Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"?
A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Wikipedia articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent [needs update] Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011.
Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails?
A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email.
Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source?
A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain?
A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright.
Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?
A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime.[1] Both the University [2] and a science blog, RealClimate [3] [4], have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".[5]
Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person.
A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Wikipedia policies and with the law, per the BLP.
Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article?
A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator.
Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do?
A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question.
Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content?
A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again.
Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that?
A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Wikipedia's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Wikipedia article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Wikipedia coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Wikipedia in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

The scientific consensus (sic) was changed completely[edit]

The emails showed that the current scientific consensus (sic) is that there was a "decline" in the rate of warming despite massive increases in co2 which is easily apparent in the satellite lower troposphere measurements This dramatically changes it and disproved all of their previous models. It also proved that they wanted "hide" this decline which definitively did show misconduct. Editorial claims to the contrary are just claims. Facts are facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.126 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any credible sources whatsoever that confirm your "facts"? Can you please tell us where you're getting this from?Gireen (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reduce the amount of clutter on this talk page?[edit]

Now that it's been 9 years since this happened, and activity on this page is very quiet, perhaps someone could think about reducing the quantity of headers/boxes/warnings on the talk page? --JBL (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at improvement. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Qu: Hacking[edit]

Was there any proof that this was a hacking I remember reading in the EDP or somewhere that they thought it was a leak. All conjecture but was this every proved or traced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.200.4 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's discussed in the references cited in the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Link/Citation 69 is dead[edit]

Well it says it all in the headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter (talkcontribs) 17:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've added an archive url for that citation. Mikenorton (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)