Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Ongoing discussions on article naming

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

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

Can we make a decision on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. This could have been a leak, no one knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.63.106 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now there's typical AGW alarmist Watermelon argumentum ad hominem content-vacant suppressive authoritarian WikiNazi rottenness if ever it got posted online. Don't address Monckton's (or Nsaa's) position, but strive to fault the source as such. "Objectivity" and "consensus" and "impartiality" indeed. Just good old "Wiki-bloody-pedia" (to use Mr. Monckton's ever-so-apt characterization) as usual. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AACS encryption key controversy

Essjay controversy

Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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

Old Court – New Court controversy

White House travel office controversy

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

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

John the bookmaker controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLIMATEGATE How about calling this page by the name that the public know best because that is the name that will draw the most people in to read this steaming pile of propaganda that has been edited by at least one individual (William Connolley) who was actually in the leaked emails and was a colleague of Mann and Jones. There's a conflict of interest to begin with. I say call this webpage Climategate and make the subject area the content of the emails or abandon this page to the cover-up mob and start a new page called climategate. The emails aren't copyrighted by the way and no one will take any legal action against wikipedia for linking to them so there is no reason why they shouldn't be linked to other than the people who represent realclimate and the CRU here wouldn't want anyone to read them. realclimate is even cited in the article. Thats not biased is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't think that the police POV push in a fashion unacceptable to Wikipedia, you are naive beyond words. I suggest a strong dose of Radley Balko crime reporting.TMLutas (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change the name back to Climategate and link to the emails. If this article isn't called Climategate and isn't about the content of the emails then I would suggest that a new article is started entitled 'Climategate' to cover the relevant facts. There are two sides here. One side wants to cover climategate and one side wants to cover it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

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

Support

• Support as proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified support - I have more support for this than the existing title, but less than the version using "data theft". Frankly, I would rather see a speedy move to this "middle ground" option and continue to discussion on other options than leave the inaccurate and POV "e-mail hacking incident" wrongness in place. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - While I reserve the right to revisit my proposal above at a later time, this seems a bit of a step toward a more neutral title so I will support it. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support-This is a step in the right direction, but still a poor title in that the term "documents" does not cover source code. I would favor something along the lines of Revealed/Exposed Climate Research Unit information/data incident/controversy. I still think that this endless naming discussion is due to the lack of a straightfoward naming policy/convention on Wikipedia. The current name is truly quite bad, and we should move to something more accurate while the discussion drags on. I experienced an endless debacle in trying to get Bing (search engine) changed to Bing. Nonetheless, as long as we can put up redirects, it doesn't seem to be something worth wasting much time on.Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This shouldn't be called climategate for reasons mentioned time and again, and is nice and general. Ignignot (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, for the reasons given in the preamble.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, it has been decided (many times I believe) that the title should not to restrict article content from discussing the fall out. As such, a more appropriate title would do a great deal to clear up these common confusions about "what the article is about." jheiv (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This title isn't ideal but it's better than the current one. The problem with the current title is that it is about the hacking itself, when the majority of the content of this article is about the controversy that resulted from the content of the documents. Oren0 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. What Oren0 said. That East Anglia was hacked is a supposition without evidence. It is just as likely to have been done by an insider.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified Support The current article name is both in error and POV, and thus it should be renamed, but the new suggestion up for vote is just confusing. It should be a general name for the actual information release incident as well as ensuing fallout, or there should be two different articles. I've posted a link to a Nobel Lauerate panel at this talk page supporting the view that these are two separate issues. (EDIT: Moved from Opposed to Support after having re-read previous move discussions, sorry for the multiple edits) Troed (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The proposed title is not ideal, but it would seem to be a good deal more accurate than what we currently have. The big argument here seems to be that the allegations surrounding the content of the emails cannot be discussed in the article because the article is about the leak/hack of the emails. But in the same vein, it is impermissible to create a separate article about this notable controversy. To some, it would seem the goal is that this controversy not be discussed at all. The situation is unacceptable, and a middle ground must be found. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. GreenMountian (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)— GreenMountian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Inaccurate characterization; User:GreenMountian's edits thus far have been focused solely on Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed title is not ideal, but is better than the current one. I would strongly support "climategate", as this is how all media has been calling the case.Echofloripa (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Use of the term "controversy" does not imply that the emails themselves are controversial, only that they have generated controversy, which is nearly impossible to deny [16]. By your same logic, should we remove/rename the global warming controversy article? Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose It is an email hacking incident. Also, although I searched "climategate" for lack of a better idea, I was very glad to see that climategate was not used as the title of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims of biased editing go unmentioned

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

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

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

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

Wow, damning [17]. I am not taking this further, but I note here my objection to the way this was handled by TonyS and Wikidemon. Transcluding and/or archiving other people's opinions to entrench your own is simply not on, regardless of how you may view the situation. Dhatfield (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversion about alleged censorship of talk page comments

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

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

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

"reported hacking", "allegedly stole"

There is an edit war going on:

• Original edit: [19]
• Reverts: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
• Editors: 216.153.214.89, Nigelj, RMHED, ChrisO, KimDabelsteinPetersen, 141.157.189.3, Scjessey, Psb777

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the hacking have been committed by an insider? Yes, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld[28], Reuters[29] and PC World[30] which which quotes an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News[31], CNET[32], MSNBC[33], eWeek[34], InfoWorld[35], USA Today[36] and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[37] Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. Previously, it has been established that the sentence "Robert Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said that "80 percent of the time it's an insider." meets reliable source guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing discussion. However, it's also amazingly POV-infected. Scjessey repeatedly states that all sources claim this to be a hack/theft and that there are no or not enough (?) reliable sources to support the language of "leaked". This is clearly wrong, many MSMs that copied the statements of "stolen" verbatim from the beginning how now changed their language to "leaked" instead or in addition to*. It's not up to us to decide which is correct, but we should report both viewpoints according to reliable sources - "making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". *) CBSNews [38] Washington Post [39] Wall Street Journal [40] Troed (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farsight, I'm not sure why you are refusing to post the quote. It would take far less time to post the quote than to play these games. I've seen this approach used in many online discussions. What often happens is that the other person does search for the quote, pulls together a coherent argument against the quote, only to be told, "that wasn't the right quote". You say it is the first citation. Let's examine it. The first citation is [41]. The first observation I'll make is that it does not contain the word "hack". This is game, set, match, but let's AGF and see if the citation supports the general contention. We could selectively quote and post the phrase "illegally taken from the university", as support for the contention that "illegal" is support by RS. However, note that a fuller quote says" appears to have been illegally taken from the university". The qualifying phrase is critical. The spokeperson is being careful, not definitely saying it is illegal, but appears to be illegal. On the basis of this alone, the wording should be changed, but if someone wants to do an exhaustive survey, and can show that this is an anomalous quote, we can debate changing it back.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since "alleged" can mean "declared or stated to be as described"[[42]], all actual thefts are also alleged thefts by definition (even though not all alleged thefts are actual thefts). So the use of "alleged" is actually supported by ALL of the sources that uses the phrase "thefts."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The files also included temperature reconstruction..."

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think its moot at all. You are basically admitting that once the hackers are identified the entire stub will have to be rewritten to comply with BLP and various libel laws. You are playing in nothing more than an undefined limboBigred58 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<edit conflict, so added to this new section> Hi, Psb777/Paul Beardsell, I don't think you've quite got the hang of WP:NPOV, and the effect of your changes was to give undue weight to a political viewpoint which is clearly fringe in terms of established science. There are two aspects of this incident. Firstly, private documents including emails were illicitly obtained, through what is commonly described as hacking but as far as I know other techniques have not been definitively ruled out. Secondly, the material was distributed by "climate warming sceptics" to create a controversy which they choose to call "Climategate", implicitly claiming the same legitimacy as the revelation of Nixon's wrongdoing. That's blatantly a politically loaded label, and has to be shown in context to meet NPOV requirements. The "climate warming sceptics" have clearly misrepresented emails, and as this is a scientific subject the majority scientific view has to be shown as such. Similarly, pseudoscientific arguments against global warming have to be treated in accordance with policy. I made some changes before the page was locked, with the last minor edit adding a link to anthropogenic at the same time as page protection was applied.[43] Please take this revised version as a basis for discussion, taking care to comply fully with the policies I've linked above. You may find it useful to make proposals on this page to seek consensus on the best wording. Thsnks, dave souza, talk 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the original question, it is not entirely clear what the neologism "Climategate" refers to. The term was apparently invented by news hounds on or about November 23. James Delingpole claims that he coined the term, using it first in this November 23 blog piece for the London Daily Herald,[44] an assertion backed up by his colleague, Christopher Booker.[45] If so, the term was invented by an anti-AGW advocate to cast aspersions on climate scientists for their allegedly unethical conduct in the affair. However, Andrew Bolt (who is more of a general-purpose contrarian columnist) of Australia's Herald Sun wrote this blog post[46] the day before, in which he asked his readers to submit names for the emerging scandal, himself leading off with the suggestion, "climategate". That claim too is backed up by his own colleagues.[47] If that's true then it is definitely a climate change skeptic term, but intended in a more tongue-in-cheek self-mocking fashion. Additionally, the term has appeared sporadically in reference to unrelated incidents. People just like to add "-gate" to things. Whatever the term was originally intended to mean, a more pertinent question is how pervasive the term is now and just what it means. So far, answering that here is all speculation and WP:OR by us Wikipedia editors. I tend to think that in this postmodern world most snowclones are used at some level as self-parody. But asking what's going on in people's heads when they use or hear a word is a tricky business best left to professionals. I have not yet found a good source. Observationally, we can see that major UK and American media organizations (e.g. BBC, CNN) use it as an umbrella heading to describe the entire ruckus, including the scientists' email and surrounding behavior, the hacking and publication of the emails, the advocacy of the climate change skeptics (or whatever you call them), and the public debate that ensued. But again, making that claim in the context of article content would be WP:OR. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I suggest the text should read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 unreliable source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except we have a primary source[48] which seems to corroborate the secondary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that an RFC is more than justified what we have here is a loophole that is being abused. How we deal with criminal allegations is quite clearly defined by BLP policy. However since there is as of yet no suspect those opposed to the use of the word alleged argue that BLP as well as many libel laws do not yet apply so we are in a both a legal and wiki policy limbo where criminal allegations can be made with 100% certainty. Of course if a suspect is ever named or charges ever brought the entire stub will have to be rewritten to comply with BLP rules and the law. This loophole needs to be addressed and closed. Bigred58 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

False premise is the start of dispute

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

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

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

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

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

What center do you refer to? The nearest thing to a "centre" would appear to be the CRU, and their update 2 includes a statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research, that "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation." You were saying? . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Under The Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 [49] if it was a whistleblower its legal. In both the US and the UK whistleblowing is a legally protected act its not considred theft. Bigred58 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that there is not a single reliable source calling this an act of "whisteblowing". All sources say the information was stolen. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All sources you personally define as reliable. You have already been told by an admin that you cannot discount an experts analysis simply because he is a skeptic. And the point I was refuting was that it had to be a theft regardless of circumstance. The law in the UK and the US for that matter says otherwiseBigred58 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with what I personally think. Reliable sources are usually obvious, but if there is some doubt about any we wish to use we simply open up a discussion at WP:RSN. And which admin told me what? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What is the etiquette for deleting other people's comments on a talk page? Am I supposed to poke around in the history if I want to know what was said?Jarhed (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Farsight: I do not think that police is saying they are investigating theft. As far as I know, in the British law, the information is not even considered subject to theft (you should really read this article :-). Do you have any quote from the UK police (as opposed to CRU) saying that a theft has occurred? Dimawik (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Scotland Yard and Norfolk Police are leading the investigation into the email theft at the University of East Anglia." It's the Daily Mail (a tabloid nowadays), but it's still "reliable" according to others here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is not what the police is saying. Police says, "This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. ... We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed." Some journos convert this to "theft", but we shouldn't, as, once again, one cannot steal information in GB. Dimawik (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dim - I do not recognize your source as it appears to be a UK site I am unfamiliar with, but presuming they quote the Norwalk spokesperson correctly, I feel you've helped advance the dialog here. Thank you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a local newspaper. Dimawik (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought." [50]. It is an allegation of a crime and allegations of crimes are to be referred to as "alleged" unless we want to advance the presumption of guilt, which I am quite confident we do not want to do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there is no doubt that a theft took place. And we have umpteen reliable sources to verify the use of the word. Due diligence has been done. "Alleged" is not necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - In this you are just simply wrong. Each and every one of your sources are faulty for the purpose you are trying to use it for. The source must be a reliable secondary source. For your source to be a valid a secondary source on a matter which requires an expert opinion - and allegations of criminality do require this - the secondary source must itself cite or refer to the primary source which rendered the opinion. If you don't understand this, then there's really nothing more I can tell you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources say "theft". As I've said before, WP:RS trumps WP:TRUTH. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - are you simply going to ignore the 2nd prong of the reliable source requirement? The reliable source must be a secondary source. None of the sources you cite are acting in a secondary capacity. I have explained this to you until I am blue in the face, so at this point, I suggest you re-read what I've already posted on this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, police said, alleged breach (see above); I am yet to see any other quotes from police. How this gets converted by the AGW crowd here into definitely theft, beats me. Dimawik (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let's not refer to some of your fellow editors as "the AGW crowd" please. Secondly, I responded to this elsewhere. As I said before, the "breach" may have been referring to the manner of the theft. In other words, the information was stolen during an "alleged breach". Because of the omission of detail, we must fall back on other reliable sources to verify the facts, and they all say theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel offended; it sure feels like at least some of the pro-AGW editors identify themselves as part of a team fighting against the dark forces of ignorance, so it was not intended as an offense, just a convenient label ("crowd" has few, if any, negative connotations). Anyhow, police clearly says, alleged breach, an RS reports this fact. Some sources forget to report the word "alleged" and substitute "theft" for "breach" - but this does not turn an alleged breach into a definite theft - it simply makes the "theft" sources somewhat less reliable. Dimawik (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Temporarily Resolved; collapsing for housekeeping. Nightmote (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the " ... neutrality is disputed ... " tag? I wasn't aware that they expire, and I am unaware that the neutrality of the article was no longer contested. Nightmote (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC) It was removed by Viriditas here, but I do not see any indication is was discussed. Can someone point me to the discussion? If not, we should request it be replaced, and Viriditas admonished.--SPhilbrickT 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I concur we should request it be replaced; the ongoing discussion and periodic edit warring serve as ample evidence that the neutrality of the article is disputed. --DGaw (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The removal of the POV tag seems premature, and I move for it to be re-instated at first reasonable opportunity. Perhaps Viriditas did it by accident. That's the only good faith explanation I can come up with. After reading the comment on your link, I have absolutely no idea what good faith explanation could be tendered. Nightmote (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) What are the grounds for including the tag? Are there serious, ongoing disagreements over NPOV? Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously? You seriously wonder whether the neutrality of this article is questioned by a significant minority of editors? Nightmote (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) No, not at all. But I'm questioning whether there are serious questions. You know, ones that don't require us to cite blogs or insert OR. Can you point to any serious, unresolved questions? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC) How many archive pages are there, now, for this article? How many reverts have there been? How many edit wars? How many protections? How many names have been proposed for this article by editors on both sides of the issue? Is the data leak/theft/hack the central point, or are the ramifictions the most important point? Was this the result of a whistleblower or carefully-scheduled disruption of Copenhagen? TS has started an outline for a completely new article, and that stupid paragraph on Rielke (sp - which I put in, to my chagrin) has been reverted a dozen times by folks who can't decide if Rielke hates the IPCC, *hates* the IPCC, or hates the IPCC. Half of the editors maintain that this was nothing more than a university data theft with no fallout. The other half of the editors believe that this is a Watergate-style exposure of scientific malfeasance with earth-shaking consequences. There has been little or no consensus on *anything* in this article, which is why it keeps getting longer and longer instead of better and better. So, yes, I believe that there is a POV issue, here, and that until we can agree to prune this rose bush there will be no flowers. Nightmote (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) You have outlined content disputes, you have outlined disagreements over article format. But I'm looking for unresolved NPOV issues. Guettarda (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Guettarda, editors on this article have been routinely seeking "consensus" by stating that other points of view are "fringe", don't exist, or are biased. Some people believe that the scientists involved behaved indefensibly. Others disagree. And the article is being repeatedly disruptively edited to reflect these positions. Your activities relating to this article are archived, and there can be no doubt that you are aware that questions of neutrality exist, and go well beyond "formatting". Nightmote (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC) If the POV tag hasn't been replaced withing 24 hours, I will request that an editor administrator review the situation and replace the tag. Nightmote (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, there are many serious WP:NPOV issues with the article. There's the WP:UNDUE weight given to the death threats in the lede for starters. I can't believe anyone's even asking if there are WP:NPOV with this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Before adding the tag, would you mind detailing precisely your concerns? The tag has been there for a long time, but there hasn't been any recent discussion to establish what the issues are and how they could be resolved. Simonmar (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Certainly. We are unable to agree on a title. We are unable to agree on what to call the method by which the data were removed from the servers. We are unable to agree on the consequences of the dissemination of the data. Finally, we are unable to agree on which experts opinions are relevent. Have I missed anything? As for how they can be resolved, that is another issue altogether, and far thornier. But it has nothing to do with whether or not POV questions exist. I believe that they do, and I think that Viriditas should have - in good faith - disussed the tag removal. Nightmote (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Much as I dislike NPOV tags on articles (too much like a badge of shame), there is little doubt that disagreements exists on both "sides" about the neutrality of a number of aspects of the article. At this point, I would endorse the restoration of the tag with the proviso that we seek its removal as soon as possible, by working out our differences amicably. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I agree the NPOV tag belongs on this article, for the reasons Nightmote so colorfully outlined above. As for a badge of shame, the shame is on us for not being able to work through our differences collegiality, without attempting to defend or advance our personal agendas. --DGaw (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Some reasons why the article might not be viewed as neutral: Undue emphasis. The opening paragraph, presumably where the most important aspects of the article are summarized, includes a reference to personal information being compromised. While compromise of personal information should not be trivialized, in the context of a controversy with literally trillions of dollars at stake, to mention this item in the lede sounds like emphasis on the wrong aspects of the incident, in an attempt to create sympathy for the alleged victims. Undue emphasis. Similarly, the opening paragraph mentions death threats. This inclusion has been the subject of intense debate. Not all agree that the very unspecific charges deserve inclusion at all, but many of those supporting inclusion feel this aspect deserves minor coverage in the main article, not the prominence of a mention in the lede. After prior discussion, the aspect was removed form the lede, but it has crept back in again. One more example of an attempt to create sympathy for the alleged victim, over the goal of presenting the most important aspects. Misleading conclusion. The second paragraph properly summarizes some of the charges arising from the material, but the construction of the paragraph can be summarized as: "charges made, charges refuted." In fact, it is far to early to leave readers with the impression that this was merely a smear campaign intended to sabotage a summit. Perhaps it was, but until investigations are concluded, a neutral POV would leave readers with a sense that the issues are open, not resolved. Questionable word choice. The debate over whether "hack" and "stolen" can be used in an unqualified way has been intense. While those in favor of the unqualified term can point to RS without the qualifier, those who feel that crimes should be proven before assumed to have occurred can also point to more circumspect RS. I don't know whether WP has definitely settled how to address word choice when RS disagree, but many readers feel that the choice most sympathetic to CRU seems to win the day in most cases. It is hard to understand how a qualifier such as alleged, when not a single person has been arrested, or even charged, is clearly the only wording option. Some feel it would be more neutral to take more care, and state as fact those things which are known to be fact, not those things which may turn out to be fact. Balance. The section on Climatologists includes many examples which translate to "nothing to see here. move along", while containing almost no examples of critical comment. In 13 paragraphs, I find only three including criticisms of the actions of the scientists. I do not for a second argue the mix has to automatically be 50/50, but has someone established that the reaction is so overwhelmingly critical of the release? There's more, but this is a start. I'll emphasize that one should be careful about imputing my position to any of the above comments, I've attempted to summarize what I think those concerned might believe. To some extent, it does reflect my personal view, for example, I do not feel that the name of the article should be Climategate, and some who do might add that to the list.