| Revision as of 10:56, 30 December 2009 editChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits Readded material that was accidentally removed with Heyitspeter's attempt to revert my edits to Q5. Please don't make blanket reversions of multiple edits when trying to revert specific edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:18, 31 December 2009 edit undoPsb777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,362 edits RealClimate is but a blog. Investigating a crime does not mean the crime happened. The alleged victim is not a RS for the occurrence of the crime. Birth of the baby does not prove rape.Next edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| |show=no | |show=no | ||
| |q=Q5<nowiki>:</nowiki> 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 ] insider ? | |q=Q5<nowiki>:</nowiki> 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 ] insider ? | ||
| |a='''A5''': Good point. Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. Ordinarily the allegation of a crime by a victim is not a reliable source. None of the police statements say that a crime happened, but they are conducting a criminal investigation. The newspapers simply repeat parts of the allegation of a crime and the police statement. The unauthorised release of the information may have been criminal, and a charge of theft may arise. As to whether the unauthorised release was done by an external hacker, a disgruntled CRU employee, or by some other means is still unclear. | |||
| |a='''A5''': Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, 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 ]" . Both the University and a science blog, ] , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".}} | |||
| {{FAQ row | {{FAQ row | ||
| |show=no | |show=no | ||
Revision as of 04:18, 31 December 2009
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Climatic Research Unit email controversy. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please update this material when needed. |
{{FAQ row |show=no |q=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 ? |a=A5: Good point. Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. Ordinarily the allegation of a crime by a victim is not a reliable source. None of the police statements say that a crime happened, but they are conducting a criminal investigation. The newspapers simply repeat parts of the allegation of a crime and the police statement. The unauthorised release of the information may have been criminal, and a charge of theft may arise. As to whether the unauthorised release was done by an external hacker, a disgruntled CRU employee, or by some other means is still unclear.
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 advanced copies of some of the leaked e-mails, but not all. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. 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. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, 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. Category: