term is being widely used and seems to have stuck. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Okay, everyone please take a deep breath. You're discussing the issues but several individuals are also involved in edit warring. That needs to stop until consensus is reached; consider this a WP:3RR warning, I won't be awarding them on talk pages.

Hopefully consensus will be reached before the 7 days protection is up; if so, feel free to drop by my talk page to ask for it to be lifted. In any case, if this devolves into edit warring in the near future, I'd be happy to help out, so that's worth coming by my talk page too. tedder (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the page's protection be further extended. This subject is political dynamite, and even though the majority of the Wikipedia apparatchiki empowered to screw with content seem reliably to be censorious ideological leftists appalled at the revelation of this massive fraud (concentrating on the criminal character of the hacking itself rather than the information thereby released is not only desperate but silly), the quality of the page would go immediately to hell the moment protection is removed. 71.125.155.89 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should register for an account, and help out? Other editors will take you more seriously... Just a thought. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels?

I am surprised by the use of criticism by Patrick Michaels in this article. I mean, of course the guy's going to try to milk this for all it's worth, he's a bought and paid for parrot of the energy industry, the very industry implicated in climate change!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?_r=2

That constitutes a rather large conflict of interest. As such his credibility on the subject of "bending the rules" is worthless and ridiculous (of course legitimate reseachers are not going to have a good opinion of him). It would be like asking Ken Lay of Enron infamy his opinion on the ethics of federal corruption laws. As an exposed swindeler and fraud asking Lay's opinion on such an ethics question wouldn't have been worth very much or even appropriate. Though from the article one might get the impression that Michaels is just an objective and honest skeptic he's anything but. If the comments remain perhaps a little clarification would be in order? 4.246.204.214 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what's going on here. A "William Dulsouk" has deleted my comments above. Um, Mr Dulsouk, a primary rule of Wikipedia is that except in extreme circumstances you don't delete someones talk page comments if they are on topic. 4.246.204.214 (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear 4.246, let's try to avoid name-calling in Wikipedia. In our times, almost every scientist receives funding from some organization; indeed, I do not know of any researcher in the field that pays for his own research. You somehow feel that taking money from private companies is bad, while taking money from the UK government or UN is good. However, governments and the UN are also known to have interests. Would you mind to provide the sources for your assumption that their interests are more benign than that of the power industry? Dimawik (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dimawik...this is not an opinion page. GardiaP (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats a surprise to me. Almost every thread on this talk page is focused on opinion and speculation, be it based on reliable sources or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of what has been said on this page, by editors who should be banned, is pure original research and POV-pushing with no basis in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk)

Would you mind to provide the sources for your assumption that their interests are more benign than that of the power industry? Sheesh. Would you care to provide a link to a pro-warming UN or US document that anywhere states that AGW science is in actuality, "part of our secret master plan to take over the world"?

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing controversy." -Brown & Williamson tobacco co. [51][52]

By the way, I find it ironic that one of the skeptic's big issues here is the deletion of information. Yet right here one of them attempted to sneakily remove my comments. 4.246.201.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

americanthinker.com reported, "Amid the thousands of files apparently lifted from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist. But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of "energy agencies" they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust -- are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting "new energy" technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest. Needless to say, all four of these CRU "potential funding sources" have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Grundle, I don't know the details (though a lot of money I notice that the author in his breathless rant provides no links for verification) but I will say this, there is a world of difference between being paid to do actual research and being slyly on the take from the very industry implicated in climate change to deny it [53][54]. One also needs to consider the source. Were talking about people that not only take money to deny climate change but have also taken money from Big Tobacco to deny the science of the harmful effects of smoking, and the ozone depletion issue. They write from think tanks that have disagreed with just about every scientific conclusion on the hazards of various toxins, such as dioxin etc. On every issue they take the industry side against the science and the human side. There is simply a giant qualitative difference.

These are people that while previously maintaining that there was absolutely NO global warming whatsoever then did an about face when forced to by the evidence and claimed that indeed the world IS warming but it's all due to the sun so there's nothing that we can do about it so don't even try [55]. Anything to protect Big Oil and Coal. That's just transparent shillism. You may think that they are equal in integrity but most people can tell when they are being scammed. Then of course, when we cut away from all the distractions, there is the uncomfortable issue that yes the world has been warming [56][57]. 4.246.207.123 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Has this page been unusually plagued with sockpuppeting, group editing or other inappropriate activity? __meco (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. At least three sockpuppeteers, including the infamous Scibaby, have been targeting it for days. There has also been a great deal of tendentious editing and violations of just about every Wikipedia content policy - NPOV, verifiability, original research, reliable sources and BLP among others. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then my follow-up question is whether Wikipedia has any in-house project or organization which might investigate this? Are for instance these subversion attempts evenly distributed between the pro and anti factions of the climate change/global warming issue? __meco (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry has to my knowledge been rather one-sided. The OR has to my opinion also been one-sided, as has the BLP problems (the last is a natural consequence of the material though) If you suspect a sockpuppet, then the channel to go through is WP:RFCU, unless it is an obvious (per WP:DUCK) case - in which case you call upon an administrator. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you may or may not have gathered, my position is rather to have some overall analysis of these disturbances. As for the immediate sanctions and enforcement in any single case I'm sure administrators and alert regular contributors keep vigilant as usual. __meco (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hulme's comment

I wanted to add the overall comment from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia which is referenced in the article "Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' " in the Wall Street Journal today but I notice now that the article is locked. Now, with a story which is still developing and which is so widely being commented upon as this one, a lockdown is excruciatingly unfortunate, and I hope it won't remain so for long. The quote which I wanted to have included is this:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

__meco (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Op-Ed/Opinion piece. Sorry but there really are too many of these. If it should go in, then it would be at the mercy of some other Op-Ed/Opinion piece. And the WSJ Op-Eds are taking up entirely too much space (per WP:WEIGHT) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not yet another Op-Ed piece. Hulme is a UEA climate scientist. __meco (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is an "opinion" piece, and it is labeled as opinion. Take another look at it. The best way to cite Hulme on this, is to find a neutral reliable source that mentions or quotes him. Viriditas (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the source for Hume's statement is an opinion piece is completely irrelevant to Hume's stature. Hume did not write that piece. __meco (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Its still just an opinion, and we have way too many of these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps his opinion should be weighed a little bit higher than some of the ones already present? __meco (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but as i said, we already have way too many opinions in the article - so to get in, something should be removed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations for allegations of criminality

The citation after "unknown individual stole" cites a CRU press release. Press releases are fine for describing CRU's statements, but secondary sources should be used for all citations describing a living person as engaging in illegal activities. Andjam (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no living person involved yet. That may be a problem if the hacker (or someone suspected of having done the hacking) gets caught though. There is no BLP violations in saying "a hacker stole" - while there is a BLP violation in stating that "X stole" (where X is named). Its an fact that the material was appropriated by illegal means (ie. stolen), it is not a fact who did the deed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless it has been ruled out that this leak could also have involved someone on the inside, even the statement that "the material was appropriated by illegal means" is unwarranted conjecture. __meco (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The UEA is the owner of the material in question. Its ownership is undisputed. It has stated unequivocally that the material has been stolen. That is not "conjecture" - it's a statement of fact by the victim of the crime and the owner of the stolen property. You have no source whatsoever to support any claim that the material was not stolen. Furthermore, I can't see any good reason why the opinion of an outside party should outweigh a statement of fact by the UEA. Since the UEA is the owner of the material, it's the only source which is competent to address the question of whether its property rights have been violated. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "someone", be that an individual or organization, solemnly declares that something has been stolen from them does not guarantee this to be fact. If I worked at the CRU and decided I would want to leak some papers without telling my colleagues or superiors, and that may have been the case here, then obviously noone else would know about that. And, as for your last sentence, no, I have no source to support this. I don't need to. The burden of evidence lies on the party which claims to know what has taken place out of a number of possible scenarios. __meco (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You can never be entirely certain about anything, it might be the university that's making it all up as a PR-trick as well, who knows? Currently theft appears to be the most likely explanation and since that's what the sources describe it as, it's reasonable to call it that.
—Apis (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. We may take that as a tentative premise until a criminal investigation finds this to be true or false. What we are not justified to do though is to consider it proven just because the UEA asserts it. __meco (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The ownership of the material hasn't been contested, and is irrelevant to the discussion. If I drop my credit card on the ground, and someone else picks it up, it is still owned by me, and they are not guilty of theft. While we don't know if that is what happened (and my guess is that it is not the case) it has not been ruled out.--SPhilbrickT 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. __meco (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. Data-theft is data-theft. If they as you say "just found it", they still didn't have the right to distribute it. In this case we have a clear statement of theft, we have an ongoing criminal investigation - these are facts. Your (and others) speculation as to other reasons or ways this may have happened is just that ... pure speculation without any facts what so ever to base it upon. You (or others) do not have access to the logs, the security parameters or anything other upon which you could base such speculation. Try sticking to facts instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To me you look like the one who is unable to distinguish facts and assertions. The fact that UEA has stated that that the documents were stolen does not by necessity equate with the fact that the documents were stolen. This has yet to be confirmed. Your bringing up various potential sources of evidence is absolutely non-sequiturial as these have not been investigated. Noone in the media landscape knows what lies in there. Also you obfuscate the matter when you write in one sentence: "Data-theft is data-theft." Then, completely unrelated to the issue of theft in the next sentence you srite: "If they as you say "just found it", they still didn't have the right to distribute it.". There's no logical connection between the two sentences. __meco (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, with all due respect, you are missing the argument. As with my credit card example, I wouldn't argue that anyone finding it has the right to use it. That would be illegal. It may well be that the further dissemination of the material breaks laws. That why we have been careful not to post full copies of the email contents, as it might contravene copyright law. But surely you know that a criminal investigation is hardly proof of criminal action, at least not in a free society. The narrow issue is whether the claim that the data has been stolen is so incontrovertible that it can be stated as a fact, rather than as an allegation.--SPhilbrickT 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but UEA has stated quite clearly that there server got hacked, and that material was stolen. They have called in the authorities. They took down their mainserver, and put an alternative online. A criminal investigation to find the hacker in question is running. Anything beside that .... is speculation based on no knowledge of the real facts (logfiles, filesystem,..) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that based on the above you seem to conclude that a server has been hacked and documents stolen off it. __meco (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is fact, until shown wrong. Sorry. If its a lie, then the authorities will most certainly inform us (they have after all been called in), and we will document it then. Everything else here is pure speculation without any form of background knowledge to back it up. That you don't like that this is the only real information we have, it is really not of any consequence. Please remember that we are not on a deadline and that we aren't here to make news. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You sir, have a very peculiar understanding of the term fact. __meco (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to - you can call, what i state as fact, "the only assertions based on factual knowledge" in this case. (this certainly applies as fact in your link). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That certainly is moving in the right direction. __meco (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you are not properly stating the appropriate baseline. No one is suggesting that the article should declare it is not a theft, that's speculation. But neither should it be declared that it IS a theft, until some reliable source concludes it was theft. The claim by the CRU is hardly unbiased, and investigation by authorities is investigation, not conclusion. A NPOV would note allegations of theft and hold off factual pronouncements until there are facts supporting the allegation. I peg the odds at 90% that such facts will be found, but 90% isn't 100%. I peg the odds of a sunrise tomorrow quite a bit higher, but were I to post it as a fact in a WP article, it would properly be removed as WP:CRYSTAL.--SPhilbrickT 18:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look over this talk-page, as well as look over the reversions done to this article, the statement "No one is suggesting that the article should declare it is not a theft" is incorrect, since we've had several assertions/edits that consider "there must have been an insider" as factual.

Theft is the only correct word (not "alleged") since we know for a fact, that UAH/CRU didn't release the data voluntarily. Even if an insider/whistleblower is involved, it is still theft. Speculations of "it was just lying around" are in fact rather far out, and btw. would in many jurisdictions still be called theft (its not theirs and they took it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, someone thinks it's an inside job. First, that's not proven, and shouldn't be in the article. Second it isn't even a rebuttal to the "theft" claim. However, others making edits without adequate sources is hardly a reason for leaving in an edit that is not supported by facts. Furthermore, you implication that it must be theft is contradicted by recent events at CRU itself. IIRC, McIntyre stumbled on some data left unprotected. AFAIK, no one prosecuted him for it, so it appears to be possible to get data from CRU and not be engaged in theft. Your argument is not only Original Research, it is incorrect. Can we please stick to facts in this article?--SPhilbrickT 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No it is not "contradicted", those two cases are entirely different. (just a few reasons: no theft, not restricted data (apparently (and certainly not personal data)) and no authorities were called in to investigate). Comparing those cases btw. is OR (more specifically a synthesis). And of course the really big elephant in the room: Most reliable sources, which aren't opinion, state that it was a hacker - and that the data was stolen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but we know what the basis for those assertions were, viz. the UEA's pronouncement that hackers had stolen their data. And it is quite transparent – no need for synthesis or original research – that at the present time that is the sole basis for concluding hacker and stolen. As a matter of good faith on an issue were most find it uncontroversial to assume that to be the most likely scenario the media has largely adopted the UAE's description of facts. We are an encyclopedia, and we need to be much clearer about essentials and hidden assumptions than what a newspaper may decide to be. In this matter we need to spell out the assumption. It would be blatant intellectual (and factual) dishonesty if we simply recused ourselves of that responsibility hiding behind quotes from "reliable sources" which we know are based on conjecture even though they don't always make that explicit. __meco (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I'll urge you to read Original Research and Synthesis. While it would be problematic if I were proposing to add to the article that it might very well not be theft, I'm not advancing any such argument. I'm trying to explain to you why this is an alleged theft, not a proven theft. Revkin, who no one views as a skeptic, is now taking a more cautious approach, using the phrase "disclosed files". One cite is not sufficient, but cites from CRU itself are hardly unbiased on this issue.--SPhilbrickT 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. The UEA says that the files were stolen. As the owner of the files it is the only source that is competent to make that assessment. No source of any kind - let alone a reliable source - has been cited so far on this talk page that suggests anything different. All we're seeing in this discussion is completely unsourced POV speculation. This discussion will go nowhere unless you and the other editors pushing this POV original research start realising that there are certain standards we have to follow in writing content. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, please discuss this issue without resorting to tendentious wording like POV pushing. I'm arguing that you are failing to meet the standards of Wikipedia - sourcing a claim of a crime to a victim is not the best possible source, it isn't even obvious it is an acceptable source at all. And that's the only cite for the term. I think those who insist the data was stolen need better sourcing. I don't know if Wikipedia has addressed this issue squarely in the past, but I'll be surprised if the unsupported statement of the alleged victim is considered grounds for stating a crime, as opposed to an alleged crime , has occurred. If it is policy, I'd like to see it, because it is time to improve that policy. Do you know of an example where this has been settled?--SPhilbrickT 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources to make accusations about third parties. If secondary sources find the accusations credible enough that they publish them, then we cite the secondary sources to say what allegedly happened, and we only cite the primary sources to describe the alleged victim's comments. Andjam (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your comments on the BLP noticeboard, you seem to think this is a BLP issue. It's not. No identified third party is named (obviously, since the culprit isn't yet known) so BLP doesn't apply. The fact of the theft is incontrovertible, since the UEA has stated definitively that the files were stolen. No other party is in a position to make that assessment. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your and Kim D. Petersen's (and possibly others) conclusion that "The fact of the theft is incontrovertible, since the UEA has stated definitively that the files were stolen" (bold script applied after carefully concluding that this is the core of the matter) is a blatant fallacy and non-sequitor. I and others have already given reason for why that is the case. Until you relinquish this position we are stuck on this issue. The way forward on this should be that more editors point this out to you and if even that doesn't bring the point home, we need to settle it through some form of conflict resolution (RFC/mediation). __meco (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Your argument is completely tendentious and without any merit whatsoever:

• You have not cited any source of any kind to support your speculation that a theft did not occur.
• You have not explained why any third-party source would even be competent to support such a contention.

Until you do both of those things your unsupported speculations are a waste of everyone's time. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is mind-boggling. The only possible circumstances in which a crime may not have occurred are if (i) Jones himself released the emails and this is all some perverse attempt to seek publicity or (ii) someone at a very high management level at UEA authorized release of Phil Jones's emails and, somehow, the rest of the UEA administration didn't know about it. And even in these circumstances the legal authority to release the emails is open to question. Circumstance (i) is absurd. Circumstance (ii) is equally weird: why would a high-level UEA administrator authorize release of documents, and then effect the release by uploading the documents to open proxies? Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And on top of everything else, the UEA has reported the theft to the police, who are pursuing a criminal investigation. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To Meco and anyone else making the same arguments - please stop. There is no question that a theft occurred, and there is no reliable source that disputes this state of affairs. If you wish to pursue this line of thought, please take it elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Both you and others asserting the same seem oblivious to the not so fine distinction between (a) the fact that noone in reliable sources is positively questioning whether a theft has occurred, and (b) meriting a theft having occurred a factual occurrence. This is simply stupidity and mushy thinking, and if such editors are going to be allowed to strongarm their position using blatant slander and brute threats, well, Wikipedia would be all the poorer as a consequence. __meco (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meco, I read what you wrote above, and you are not making any reasonable sense. Data theft occurred, and this has been covered by RS. That is a fact. Anything else is speculation and has no place here. If you don't agree, then I suggest you take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Its worse than originally thought

Eric S. Raymond has gone over Mann's code (an impossibility until this material was leaked as Mann wouldn’t let anyone see his "trick") and Raymond seems to be convinced that Mann hardcoded the "hockey stick" into the code. [58]. If true this will the biggest scientific story ever and Raymond's conclusions should be on this page. 71.239.229.241 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But a cite from personal blog is far from WP:RS. His work, which I haven't ye read, needs to be replicated and discussed by a WP:RS before it can be included in the article.--SPhilbrickT 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There's no evidence that ESR knows anything at all about the science behind this; to him, they're all arbitrary numbers. (In fact there are very good reasons for adjusting the data in this way related to known characteristics of certain kinds of proxy data, but that's a long story that I won't go into here.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems Raymond's conclusions are well supported...if they make their way into an RS, they should be included.173.116.109.39 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

??Well-supported by whom? Which reliable source? I've now scanned the post and some of the comments. One of the more salient comments is that this exercise is meaningless unless it can be toed to something actually used. There's some belief it was used to support a presentation (not fully confirmed), but I've seen no evidence that the correction factor was used in data making its way into the peer-reviewed literature. Even if that can be established, it needs to be credibly asserted that the correction was unwarranted. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris notes, there may be legitimate reasons for the correction. A lot more needs to be settled before this issue can be considered for inclusion, and even if it is, the issue needs to be sourced better.--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually anon appears to acknowledge there's no RS. However odd his/her definition of "well supported" may be, I don't see much point discussing this further with an anon who admits there's no RS Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Well supported" probably means "Actually in the code itself". Anyway, there is a less suspicious interpretation of the adjustment numbers which ESR is looking at. The decline mentioned in the best-known email is called the divergence problem. Apart from anything else, the divergence problem makes calculating reliability or significance stats difficult. It is possible that the adjustment numbers ESR is looking at are an intermediate step to allow these calculations. ESR's stumbling around in single code files is DEFINITELY not ready for inclusion. Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on UEA CRU statements please

It's much more fun to try to insert breathless gotcha! rightwing blogospew, but it may make for a better 'pedia if we acknowledge what the people involved are saying, viz. [59]. Note that they seem to be updating that page on an ongoing basis. ► RATEL ◄ 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Fortunately the seem to be adding new material at the top, rather than changing previous statements. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiding the data "trick"

Recommend a section on Hiding the data trick" as a major issue arising from these CRU emails. See How “The Trick” was pulled offDLH (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a reliable source for sure. We'll get right on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But "any eco-related scare for which the prescription would result in a massive transfer of power to the political class is bogus" applied to AGW is at least doubly wrong, hence right! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the widespread MSM discussion of "Mike's Nature trick," it's odd that the only discussion of that "trick" in the Wikipedia article is drawn verbatim from the RealClimate site's damage control effort. If the publications of right-wing pundits and the "denier" blogs (many of them created and maintained by credentialed climatologists who had been frozen out of the referee'd professional journals by way of the CRU correspondents' co-option of the peer review process) are not "reliable sources," how is it that the CRU correspondents' own principal advocacy site has become acceptably "reliable"? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article eventually needs such a section, but I think it is premature at the moment. I gather that the "trick" is a reference to the need to conjoin instrument based temperature records with dendrology based temperature records. This is a legitimate need, and it is plausible that the mechanism for doing so is both appropriate and described as a "trick". However, it would be nice to see reliable sources discussing this in a NPOV before adding the material. The blogs I've read so far are breathless and biased, and "conclusive" without even a pretense of examining all issues.--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve McIntyre was the IPCC reviewer who explicitly warned the IPCC “don’t cover up the divergence”. See the IPCC documentation: Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18) Boris - if you have a better site showing the graphs before / after please provide it. This issue of "hiding the decline" is iconic, core to both the scientific and political controversy, and is most widely known. It needs a major section to describe the development from Brifa 2000 which was cited in the caption to IPCC Fig 2.21, to Jone's email, and the subsequent recent disclosure of the full data that Brifa had deleted in his 2000 figure, and the programmer's commenting dealing with such deletion after 1960 - in the Harry Readme file. Obviously there would be quotes from protagonists, antagonists, and reviewers. The link I gave has the best graphics I have found.DLH (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What specific data were contained in ESR's plot? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Watts forgets to mention that the divergence is described in specifics at page 472-473 in Chapter 6 of the AR4 WG1 report. They also specifically note the 1960 cut-off-point. I find it very very hard to call something a "cover-up" when it is described in detail in both the report (and of course also in Briffa et al.(2001), which the AR4 cites) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann claimed: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.” In “A good way to deal with a problem” McIntyre notes: “However, although the “real” Briffa reconstruction goes down after 1960, the series in the diagram attributed to “Briffa (1999)” goes up. The decline in the Briffa reconstruction is not shown; it is hidden.” However, in: How “The Trick” was pulled off McIntyre notes: “There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960. Nor is there any mention of the deletion in the IPCC reference (Briffa 2000) nor, for that matter, in the article cited by Gavin Schmidt (Briffa et al 1998). These articles report the divergence, but do not delete it. (Briffa et al 2001 does delete the post-1960 values.)”DLH (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the statement by McI that "There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960" is quite simply wrong, please check page 473 like i asked...(i quote (emph. mine)):

Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).

A thing like this is one reason amongst others that blog postings aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Boris - Thanks for the ref. "hiding the decline" is a direct quote from Jone's email, not whether we think it is hidden or not. As you note, the IPCC WG1 Ch 6 p 472-473 states: ““Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades” . . . “In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’was a uniquely recent phenomenon” That IPCC statement vs McIntyre is the heart of the statistical or scientific issue -(i.e. is this cherry picking or legitimate?) These are statements that need to be quoted or summarized together with select graphs.DLH (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See above: IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence” IPCC Reviewer McIntyre statement.DLH (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this is original research, and none of it is covered in reliable sources. Therefore it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection level has been appealed

I have submitted a request that the full-protection of this article be reduced to semi-protection. I think it is absolutely untenable that a story which is still developing and with the intensity of attention globally is kept locked down. We must address the warring issues in a different manner. __meco (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline and wikipedia is not the news. Currently the ether, print and electrons are redhot with speculation, and very very few facts are known. In fact nothing really has been developing since the first day, no investigative reporting has been done, no statements have been issued etc.etc.. We can certainly do without the daily addition of even more speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to be able to address the numerous issues which are being discussed on this page by allowing the article to develop accordingly. The {{editprotected}} instrument is totally inadequate for the challenge pertaining to this article. __meco (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection is always undesirable. But why do we need to be able to address these issues? What will happen to the world or Wikipedia if they are only fixed on, say, Monday? Editprotected has the advantage that it needs reasonable consensus on the talk page before an admin will execute it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One reason for addressing some issues is that the current version contains allegations presented as if they were facts, and irrelevant Original Research presented without a source. You are an admin, so you can correct those issues. I'm on the fence about whether the protection level should be changed; I'm open to the possibility that it should remain protected, and discussions continue here to reach consensus on other issues, but I'd feel much better about that position if the blatant problems were addressed. Will you do so?--SPhilbrickT 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Your level of indentation suggests that you are addressing Stephan Schulz, but based on your idiosyncratic indentation practice elsewhere on this page I suspect you want me to respond.) I believe that leaving the article itself basically unchangable (bar the editprotected instrument) makes the collaboration go sour. If we are to find compromises and consensuses we need to keep the temperature (OK, I used the acridity metaphor, but they are both applicable) high enough. We are not solving the issues by postposning editing until the issue has gone cold. And whether I will address these various issues personally? Well, I assumed a meta-role in this respect by taking this initiative as I saw the need for that in particular. I don't think my involvement in the various issues is critical and I don't know which of those I will get into eventually. __meco (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

meco, as far as I am concerned, anyone is free to address anything, if it advances the discussion, but I was addressing Stephan, as he is a sysop and can make the changes, while you are not.--SPhilbrickT 20:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record my request was turned down at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, however I was referred to take the issue up with the admin who made the protection level increase some twelve hours ago. I have made an inquiry on their talk page, so hopefully we will see User:Tedder here in not too long a time. __meco (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Tedder to reject your request. The way you're using this talk page to push POV speculation convinces me that you have no intention of respecting basic content policies in editing the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as you clearly expressed to Tedder, and I quote: "The editor above is spewing completely unsourced original research and speculation on the talk page and is plainly itching to add it to the article." I am somewhat taken aback by your malevolent assessment of my edit history on this page as well as my intentions. __meco (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your intentions are abundantly clear and my assessment of your edit history is based on the way you have done little but advocate speculation and ignore what reliable sources say while completely failing to source any of your own claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly see your accusations as anything but bad faith and an attempt to malign me for whatever reason. I shall copy what I just wrote on User talk:Tedder with regard to your assertion: I have no idea what you are referring to. I have made a couple of suggestions about inclusions to the article. One, a viral video with a song where I certainly have not made any attempt to assert that it should be included unless reliable sources for it surface. In the second case I have proposed that a quote from one of the University of East Anglia climate scientists presented in the Wall Street Journal be included. Are you referring to one of these? __meco (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I don't understand why Meco's earlier behavior had any bearing on you requesting to maintain full protection of this page. Would your response have been different if I had made the request myself?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record I will re-emphasize my angle from which I made the request to lift the full-protection. I see several issues that are currently being discussed on this page. I do not consider my propositions for content change the moving ground for my initiative. In fact, I figured I'd simply present them and leave it to others to decide what to do with them. __meco (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is occurring, but I see no resolution to any of the issues. Both sides need to meet somewhere in the middle. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we start making use of some of our diverse instruments of conflict resolution instead of bluntly freezing editing of the article. __meco (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that we do have instruments such as WP:RFC to assist us in attaining to consensus where our local efforts fail. I realized just now that ChrisO's great concern when painting such a grim picture of my alleged intentions on the talk page of the admin who protected the page was my support of the position that we should point out that the phrase stolen should be presented as the university's opinion of what has happened as opposed to unambiguous fact in a section above and that I was surely going to engage in edit warring over this as soon as protection was lifted. Let me then unequivocally express that should this matter remain stale in the continued discussion, an RFC (Request For Comment) would be a pre-eminent tool to assist in reaching a consensus, and that full-protection thus would seem to be basically overkill, and overkill with lots of unwanted side effects I might add. __meco (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is not needed when it's a fundamental and clear-cut issue of Wikipedia's content policies. You do not add unsourced material to articles, you do not misrepresent sources, you do not add weasel words to an article because you have a POV objection to the statements of a definitive source, and you do not present fringe opinions from bloggers as fact or use such opinions to override definitive sources. The people who are attempting to do these things need to be blocked or topic-banned for disruption, not allowed to indulge it further in an RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And you are absolutely correct. __meco (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally agree on something! We're making progress. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The level of mutual recrimination seen above ("malevolent assessment of my edit history", "bad faith and an attempt to malign me", etc.) emphasize the need for continuing the protection until tempers cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It merely goes to show that a couple of editors are quite adamant in their efforts to ensure the article doesn't get unprotected, and that this includes making a ruckus and then proclaiming "look at the fight! Another example that we aren't mature enough to have the lockdown lifted." I find this kind of maneuver insiduous and deplorable. __meco (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on his assessement but note he said 'mutual'. The only way 'mutual recrimination' can happen is if both sides are guilty of poor behaviour (and from his examples, it's quite clear one of the people he's referring to is you). If only a 'couple of editors are quite adamant in their efforts to ensure the article doesn't get unprotected' but the other side behaves appropriately then there by definition can never be mutual recrimination (and the couple of editors are likely to find themselves in trouble). To put it a different way, if one side does all the punching, there's no fight. If you dispute his opinion that there's mutual recrimination, you should say so and explain why Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris also referred to me when he used the phrase 'mutual recrimination'. I can not see however how this fairly applies to me. I have merely spoken out against a bad faith assessment of my work and intentions which was perpetrated by ChrisO in dual forums[60][61] and has been implicitly supported by Harvester Boris. I find it to be deplorable and unfounded smudging and I earnestly question the integrity of the two for engaging in it. Now, other than that I have neither made any assessments or characterizations of either the work or the intentions of neither Chris nor Boris. Does this constitute a rationale for applying the term 'mutual recrimincations' to me and ChrisO equally? I'd say, only if you disagree with how I have presented the matter here. __meco (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this except to say that consensus has clearly not been reached, so there's no way I would remove the protection. Nor am I willing to try to mediate between users- there are great avenues for doing that. Please, you all need to settle down. tedder (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Help! we have some ludicrously POV-pushing socks on this article, but we also have some truly wonderful good-faith editors whose efforts are going unrecognised. Take a bit of distance and remember that the WP:AGF policy is there for a reason. Please do not in your haste attack those who demonstrably have a commitment to the NPOV and other polices of this encyclopedia. Point by point. RfCs where appropriate. Ask for comments on boards and wikiprojects. Carefully consider the points made in good faith. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me to do all of this? Or is this a response to the active editors on here? I'm assuming the latter. If not, I'm simply the guy with a mop, not the person who can evaluate any or all of the issues raised. tedder (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Latter. Collaborative editing is more efficient and effective. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the alleged reason for "protecting" this page from editing is that a small number of users are pushing POV content. Is it possible to prevent these users from editing this page and subsequently unprotecting/semiprotecting the article? That would circumvent the ridiculously cynical and irresponsible "if you screw this up you screw this up for everybody" tactic. Brings me back to my years at DODEA.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and it appears that blocking users is a legitimate and recommended alternative to full protection. "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"I would like to edit this article, as the scandal grows." [62] I think that comment illustrates perfectly why the page should be kept protected or else the same edit war chaos will start again. Wikipedia is not not news. I think the article should stay fully protected until things cool down and people who find it challenging to stay neutral when "exited" do not insert wild speculations that violate BLP and NPOV repeatedly.
—Apis (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that a perfectly reasonable motivation, just like User:GardiaP below. Our readers come to articles about current events to update and orient themselves, thus it would be a shame if they found the article biased and not up-to-date because Wikipedia had decided on a policy of suspending updating articles if the topic was too contentious. And that is exactly where we are at now. __meco (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently that was a sock, which I think helps prove the point.
—Apis (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, blocking is an alternative, but when there are *many* users, and it's the first time of full-protection, full-prot is a good option. If there was only one user causing trouble, it'd be a great option. tedder (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking all ~5 is better than blocking hundreds.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to edit this page, as the scandal continues to grow. GardiaP (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next