--SPhilbrickT 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Well that certainly presents one "side" of the reason why it needs a neutral tag, rather pointlessly if I may say so. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC) If you think so, why don't you add a list that presents the other side? It might be helpful having the list of issues to be resolved together. --DGaw (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The article is supposed to represent the story as reported in mainstream media (MSM). While it may be that the media has failed to recognize the significance of the case, it is not the role of this article to correct that. Is there any reason to believe that this article is reporting the case other than how it has been presented in MSM? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The Four Deuces. With all due respect, did you read the list? Not a single item attempts to make the case that the media are getting it wrong and we should get it right. Every one of my points can be substantiated with media references.--SPhilbrickT 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, these points have been made, but not how they rise to the point of violating of our NPOV policy? Personal information compromised there's actually a dispute over this that has reached a stalemate? In the most recent mention of this, it is unchallenged. It's also mentioned in a long complaint by an anon, but it isn't discussed by anyone else. I don't see how this deserves {{NPOV}} Death threats in the lead This is a discussion related to an interpretation of the MOS, not of NPOV. Misleading conclusion. Where was this issue raised? Where did we deadlock on how to resolve it? Questionable word choice No matter how you choose to slice this, it's not NPOV issue. To me it boils down to "should we follow sources, or replace them with the opinion of certain editors?" At a most charitable reading, it boils down to "should we ignore WT:WTA?" A disagreement as to whether we should follow or ignore guidelines is not an NPOV dispute, no matter how far away from consensus it may be. Balance Again, where was this discussion, and how did it fail to resolve it? I don't recall a deadlock over this. Seriously, I see disputes, but not nothing over NPOV that rises to the point of requiring that template. Guettarda (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I contest your summarization. On item 4, it is not a case of following sources or following certain editors. Some sources use the word "stolen" without qualification, but many others point out it isn't yet clear the documents were stolen and still others use caveated language. So we as editors should have a discussion about how best to represent the consensus of the RS. In the absence of a consensus that the unqualified word "stolen" is absolutely correct, a fair person would agree that taking the cautious approach is a better choice. That isn't the case here. Certain editors who want the article to convey that illegality has certainly happened have prevailed. That doesn't sound neutral to me. Does it to you?--SPhilbrickT 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC) WRT #2, it is clearly a matter of WP:WEIGHT, which is very much a part of NPOV. Where is the documentation that the death threats have been mentioned in so many articles that it deserves mention in the lede. There's really only a dozen or so points in the lede; I seriously doubt that a formal analysis of the RS coverage would place the death threats in the top ten or so issues.--SPhilbrickT 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Many of those seem fairly straightforward to address. For instance, the third point could be addressed by simply concatenating two paragraphs, turning "charges made, charges refuted" into "charges made, charges refuted, investigations ongoing". Personally I don't think it's necessary - the reader ought to be able to avoid forming a conclusion until the end of the lede - but it wouldn't hurt much. The final point about balance in the climatologists reactions seems straightforward too: just find some critical climatologists and quote them. If the section got too long, then some of the less notable quotes would have to be cut, of course (perhaps it's too long already). I agree with Guettarda above that there doesn't seem to be much actual NPOV disagreement. Simonmar (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I don't disagree that all points can be addressed, including the possibility that in some cases, the evidence will show that no change is needed. However, the point of the template is to show that we haven't yet achieved agreement that the article is neutral. Accordingly, the tag should be there until we reach such agreement (which is obviously not the same as saying we have resolved every open issue, that will take longer.)--SPhilbrickT 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The point of {{NPOV}} is for NPOV disputes that cannot be resolved. I don't see anything that merits this. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC) That is obviously not true, or the template wouldn't say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". It most obviously applies to situations where a dispute exists, but has not yet been resolved. As in this case.--SPhilbrickT 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC) No, you are confusing {{NPOV}} with the {{Disputed}} tag. The burden is on the person adding the tag, and there is currently no reason to have a NPOV tag. Based on the discussion above, most disputed aspects of this article can be easily solved. Is there a reason, Sphilbrick, you are not working towards resolution of these issues? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "Is there a reason, Sphilbrick, why you have not stopped beating your wife?" Gah. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Viriditas, you removed the NPOV tag from a hotly-debated article without seeking consensus or demonstrating that the neutrality issues were resolved. To suggest that Sphilbrick is not working to resolve consensus and resolution is uncalled for, as there was no issue until you acted unilaterally. In the absence of a formal statement to the contrary, how about we get rid of the NPOV tag when there have been no major edits for one week? Nightmote (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC) According to Viriditas, "There is currently no reason to have a NPOV tag". Are you saying that you haven't read this article's talk page, not to mention the multiple complaints about the lack of WP:NPOV that have been levied by numerous editors in this archive? If not, I suggest that you go through this page's talk page and archives and familiarize yourself with the issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) No, I'm saying I've read this discussion and see no reason for a NPOV tag. Is there a reason you aren't working here to resolve the disputes? It looks like you are intentionally promoting and creating disputes to promote your POV. This can be best described as dispute whoring. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Are you even being serious? I've been working to resolve the dispute from day one. Because this is not a topic I don't particularly care about, your personal attack of intentionally creating disputes to promote a POV falls flat on its face. My only POV is in making sure that WP:NPOV is followed. Do you have a problem with WP:NPOV? If so, I suggest that you try to get the editors of WP:NPOV to change the policy. Please let us know how it goes. Until you convince the WP:NPOV editors to change policy, we should follow this policy regarding this article, don't you agree? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC) You've been working to resolve the dispute? Really? That explains why there are multiple instances of the same, exact discussion in the archives and on this talk page. When a particular issues is resolved, it is immediately raised again, and again, and again, until you get the answer you desire. That's not a resolution. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, I've been working on resolving the dispute. The reason why the same issues keep being brought up is because they remain unresolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Okay, so... you have read the discussion and see no reason for a NPOV tag. Unfortunately, other people have read the discussion and believe there is a reason. If you can convince those people to agree with you--or, better, work with them to address their concerns over the article's neutrality--a consensus can be reached, and the NPOV tag can be removed. --DGaw (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, the burden is on the person adding the tag. Your contribution history gives you away. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Viriditas, at several places throughout this talk page statements are made by several editors (administrators) to the effect of there being no WP:RS referring to the incident as anything but a "hack" and that the material was "stolen". This is factually incorrect, which I've shown by providing the necessary sources. In spite of those sources having been added to the discussion, some editors/administrators continue to claim that they do not exist (in this sub-thread, for example). That is the (current) problem. Troed (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Ok, let's address it, again. This has been discussed many times, so let's get a survey of the discussion results for this particular "dispute". Looking at just the FAQ, there is a related entry for Q5: Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia", and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. Troed, what's wrong with this FAQ entry? Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you. An investigation into the incident is not a conclusion. Until the investigation has something to report it's all allegations, unproven. Thus, even the name of the article is questionable - we do not know, and there are no WP:RS who do either, that this is indeed a "hack". Additionally, WP:RS do refer to the incident in several ways (which is the reason I'm here, I saw editors claiming otherwise in error) - "allegedly hacked" and "leaked". We should strive for WP:NPOV and we do that by refering to what the MSM is saying up until we indeed have WP:RS resolution on the issue. That can, at the earliest, happen when the criminal investigation has reported - or a non-disputed source says otherwise (which for example could be if a whistleblower steps forward). HOWEVER, claiming (as some editors have done) that the MSM isn't at all refering to the incident as anything else but a "hack" or that there's been a "theft" is clearly in error, and continuing to do so after sources have been provided indicates POV. Troed (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC) ←Jeez. This talk page is like the United Nations or something. Obviously there are various editors who think there are neutrality issues, and that's enough to decide whether or not the article should be tagged. Why do we need yet another gigantic thread on the matter? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Agree, and it seems this has been resolved by an administrator already. The tag has been readded. Whether Viriditas acting knowingly out of consensus in this matter or not I leave to others to debate. I still feel there are serious problems with POV statements at the talk page, however somewhat less so at the current article. Troed (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) No one should be happy that the neutrality of this article is questioned. It behoves us to fix the article. It would not be becoming of someone to be happy with the article being the way it is because it reflects their POV, so surely that is not the case!  :-) [Hey, isn't the United Nations a good idea?] Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Don't get me wrong. I hate seeing that tag (I refer to it as the "badge of shame"). I created a todo list a week or so ago (see top of this page) that mentioned the need to resolve issues and work toward removal of the tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please forgive me, but I can't shake the feeling that these arguments are disingenuous. I say for the third time that I agree that defamation should not occur anywhere on WP. However, (please forgive me if I don't say this right) BLP stands for **BIOGRAPHY** of a living person. Inclusion of the BLP warning on this article seems absurd to me, it not being a BIOGRAPHY. I was unfortunately personally affected by the Siegenthaler incident. It is disingenuous for you to claim that Siegenthaler would have felt the same about the defamation being in the JFK article as he was about it being in his own bio. He was at press confrences saying, "And this was in my *OWN BIO*!!!" And also, the Siegenthaler incident was a libelous slander, not an accurate report about an ongoing controversy, so your comparison is wrong anyway. I say for the fourth time that I agree that defamation should not occur anywhere on WP. However, citing a reliable source that reports about an ongoing investigation is not defamation. It can be harmful if not properly qualified, "alleged" etc., but it is the *truth* and truth should not be a disqualification. If I am wrong about this, I would like to understand why.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're talking a little past each other. BLP is used as a shorthand for our policy on biographies of living people. Not biography articles but biographic information. Since biographic information is being discussed, it's an appropriate warning. When you say that "citing a reliable source that reports about an ongoing investigation is not defamation", it suggests to me that you don't understand the point of the warning here. The point of the BLP policy is that we need to cite reliable sources when we talk about living people (and, of course, that these sources need to be of a slightly higher standard than those which don't apply to living people), especially when we are dealing with potentially damaging information. It doesn't say that we can't discuss potentially damaging information. Nothing of the sort.

As for the Siegenthaler reference, you seem to have missed my point entirely. While his reaction prompted the development of the policy, arguing that he would have felt differently if it had been on another page quite frankly misses the point. We don't have a policy to satisfy him. Siegenthaler's role in this is simply that he raised an issue about a weakness in the way we policed our articles. The information about him would have failed WP:V even in its earliest for. But it prompted a debate about the way we dealt with information about living people, which led to the development of our BLP policy.

I think it's rather insulting to accuse people of being "disingenuous" when they answer your questions about Wikipedia policy. The policy is based on a Foundation directive, there isn't much we can do to change its application here. No one is paid to answer your questions here. If you want a more thorough discussion of the policy, try the policy's talk page. But it would be nice not to insult the volunteers who gave up their own time answered your questions. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to watch your incivility toward me: stop accusing me of insulting people when I have done no such thing, and stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. In plain English I said: "Please forgive me, but I can't shake the feeling...." I said I had a *feeling* of being disingenuous *not* an accusation that someone was being so. As for your insult to me about "paying" people to answer my questions, perhaps you should take notice that this is the *talk* page for the article in question where such disagreements are supposed to be discussed. Please forgive me but I can't help shake the feeling that you are telling me to shut up and stop discussing discussing this article. I will ask any question I please to elicit the information that I in my own judgement need to edit this article, and if you don't care for my questions then you can simply ignore them. In fact, judging from your incivility to me and other people, I would prefer that you do just that. That said, your invocation of some unnamed "Foundation directive" that applies in this specific instance, please forgive me but I can't help shake the feeling that such response is disingenuous. If you care to respond, I would appreciate a link to said directive, and I would appreciate it if it were in an article that does not start with the word BIOGRAPHY.Jarhed (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• See first infobox on top of this page. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section for the page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppets on this article

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

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

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

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

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

I wish I had seen this earlier so I could have replied immediately. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, and I regret I have seemed to. My intention was really to express dismay at any sockpuppetry. But there are comments above (and I had not thought they were yours) to the effect that some army of sockpuppets has parachuted in with an opposing opinion and therefore the opinion can be discounted. I say no, name the sockpuppets. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I said three suspected sockpuppets because a search on their usernames shows that to be likely the case. I am not sure what in this you find to disagree with. As you said, "What is improper is to make unfounded allegtions of sockpuppetry." I am saying that I expect the WP administrators and experts on this article to handle this problem in good faith. If that is happening then I am fine. However, I know at least a few of the sockpuppets, and I will be watching for any disruptive behavior from them.Jarhed (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

On the GW pages, coordinated editing is also very visible ;-) Dimawik (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tackling NPOV issues - "personal information"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please tell me you can see that your opinion about "covering their asses" is pure POV. If they must cover their asses, then obviously there must be something to cover their asses from. I would say that if you don't know about the DOE litigation hold instruction, you have not been following this story very closely. I am watching reliable sources for someone to report this rumor, and just as soon as they do, I am going to slap it in this article as a notable fact.Jarhed (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I just read the article from top to bottom and the two biggest issues IMO with regard to WP:NPOV are the article title which focuses on the initial hacking rather than the subsequent controversy surrounding the e-mails, and the undue weight given to the death threats in the lede. I think if we can address both of those issues, a lot of my concerns are alleviated. I also think that Wikidemon brought up an excellent point about the excessive use of "stolen" emails, "hacked" files, "illegal" actions, etc.[51] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you being too reasonable here? Don't you think you should beat everyone up and win every little niggling point you can?Jarhed (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the insanity, Jarhed. Please see my user page for an explanation of what's really going on here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementing the recommended title change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged hack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A better analogy would be = you leave your car parked in public, and someone takes a picture of it. Is that theft? IANAL, but I bet not. Which doesn't definitively prove that the acquisition of the data was not theft, but those asserting it is, and stating there could be no other option haven't provided reliable sources in support of the contention.--SPhilbrickT 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

And thats the problem the moment a suspect is named or charges brought BLP and libel laws apply and it is going into the article. We need an RfC on this.Bigred58 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's actually not a bad idea. This whole thing is heading for an ArbCom anyway, RfC may as well be the first step. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, although it is kind of pathetic that we interested editors can't agree on a way to go forward without supervision.Jarhed (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Media organization?

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

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

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

(ec) I don't think it's currently used in the article, it's just a template at the top of the talk page here that says this article was mentioned by a media organization. I think that template should be removed since the mention in question is just a one-sided attack screed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you pulled it out, thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Contentious for no good reason.Jarhed (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Hack 2

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

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

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

This doesn't jibe with Wikipedia's policy. The Verifiability policy, reliable sources subsection says nothing about splitting hairs in the way you've described. [[52] <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I think this is reasonable. "Hack" conveys a perjorative that is unproven as yet and we should avoid it. "Controversy" is more accurate and better NPOV.Jarhed (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(As I wrote above)Police says, "This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. ... We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed.". This is reported by a local newspaper, so should be deemed RS. The correct wording therefore is alleged breach of security. Dimawik (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Sounds solid to me.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

"Here's how LiveScience's Bad Science columnist summed up the debacle dubbed Climategate: "Personal e-mails between climate scientists may be ill-advised and embarrassing, but by themselves do not provide hard evidence of scientific fraud." He added, "The fact is that the evidence for climate change does not hinge upon data from the East Anglia University researchers whose e-mails were exposed."" [53] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I didn't advance anything. A Quest For Knowledge found it, not me. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are advancing it in that you assert it supports your side of the argument to remove "alleged" but it does not. Why does it not? Because it's just another example of the media characterizing things without attribution. And it's a poor source at that - an opinion piece. So, for you to champion its posting means you are advancing it. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's "an opinion piece", Lex, I guess it's of no use to anyone and we may as well just delete the whole thread and forget it exists. You can't have it both ways. And BTW, don't edit any of my comments again. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then do not address me as "Lex" - you doing so is clearly an instigation intended to provoke trouble. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant "Rex", not "Lex". I'll get it right next time. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the overall science of AGW, this controversy is much ado about nothing. But we still have to fairly represent what the controversy is about which includes the potential misconduct of 3 or 4 scientists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not until misconduct is proven, otherwise it would be a BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey: It's not a WP:BLP violation if it's sourced to a WP:RS. The few exceptions (such as sexual orientation) don't currently apply to this article. This has already been discussed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I opened a new section on the BLP claim just because people keep saying this as if it is something that is agreed. I would appreciate it if we could get this hammered out one way or another.Jarhed (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Potential doesn't equal. Until these scientists have been convicted or sanctioned for misconduct, we can't say they committed it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly talk about the controversy, which seems considerable to me. I think it is foolish for WP to pretend as if it doesn't exist. I have looked at the LiveScience references, and I don't understand how anyone could consider these controversial or object to them being used as sources for this article.Jarhed (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If the LiveScience piece is to be accepted in support of "controversy", then it will have to be accepted in support of "theft", "stolen" and "hacked" as well. There will be no cherry-picking of sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And if it fails for the essential reason I state it does, that being: it contains media-generated characterizations which are not attributed to a primary source, hence it is not a valid secondary source and is therefore an unreliable source for this particular reason (quite apart from it also being a opinion column), THEN ALL similarly situated sources are also disqualified. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And if an editor objects to that characterization, he can find a reliable source to explain the objection, the inclusion of which will make the article NPOV. Am I missing something here?Jarhed (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got the premise wrong. It's the initial characterization which must have foundation to an actual primary source, as reported by a secondary source. The media keeps repeating that word of it's own initiative - it's not sourced by them back to anything, so they are the primary source. Because of that, we can't use them without the term "alleged". Do you understand what I am saying? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The news article IS the source. You don't need to source sources. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• No - you are mistaken. Please read this Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. The rule is that the media can't simply confabulate a premise which requires an expert opinion without consulting one. If they do, like they have in this case, we can't cite them unless we say "alleged". See my other posts. I've explained this thoroughly elsewhere on this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I don't want to offend you, but you are fundamentally mistaken and Mr. Anonymous here is 100% correct in what is essentially an abstruse argument that will be misconstrued by POV pushers anyway. I said somewhere up there that we should try to agree on *stringently reliable* sources. Those sources will necessary conflict on this controversy, so let's just use them all and each push his or her own POV without trying to clobber each other and then maybe, just maybe, we can get a halfway NPOV article out of the effort. I doubt we can do this but hope springs eternally.Jarhed (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious question - is LiveScience a notable enough source for us to use? I don't know much about the source - yeah, I know, I've come across it often enough, but I don't know much about how serious a site it is. Anyone know? Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal but Yahoo (best online editors in the news business) links to LiveScience and I read it about ten times a week, as I am sure millions of other people do. I would consider its reliability to be about the same as USA Today, in other words, high.Jarhed (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Popularity != reliability. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal != factual. Sometimes I feel as if I am talking to brick walls.Jarhed (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ are you agreeing, or being snide? Please clarify. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that popularity does not equal reliability. Sorry - I thought everyone knew what != meant. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No big, but != approximates the logical symbol, "makes true" (e.g., see here). I was a bit thrown off as well. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Although |= would be the most likely approximation.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) see here. He's saying that just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Official police statement completely undercuts presumptive conclusion of "theft"

Read this here

A Norfolk police spokesman said: “This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. An inquiry team has been established under the leadership of Det Supt Julian Gregory and the investigation is being supported by relevant experts from other organisations.