I've been following this article, and have contributed to it, for about a week now. I think it's well developed now and gives a good account of the way the story of this hacking incident has developed and the way in which various interested parties have responded, and for the most part this has developed without serious edit warring.

Last night a spat seemed to develop between some editors over what I consider to be a relatively minor question--whether the word "Climategate", used extensively in the gutter press and even in some respectable publications, should be mentioned in the lead section. I think it's probably not encyclopedic to use the term, and I've removed it when it was used giving justification on the talk page. Other editors have a good faith disagreement on that. I wouldn't edit-war over it, and I don't think it's what we should be focusing on. I chose to try to kill the edit war by making a formal application for protection on requests for page protection.

Now we've had some new developments, and I think they should be added. In particular the university plans to announce an inquiry into the affair on Monday. [63] We can certainly prepare and, with consensus agreement, post an alteration to the existing section on call for an inquiry, and to the lede, when the announcement is made. There is no hurry here--even the university itself plans to wait through the weekend, and as we're not a news source we can, in principle, take as long as we need to to get it right. A timely way to deal with this would be to agree an edit to be made by an administrator updating the article by Monday evening, Greenwich Mean Time. --TS 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that we can take all time in world to write this article, and a slowdown is welcome - as it allows us to spend our time more productively by contributing to less controversial articles. WP is not a blog; if someone will try to read it for news, disappointment is inevitable anyhow. We need for the battle mentality of both camps to subside, so I agree with you on the need to cover the least controversial topics first. If the article remains locked, "Climategate" will quickly become a non-issue, as the word will either swim or sink on its own, and arguing about its inclusion or omission will become easier and faster. Let's not discuss our pet issues on this page in the meantime (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am for inclusion of the "Climategate" reference and my pet issue is a direct link to the archive content). Dimawik (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC

There's certainly not going to be any direct linking to the archive content since, as already mentioned, that would be an indisputable copyright violation (see WP:LINKVIO. I'd suggest you find another pet issue since that one's a non-starter. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not worry about minutiae. The important thing is that we agree that this encyclopedia article can take the time to get it right. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. --TS 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in your link that suggests that news isn't appropriate for wikipedia. On the contrary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't say news is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I say, rather, and Wikipedia policy has always been, that this encyclopedia isn't a newspaper and writing an encyclopedia article isn't journalism. That's why you wouldn't want to come to Wikipedia to find out what's in the latest news headlines. --TS 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

moving my misslocated sectionDLH (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

IPCC co-author Eduardo Zorita

Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author has on his site published the following CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process (http://www.webcitation.org/5ldKoftbO). Should this be worked into the article? Nsaa (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, at least not yet. We need some third-party reliable sources cover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Will this [64] do? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, columns, op-eds, editorials and other opinion sources are only reliable as to the writers opinion. Note btw. that Booker gets Zorita's nationality and/or location wrong[65], which doesn't reflect well on the general reliability of Booker's column. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change: BBC announced possible inquiry

I propose these changes. They should not be made before discussion.

Proposed change to lede:

The university is expected to announce a formal inquiry into the incident very soon. (with BBC reference here)

Edit to the section called "Calls for inquiries" in the current version [66]

Between Lord Lawson's call for an inquiry and Jim Inhofe's, insert:

The BBC News Environment analyst Roger Harrabin said on Friday, November 27, 2009 that he had heard unconfirmed reports about the university's intention to announce an official inquiry into the affair in the first week of December. He reported that the university, while unable to confirm a date, said, Harrabin reports, that "information about the investigation into the hack at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) would be made public very soon." (same BBC reference).