“We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed. It would be inappropriate at this early stage to comment on the exact nature of the investigation or speculate publicly on the person or persons involved.”

This should settle the dispute as the police statement is authoritative and trumps media characterizations. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering the wording "alleged breach" and "may have". Troed (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. We use what secondary reliable sources report. The "alleged breach" may be referring to the manner of the theft, rather than the theft itself. It is no more conclusive than any other source because it omits relevant information. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper quoted is a reliable source (it is a local Norwich newspaper, after all). Dimawik (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is, but we also have dozens of national and international news organs - also reliable sources - that say "theft" without any sort of qualifier. Here's where the word "preponderance" comes in. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be what we would qualify with "MSM also refers to this as". However, the statement found here is a proper second source quoting a first - which completely voids all earlier discussions where the police investigation was considered by some, you for example, a proper source for simply referring to this incident as "theft", "stolen" etc without having to use a qualifier like "allegedly". Do note that when the MSM was found to also use "allegedly" and "leaked" some editors here tried to claim otherwise still. That is POV editing. Troed (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And feel free to adjust FAQ5 accordingly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were the case that all secondary reliable sources report the same thing, we might then be obligated to report exactly what all the sources are consistently saying. That isn't the case here. In light of an actual quote for the police, who unlike the CRU are not burdened with a COI, there's no question that the qualifications are, at this time, appropriate. Moreover, the police statement avoids the term "theft" so it isn't even clear that the phrase "alleged theft" is appropriate, at least without acknowledging that the term is used by some sources, but not by the police.--SPhilbrickT 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear SPhilbrick, police would never use word "theft" in this case, as the word is not applied to misappropriation of information in the British law (the details are actually laid out in layman's terms in the Theft article in Wikipedia). So, whenever in Climategate you hear "email theft", it just indicates sloppy reporting. This is what actually pushed me to go and search for the actual quote from the police. Dimawik (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "some tea leaves 'ad 'alf-'inched some data from them climate boffins." -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your peculiar brand of humor. But the British police will never apply the word "theft" in this case - so whenever you see it applied to Climategate, the police is definitely misquoted. Dimawik (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a completely false claim. "Data theft" is a standard and widely used term in computer security circles in the UK. See [54] for some of the 37,000 references to "data theft", just from UK government websites alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think 216's point should be dismissed so quickly. The police are using the word "alleged". What harm is there to this article if we use the word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Slippery slope. What harm is there to this article if we switch from using "skeptical view" to "fringe view". We use what the preponderance of reliable sources use. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. And we don't simply use what a preponderance of sources say. A peer-reviewed study trumps what some idiot reporter says, and a quote from the police (in the absence of a rationale for thinking they may be lying) about the nature of a crime trumps what some lazy reporter concludes.--SPhilbrickT 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard use of "alleged breach" is "alleged breach of security". The term "theft" is not used by the police unless something was actually was stolen. If the original data was left intact on the CRU servers, then nothing was stolen. The offense would then be along the lines of unauthorized access, copying and release of information. If the data was destroyed it still would not be theft, it would be along the lines of unauthorized destruction of data, unlawful interference with a data processing system, something along those lines, depending on the laws in the court of jurisdiction.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this "standard use" claim? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it doesn't really matter. Whatever the wording of the police statement might imply, we still have to stick with what it says.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's completely false. The standard term for a breach of security in which information is taken without consent is "data theft". It's a widely documented issue, and a standard term, on UK government websites dealing with information security. See [55] for many examples. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of the British law is irrelevant (and wrong, see Oxford v Moss, information could not be deemed to be intangible property, so theft does not apply). Anyhow, police used very specific words, and we must follow. Dimawik (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. We follow reliable sources, not bent coppers on the take! Where's Gene Hunt when you need him? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not my "personal interpretation". It's the standard terminology and it's the law. Did you even click on the link I provided? Honestly, I am getting very tired of people simply making things up around here. Here's a suggestion: read about the Data Protection Act, which post-dates the case you linked to. A 30-year-old case does not represent the current state of play. There have been a variety of cases in recent years of people being convicted of data theft - see e.g. "Data theft conviction carries stiffest sentence yet" from 2006. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually read your own links? The sentence was not for theft, it was for unlawfully obtaining personal information. Data Protection Act, as far as I know, also does not use the word "theft". Dimawik (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what "data theft" is. The term refers to the unlawful acquisition of personal information, such as databases, e-mails, addresses etc. Did you notice the article title? Did you notice the 36,000+ references here on UK government websites, which explain what the term refers to? This is a really dumb argument. I have spent long enough with lawyers working on data protection issues to know about this first hand. Have you had any dealings with UK data protection law? Do you know what the terminology is? Are you even in the UK? Your comments indicate that you know absolutely nothing about data protection law here. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated before, your personal googling has no consequences here, unless you manage to come across a police statement on Climategate that will use the word "theft". I can assure you that this is extremely unlikely. Dimawik (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point: the source for the statement that there was a theft - that information was stolen - is the university, which has said so explicitly (and used the word "stolen" repeatedly). The university is the owner of the stolen data. We do not need the police to source the statement about "theft", since the university is the only party in a position to state that the data was stolen, since it is the undisputed owner of the data. It is, after all, a simple question - the data was either released with consent or taken without consent. The university says that it was taken without consent - stolen, in its own words. Its statements have not said "allegedly stolen" or used any qualifiers of that nature; they have been categorical. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is OK to say, "CRU reported theft", "CRU alleged theft". It is not OK to say "theft occurred", though. Dimawik (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be alleged breach of conduct or alleged breach of of the peace or alleged breach of copyrights. However, the context would be wrong. Given the context if you have a better conclusion for "alleged breach" by all means present it and we can work towards consensus.24.87.71.192 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not even matter what it could be; we should simply use the police wording verbatim and use alleged breach instead of theft. We can also say, "some newspapers prefer to call this alleged crime a theft". Anything else at this stage is simply OR. Dimawik (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the university calls it a theft - it says explicitly that the data was stolen. Why are you ignoring the university's statements? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Because whenever the crime is alleged, the law enforcement's statement is much more authoritative. When the Norwich police and CRU will be discussing the climate change, I will put more weight into CRU's wording. Dimawik (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. Law enforcement investigates crimes in response to complaints by the victims. The police are not in a position to determine by themselves whether the UEA's data (not CRU, please note) was stolen. Put it this way - if your house was burgled, who would determine that property had been stolen - you or the police? How would the police know without you reporting it to them and you telling them that your property had been taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a horrid analogy. The police look for signs of a robbery, like forced entry. If they find evidence that the alleged victim faked the robbery to file a false insurance claim they arrest them and conclude that no theft took place.Bigred58 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reporting" here is the key word. A victim reports the crime, police investigates an alleged crime. It is quite possible that police will reclassify the reported crime. So, if you propose to write, CRU is reporting a data theft, Norwich police is investigating an alleged breach of computer security, I am with you. Once you remove the "CRU reported" qualifier, we've sailed into the OR ocean. Dimawik (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The police, to answer your question. I'm only making an allegation, and I'm the only one who knows if it's true, true as far as I know or false (when you get into a debate with an insurance company this becomes quite visible). I.e, CRU claiming it's a theft is simply that, a claim by CRU. Media reporting on the issue are simply that, media reporting on the issue. The police has the authority to say which is which, when they're done investigating. Until then, all claims are "alleged". It would be [WP:OR] to do anything but report who says what, with all the valid qualifiers. It would be POV-editing to claim that "it's obvious that theft has taken place". Troed (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim of theft does not make it so ChrisO. Many cases of insurance fraud begin with a claim of theft. That doesn't make the theft fact. At this point in time the police have not stated if a crime was committed or not. They are the primary reliable source on that fact not the press and not CRU. This need to go to arbitration because you will never going to yield your POV.Bigred58 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this very simply. The university has said unequivocally that the material was stolen. Numerous reliable sources report that the material was stolen. We do not have a single reliable source stating that the material was not stolen. We follow what the reliable sources say. That is all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are factually wrong and purposely misrepresenting cited facts in this discussion. Why? Troed (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So point out which facts I've got wrong. What are you disputing - that the university has said that the material was stolen or that numerous reliable sources have reported that it was stolen? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what the university has said, or that there are WS:RS reporting on the incident in various different ways ("stolen", "allegedly stolen", "leaked" - you seem to oppose some of those phrases though according to your earlier comments). However, none of it allows us to claim that there was a "theft" or words to that effect. We can only report that the university claims/alleges it, that sources report this and that (and then we should include all of this and that - not just the phrases you personally like). Troed (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Should I change the FAQ#5 to at least correctly quote the police? Dimawik (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhh.... Support
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and I just did. Though ChrisO reverted it without giving an explanation...--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's wrong and because someone (you?) also deleted Q10 without any explanation. The statement from Norfolk Police quoted in the FAQ comes from this source: "A Norfolk Police spokeswoman said last night: ‘Norfolk Constabulary can confirm that it is investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia (UEA).’". Note that this statement is five days more recent than the one quoted at the top of this section. It's the most recent thing the police have said on the issue. Also note that there is no equivocation in this statement - evidently on 1st December the police were trying to establish whether criminal offences and a data breach had taken place, but by 6th December they were confident enough to say unequivocally that criminal offences were under investigation and a data breach had occurred. Incidentally, this also answers the rather tendentious question of what was meant by a "breach". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Q10 in a separate edit, with an explanation, which you (inappropriately) reverted in tandem with all of the edits I made to the FAQ over that ten-minute stretch. As for FAQ5, if you could include the citation you give here in the FAQ that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the citation to the FAQ. Q10 was deleted without explanation in a revert by someone editing from an IP - I presume that was you? I've found your explanation now. I don't think it really works. Q10 addresses three things: complaints against a specific named individual; accusations against Wikipedia; inclusion of self-referential material. It tackles those by pointing to the previous discussion on that issue and to Wikipedia's guidelines on self-referential material. They which do address precisely this issue at Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Articles are about their subjects, and they set out the criteria under which self-referential material may be included. I've reworded Q10 slightly to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed – adding that source for the quote helped your case more than any of the other stuff that was already up there.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your deduction above about the police having come to a conclusion on the allegations in five days from these quotes alone is a clear example of WP:OR. There is no support in WP:RS for your personal conclusion, and if we really believe that the difference in the quotes describe the case having moved forward we either need a citation on that fact from the police or we should be cautious in our writing. Until the investigation has come to a conclusion (which will be reported) there is nothing but allegations and if the MSM reports differently it's still the MSM reporting and not statements of facts with regards to the investigation. Troed (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The police statement is clear enough and it is the most recent word from the police on the subject. There is no reason why we should use an old source if we have something more recent. Please knock off the "MSM" silliness - we report what reliable sources report, whether or not you agree with what those sources say. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, see all my comments at this page if you want. We should write "xxxxx claim", "yyyy allegedly" etc. We have no support in WP:RS to claim that the police investigation has come to any conclusion with regards to guilt or what has actually happened. The difference in quotes, which you are using to perform WP:OR in support of your POV, are easily attributed to the reporting media and not an actual difference in police communication. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to reporting guilt in a possible criminal investigation. I have no problems with quoting both papers as to what the police are saying. You seem to be very eager to only quote the one that suppports your POV. Why? Troed (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my POV". The police have not attributed "guilt" to anyone. They have issued a statement, which is quoted verbatim by the source, about what they are doing in relation to the incident. It's pure OR on your part to claim that "the reporting media" is a factor. Might I remind you that both statements, of the 1st and the 6th December, come via the media? I see absolutely no reason why the statement of the 1st should be used when we have a more recent statement from the 6th. What is the point of quoting out of date information? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You, and others, have used that statement from the police as a statement of fact that they've already come to a conclusion as to what has happened. That is WP:OR, as well as your claim above that the five days between the media reports holds significant meaning to that effect. It's even covered in the first phrases at WP:OR - "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". You have no support in claiming that there has been an advance in the investigation between the 1st and the 6th - thus we should report both (especially since one is more verbose than the other). To take one of them and claim that there's suddenly support for claiming that the investigation has concluded something (which, again, you did above) is not something we should do here. Troed (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence misrepresents source (prematurely archived)