In my opinion that is more than is necessary to bring the article up to date. This information is very much "up in the air" but it is perhaps the most concrete information we've seen on this issue since the story broke. --TS 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple, Tony. How about: "The BBC reported that the university intended to announce an official inquiry into the affair in the first week of December and would make information about the investigation into the hack available in the near future." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It seems reasonable to me. I don't care for the double in-text attribution in the second sentence ("He reported...Harrabin reports..."). I would removed the second in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, trimming sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Quest, as you seem to have edit-conflicted with Chris perhaps you'd like to come back on that. I'm very flexible on the actual wording, and in fact I full recognise that the news will likely change quickly in the next few days, but I do think some change of this sort could improve the article in a way that all editors could agree to. --TS

I'm fine with either wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the Reference section: Use archive and quote

In this case it's very important to archive the references we use (by using for example www.webcitation.org and quote what we are referencing (so it's easier to see what has been used to backup the edit done). So when we adds refs, could we use:

| archiveurl = 
| archivedate =  
| quote =  

For example, this article http://www.startribune.com/world/70674087.html was removed (See 'Global Warming Meltdown' Article Pulled for a comment, still available in the Google cache ). Nsaa (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that we should assume that our references are so shaky that they are likely to disappear from human knowledge? Surely if we use poor references they will disappear anyway. If we use good references they will survive. If the only surviving copy of referenced material is that placed into a bespoke archive, under an opaque management principle and without any external confirmation, it most certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. --TS 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if a newspaper retracts an article, then the article is no longer a WP:RS and we shouldn't be citing it. Archiving is useful when a site re-organizes itself and the original article has been moved or can't be found, or if the site goes out of business. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that archiving can be good if it's an access issue. For instance I find the access arrangements for the New York Times extremely tiresome and frequently use an alternative means of reading the articles. --TS 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just not true: "Actually, if a newspaper retracts an article, then the article is no longer a WP:RS". As son as the article has been published it is out in the public and we can use it as far as it follow WP:RS. Nsaa (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. If the publisher itself doesn't stand by its own article, it's no longer reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is something like Wikileaks or Smoking Gun. We're weighing up the most reliable information about a subject and delivering it in a digestible form. We aren't grabbing the hottest news and putting it up to beat a deadline and if we're ever the sole or main source of any piece of information we should investigate why this is so and remove the probematic content. --TS 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If a report is retracted by its publisher, that doesn't say much for its reliability, does it? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Some sites also only keep articles only for a certain number of weeks or months (Yahoo! News was notorious for this once, I don't know if they still are) or require subscription to access archives. In certain cases, finding alternative reliable sources may be preferable (Yahoo! News for example usually just has news agency articles so finding an alternative source shouldn't be hard), or if it's a print article citing the print article, but usually an archived version of an article is fine. As others have said, it's absurd to suggest a story that has been retracted can be consider a WP:RS. If you believe that, I suggest in the strongest possible terms, you re-read WP:RS, have a think about it, and ask questions in the appropriate places if you still don't understand why that's not the case. WP:Verifiability is a cornerstone policy and WP:RS follows so it's imperative editors understand them, particularly if editing a controversial article like this and thinking a retracted article is a WP:RS suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of cornerstone policies. Incidentally, for similar reasons archiving should usually not be used for preserving older editions of articles (since a number of news sites regularly update current event articles) for the purposes of wikipedia, if the source no longer mentions details you need one that does, preferably a recent one. (This could be avoided if editors don't get so carried away with current event articles but as I've said elsewhere, that's a wikiwide problem and one which isn't easy to solve and which I am perhaps guilty of on occasion.) If you are trying to use to prove a site/article once said something (but no longer does) then that would need another source mentioning this fact otherwise it's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we're talking on different subjects? Dimawik point to a case were a webcitation should have been used, see [67] and the example " unfortunately, his link to UEA no longer works.". This link is not archived at Archive.org either. If the link was sent to webcitation on it's first use, we would have an archived version of the actual text cited/used. If you write something and source it from lets say a print media. Should this be removed when the online part of the article gets removed from the site? It's a very good thing to make a reference to what you used when adding especially controversial material and adding a quote. If we should remove an reference thats been withdrawn from the publisher is another matter as I see it, and must be debatet for, case by case. In this area we have seen statement made that has changed (it was deleted, on no its was stolen, etc... ) Nsaa (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Impact on Copenhagen

Here is an interesting take on the impact to Copenhagen, from a reliable source:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/28/as-copenhagen-summit-nears-climategate-dogs-global-warming-debate/

GardiaP (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an analysis. My reading is that it doesn't add anything to what we already say in our own article, but it definitely upholds Christian Science Monitor's strong reputation for lucid news analysis. --TS 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaction by the union of concerned scientists

The UCS stated in a follow-up that they are concerned about alleged reactions to FOI requests. Andjam (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

University of East Anglia admits it threw away original, raw tempterature data

timesonline.co.uk reported, "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped..." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very unclear here. Why is it so controversial to release this raw climate data in the first place? Is it true that FOI requests needed to be filed to access this data? I wanted to make sure this was accurately reflecting the reliable sources, as it didn't seem as though it should be controversial to release raw climate data. GardiaP (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to follow the info on Pilke's web site published in August, unfortunately, his link to UEA no longer works. The modern statement by CRU tells a different story. My suggestion is for us to relax and let the pros play their game. Full disclosure: my reading is that CRU is not malicious, just sloppy. Actually, not even very sloppy - their operation is on par with most other scientific endeavors - but they seem to be caught unaware that their research has huge immediate implications outside of science and thus subject to much higher scrutiny. Designers of sidewalks and bridges are being held to different standards. CRU designed a bridge using sidewalk standards of accountability. It might stand, but I would be afraid to walk on it. Dimawik (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Grundle2600: You might have missed the final two paragraphs: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years

"He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Grundle also missed the point that this isn't related to the e-mail hacking incident. While it's been somewhat linked by the source, given how much else there is that is directy related, it seems unlikely this belongs in this article. Maybe another article (e.g. Climatic Research Unit) but as I've said so many times, that shouldn't be discussed here Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal Regarding statement characterizing the vast majority of the email

The Contents section has the following sentence:

The vast majority of the mail was innocuous plain scientific correspondence.

I submit that this sentence has several problems:

1. It is irrelevant to the issue.
2. It is Original Research. Short of an accepted definition of the term "scientific correspondence" or a reliable source using this wording, it should not be here
3. It is unsourced.