See the first paragraph of this section of the article for the following fragment: "and discussions that some pundits and commentators believe advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature".

It cites this article from The Wall Street Journal, which in no way mentions pundits or commentators. The quotes relevant to the sentence in question that are included in the WSJ article are as follows:

"Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications."

"The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others."

"A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view."

Given this, can an administrator please change the fragment to, "and discussions of efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view," in keeping with (and keeping) the relevant citation from the WSJ?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "apparent" and "suggests" is a weasel by the writer so that he can give the appearance of saying something without making a substantive factual statement. You fell for it. --TS 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

a) The point being made is that the WSJ article is listed as a citation for a sentence that it does not support. Please respond to this point if you feel the need. b) Remember you're talking about a writer for the WSJ, not an editor on Wikipedia. If the author reports that these emails "suggest x" or indicate "apparent x", then we can say so in the article. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of a WSJ writer can be reported as fact. If you think our verifiability policy says so, you're wrong. I think the WSJ sourcing is poor for this statement and we can find better sources--I'll do so without delay. --TS 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ article is not an editorial, it is a report on the CRU e-mail incident. He was reporting the contents of the e-mails, not waxing poetical.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have consensus for this proposed edit, so I've demoted the "editprotected". The question of whether the Wall Street Journal piece is a news piece or not is neither here nor there. If it is used, as you seem to want to use it here, to represent the reporter's opinion--which he writes as opinion--as fact, then that's an unacceptable use. --TS 09:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point have we been discussing WSJ's reliability. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. As for the reporter's "opinion," again, the WSJ article is not an OP-ED, and its author was reporting, not musing. The only comments you're making are extraneous to the proposed edit, and none of them have been posed as objections. If an administrator could make the edit so as to keep from misrepresenting the WSJ that'd be great. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an OP-ED, it's a news article in the news section of a reliable source. Do you have another reliable source that disputes the findings in that article? Does the NYTimes report it differently? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The section as written does not factually represent the source. Arzel (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Sources should never be misrepresented, and the added language seems to be someones POV at that. Troed (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Request further clarification of intended edit in its final, proposed form, side by side with current edit. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Given. See opening post.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, then. TS is arguing for attribution. You can't state an allegation as fact. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified Support since that is what the source says (I would however, as an alternative, be ok with keeping the sentence and replacing the source -- which may be preferred as the WSJ article seems to draw a conclusion.)jhe_iv (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed fragment would be more informative than (even a cited version of) the current one. (Incidentally, I'm not quite sure why people have started voting. We're remedying an unequivocal misrepresentation of a source, not making a decision on the article's title/style.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems it was me who started "voting". I just saw TS claiming we had no consensus in correcting a wrongful citation, which I wanted to express dissatisfaction with. There's no need for "consensus" in making such a correction. Troed (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Prodego added {{POV}} to this article. There has been some concern raised (on his talk) that it may have been inappropriate for Prodego to do so. I've never edited this article but a review of the talk page supports the idea that there is a neutrality dispute, so I have made a null edit reaffirming the tagging. No one should remove the tag until consensus has been reached on what this page needs to say. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it but I'm happy to be convinced. Please provide specific problems that would need to be rectified and are not overwhelmingly rejected (like renaming the article to "Climategate." That would seem to be the minimum required to justify the tag. Hipocrite (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I started a list here, but it has been collapsed so you may have missed it.

I had a plan to start tackling items one at a time to see if they could be resolved. My first attempt is here, but I was away for the day, and the discussion got derailed.--SPhilbrickT 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask a somewhat rhetorical question? Doesn’t every human being have a neutral point of view? Take for example Hitler. I expect that if you could ask him, he would tell you he had a neutral point of view. That some to the right and some to the left of him had extreme points of view, but his point of view was neutral. I expect if you asked everyone from saint to sinner, they would give a similar answer. Otherwise, if they believed their point of view was extreme, they would change it until they felt it was neutral. As such, the general approach to WP, requiring a NPOV is fundamentally flawed.

Both Politics and the Law have a solution for this problem. They support the concept of majority view and minority view, which allows the widest possible presentation of information, and help lessen the potential for problems should more information ultimately prove the majority viewpoint is wrong. Otherwise there can be great harm in suppressing the facts on either side, simply because they don’t represent the middle ground.

Take for example Galileo Galilei. Under the rules of WP how would his support of Copernicanism have been reported in WP had it existed in 1610? I quote from WP “After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615”

I submit that under the rules of WP, in 1610 it is highly unlikely that Galileo’s support of a heliocentric view of the solar system would have been viewed in a neutral fashion. He would likely have been labeled a skeptic, or "vehemently suspect of heresy". There will be those that support this view, some that think it is too mild, and those that think I’ve gone too far. That will be proof that my point of view is in the middle, that it is neutral on this issue.

While I have written this somewhat tongue in cheek I did so to make a point. I would like to recommend that we consider a different approach to contentious issues such as this. Divide the article into a majority and minority viewpoint and label it as such. The heading for the article should make clear that the article is contentious and there is both a minority and majority view. Each author then should try and restrict themselves to one side of the argument or the other when editing and concerns over non NPV will be minimized.24.87.71.192 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the large number of editors - each with their own point of neutrality - combine to create "Wikipedia's point of neutrality", although even these large numbers can be somewhat influenced by systemic bias. Put simply, the "point of neutrality" is controlled by the mob. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but calling any view "majority" will upset the minority, and rightly so, because unless you can prove such a status, that in itself is POV.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Weird phrasing?

I happened to notice a weird phrasing in the lede that seems to confuse skeptics with scientists. The sentence currently reads:

The controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists...manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than skeptics claim it is.

It's the scientists who say the case is strong, not the skeptics. Skeptics claim the case is weak or made-up. I wrote the original sentence so that's why I noticed that the scientists and skeptics have been reversed. The new wording kind of works - I'm not sure - but it seems confusing to me. I don't have time to track down where exactly this sentence was changed, but a few weeks ago[56], it said:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists ...manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

I think the old version is clearer and reads better, too. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)]

Cool. Sounds reasonable. I'm adding the request.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you on this. Even with this uncontroversial change, however, it still reads a little strangely. There is something wrong with the first bit around the word "including". It feels like there should be some form of punctuation between "made" and "including", prior to the series. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can make this one for you once you sort the word order and punctuation out. It doesn't seem a very controversial change to return to wording that everyone seems to agree on. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Minor requested change doesn't solve the problem. Current wording is vague and unencyclopedic. We don't refer to questionable accusations as "various allegations" without attributing them to their claimants. Entire sentence needs to be rewritten with primary claimants represented by name. I believe that a previous version did just that, but it was removed by various editors unfamiliar with best practices. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the current version of the text, the phrase "stronger than skeptics claim it is" is indeed what you mean. The skeptics claim it is weak, but the scientists claim it is stronger – stronger than weak. Right? It makes sense to me the way it currently reads.
However, the fact that we're already talking about allegations here would seem to lessen the need for the words "skeptics claim", I would think, since the allegations are what the skeptics claim.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that I find myself having to repeat this so often, when I was under the belief it was the pillar of all good science: All scientists are supposed to be skeptics, we would all do well were more of the scientists in the spotlight rightly called skeptics. The burden of proof is always on the scientists making the claim, in this case the CRU/UN/IPCC. At every turn the CRU kept their data and models private, the rule of thumb is supposed to be peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results, have the rules for good science changed while I was out? Does anyone here deny that the CRU kept their data private and one of their workers even threatened to delete data rather than hand it over to a FOIA request in an e-mail? This should definitely be called Climategate. -Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the topic of this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

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

---

{{editprotected}} Reference 27 (here) is a dead link. A "live" one can be found here: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/78665162.html. If an administrator could make the exchange (or just unprotect the article) that'd be great. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to make this change if there are no objections after a few hours, a link fix shouldn't be controversial, right? It's still going to the same source, right? But I'm not sure unprotection is a good idea just yet. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Best to wait until there has been the usual eleventy-billion gigabytes of discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Non-controversial housekeeping to replace dead link. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Simple housekeeping - unless the new source cannot be considered "reliable". --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I concur with the replacement link. In fact, it is a better choice, as the article was originally published in the Inquirer, and the current link goes to SanLuisObisbo.com, presumably because they picked it up.SPhilbrickT 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Link swapped. NW (Talk) 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be wise to add |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5mOvPIAez |archivedate=2009-12-30 to the cite news template, to prevent another possible dead link in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Correction needed

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

---

{{editprotected}} Tom Wigley isn't head of NCAR, it's Eric Barron.[57] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To help out, I think Boris would like the first sentence of the third paragraph of this section adjusted to show his former status. Maybe change:
[[Tom Wigley]], a former director of the CRU and now head of the US [[National Center for Atmospheric Research]],
to:
[[Tom Wigley]], a former director of the CRU and former head of the US [[National Center for Atmospheric Research]],
--Rockfang (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Tom ever director of NCAR? He wasn't, to my knowledge, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have a source. (I could just ask him, though that wouldn't strictly qualify as a WP:RS.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters anyway. The source we use to support the claim doesn't say he was either. Perhaps someone misunderstood the source which says he was a former director of CRU and is now at the NCAR to mean he's now the director of the NCAR Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To Boris: My apologies. I misunderstood your request. I did a cursory search and couldn't find anything saying he was ever the head of that group. I'm stepping away now. :) Rockfang (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And he was not director. Fixed as requested. Also added that he left CRU in 1993 to make the time frame clear -let me know if anyone thinks this is inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Biased/unbiased Journalism

This editorial from the washington post talks about the biased coverage of climategate byt he AP.

On the other hand, this program ([film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKZhr3JMhA] and transcription) by the government owned finnish TV shows what journalism should be. This can certainly be used as a reliable source to add some truth to this poor article in wikipedia.194.74.151.201 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's from the Times, not the Post.--SPhilbrickT 14:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We almost never use TV shows as sources (excluding things like plot summaries). Also since by your own admission whatever the show says is not well covered in other sources and we already have way more sources then we can use (and in English too), it'll likely violate WP:UNDUE to mention whatever they say Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)