Option 1

• Leave it in if someone can find a reliable source to support the claim, and if talk page consensus can agree on why this claim really is relevant to the article. (But change "mail" to "email" "e-mail" )

Option 2

• Remove it, as unsourced

Option 3

• Reword it to resolve the irrelevancy problem, and possible rewording if the best available citation doesn't support this exact wording. (But change "mail" to "email" "e-mail")

My current preference is Option 2, but I'd like to hear discussion of why other options might be better.--SPhilbrickT 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait - We can't find a source that says most of the conversations were mundane conversations (or words to that effect)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with 2, see my earlier proposal Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Tiny proportion?. To A Quest: yes we cannot, as the WMC team would not allow us to refer to actual emails :-). On a serious note: there is a strong suspicion that the archive was originally prepared as a response to an FOI request by one of the skeptics, so all emails - at least in the eye of the preparer - must be somehow related to the controversy. Dimawik (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We might be able to find such a statement. However, what does it add to the article? The vast majority of a puffer fish is edible, but that's hardly relevant if the discussion is about whether parts of a puffer fish are toxic.--SPhilbrickT 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, because it provides context -- we care about whether a puffer fish has toxic bits because they're used as food. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"...vast majority..." and "...innocuous plain..." are value judgements not supported by a reliable source. This needs to be removed, and we need to reference a summary of the e-mail provided by multiple reliable sources. GardiaP (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Climate skeptics claim a few bits extracted from those generally innocuous discussions among climate scientists – misunderstood or taken out of context – constitute a scandal" [68]. ► RATEL ◄ 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, we should be using e-mail not email per Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 1#E-mail/email IMHO. (I mentioned engvar there, I haven't actually worked out what the first contributor expressing a preference used, the first contributor here used both and is a banned sock but the UoEA used e-mail in their quote we cite which is probably a good a reason as any.) The article appears to use both at the moment for consistency all non quote, non title usages should be changed to e-mail. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Metaproposal

Given the current full-protection, I suggest that the best way to proceed is to identify a potential improvement to the article, make a specific proposal, (not just "shouldn't this be in here", but specific proposed wording and location). Let people debate the options, and reach a consensus. A sysop can make the change. At the end of the week, we can discuss whether reduction of the protection level is the best approach, or if protection should be continued, and edits made by generating consensus on each item.

I gave an example in the last section. I deliberately chose a narrow issue, as major changes might require overhaul of the article structure, and I don't think we are quite ready for that yet.

Perhaps if we show that we can work together and reach consensus on small issues, we can then tackle bigger ones.--SPhilbrickT 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like a pillow fight at the moment. The article has attracted all the deniers on wikipedia, eager to score a point (finally!). I think it should only be edited by admins for a while, only when new facts emerge. Not many new facts are emerging. Seems like a storm in a teacup, if there are only the Trick, Travesty and Trove (as in treating your data like a treasure trove) "scandals". Pffft. ► RATEL ◄ 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the page view stats, you'll see that it's fallen off precipitously since reaching a peak four days ago.[69] I expect the article to be much quieter in a week's time when the anti-science blogosphere has moved onto its next manufactured outrage. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's the most notable aspect of this story that will last: The fact that during a brief period in the fall of 2009 a rumor about climate scientists falsifying data was circulated. With this in mind, I think we should think about including reactions from notable right wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin and what Rush Limbaugh had to say about this. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These logorrheic party hacks are digging very deep holes for themselves, and this should be documented. Also interesting are the comments of the deniers' pet scientist, Ian Plimer, who said that the CRU people have engaged in "fraud". He's already made up his mind, no need for an investigation. More of his blather here.

Geologist and climate change denier Ian Plimer says he hinted in his recent book Heaven and Earth that there is fraud afoot among climate scientists. "This substantiates what I hinted at," Plimer says. "Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it's all based on fraud."

Of course, he's wrong, as he always is. ► RATEL ◄ 15:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Limbaugh isn't a scientist, his field of expertise isn't climatology and his opinion hasn't been widely reported by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for this kind of protection on a developing article?Smallman12q (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[70]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper perspective and appropriate comments

I see several comments in the "Metaproposal" section just above that simply attack people who believe that this controversy has brought to light bad conduct by the scientists whose e-mails and documents were publicized. I've seen similar comments on this page by AGW skeptics trashing the opinions on the other side, either about the controversy or how we are able to cover it.

This isn't what a talk page on an encyclopedia article is for. You all know that.

Each one of you also knows that these kinds of comments are simply emotional and are factually empty: It's a fact that this notable subject has raised concerns about what the CRU scientists were doing, and it's a fact that these concerns go beyond AGW skeptics and partisans on either side. I've provided plenty of links to opinion and news articles that prove it. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] It is also a fact that even if every speculation about wrongdoing concerning these scientists is shown at some point to be true, it doesn't wipe away the case for anthropogenic global warming, as there is plenty of other proof out there for it (reliable sources for that exist, too). For either side to babble on as if these sourced facts didn't exist is simply taunting the other side and therefore disruptive to the serious work of writing and improving this article. If you want to emote about the unfairness of the world and how horrible the public advocates on the other side are, put it on your talk pages -- or, better, email it or say it off-site. If you're here for the serious task at hand, be respectful of the other editors you have to work with, as if you were an adult in a relatively civilized workplace, because you have to work with them in order to get consensus to improve the article, and you're going to close their minds if you continue to insult them. Your comments here should be based on convincing enough of the other side that your ideas and proposed language is reasonable. Cite sourcing. Cite policy. Be reasonable. Be civil. It saves time.

And you all know every bit of this already. Editors who won't try to get along here and who won't leave should be getting warnings, topic bans and eventually blocks for the good of the encyclopedia.

And if you really wanted to do the best job of working collaboratively with people you disagree with on a contentious subject, actually acknowledge where your own preferred side is weak and where the other side is strongest. You aren't here to advance your political position. You're here to present information to readers. Focus on that, please, and let's get to the job at hand. </sermon> -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All 5 of your sources are editorials or other opinion material. Perhaps if you used really reliable sources instead of opinions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading the purpose I stated for providing these links. I wrote: it's a fact that these concerns go beyond AGW skeptics and partisans on either side I'm not trying to prove that the authors of those articles are correct or even that they make a great case. I'm proving that there are prominent commentators who accept global warming and who believe the emails show something was wrong over at CRU. That means that this isn't simply some kind of anti-AGW meme. Because those concerns extend to people with varying POV on AGW, those concerns should be taken seriously. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation (telegraph.co.uk): Published by a reliable source, this can be cited in the article as commentary on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)