Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:08, 2 September 2010

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Weather Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Climatic Research Unit email controversy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 November 2009.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the 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 Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent 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. Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". 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 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. 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.

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 2010 (archived) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (failed) 17 February, 2010 (failed) 17 March, 2010 (successful)

RfC: Rename article?

It is proposed that the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" be renamed "Climategate". Is this proposed rename supported or contradicted by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? What are the risks and benefits of such a rename? mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This RFC has been moved to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC Climategate rename policy query. It is still ongoing, so please join the discussion there. --TS 00:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC) TS oh bother please tell us all what it is like in the future year 2020? Much Thanks, from BlondeIgnoreBlondeignore (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight for retired professor's opinions

Our "Media reception" section presently concludes with 6+ lines of retired professor Rodney Tiffen's opinions. Tiffen is a retired political scientist of no particular renown; his wikibio consists of 3 lines. This seems grossly WP:UNDUE. Propose striking his remarks, which don't seem to add anything substantial to the article. The bit about the political impact of Climategate in Oz should be retained, but is out of place here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I pruned Tiffen's remarks, and moved the Australian political impact to a separate subsection. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Beeb apology

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/johnhumphrys William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What about "deleted raw data?"

This allegation was mentioned in the intro, but never followed up on in the article... 74.64.88.203 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Climatologists

@WMC--I don't follow your logic. If we don't "need the bit" identifying Pat Michaels as a climatologist working at the Cato Institute, why do we need the bits about Hansen being a climatologist, and about Curry being one at GIT? I'm suggesting, for consistency's sake, they all have their "bit," or none be identified, letting the reader click on the hyperlinked name to find out more. My instinct is to revert your deletion. --Yopienso (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Michaels' position at Cato is not as a climatologist; he conducts no scientific work there. It is inappropriate to lump him together with practicing scientists. If you want to say "a scholar at Cato who formerly was involved in climatological research" or similar that would be fine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He`s a climatologist. To remove that fact is just the usual POV pointy behaviour from the usual suspects. I`ll put it back tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of starting a series of reversions back and forth, can you all please come to an agreement on the talk page first? NW (Talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Y: the section is titled "climatologists". Everyone there is a climatologist by default. You are correct re Hansen (and Curry, who you missed): we don't need it for him either. I've removed it. In general, we should use the minimum of description and rely on people following the link if we care exactly who these people are and how qualified. Puffing people up with descriptions risks peacockery. @Boris: agree re Cato, but Cato wasn't his only affiliation. @MN: usual knee-jerk stuff. Pause to think first. @NW: good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with WMC. I removed the descriptor from Reay and von Storch also (apparently missed by all). The fact that they are in the section identifies them as climatologists. GregJackP Boomer! 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Misplaced Pages wins again! Thanks to each for the collegial atmosphere here and the intelligent edits. Ciao! --Yopienso (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New Source

The first of what I predict will be a series of books on this topic since the first investigations have closed has been published- The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming by Fred Pearce was published on July 27. The book appears to expand on the 12-article series he wrote for The Guardian. I've read most of the articles in that series, and it seemed to me that Pearce took a relatively neutral view on the topic. If anyone wants to use this book to expand the information in this article, it appears to be a reliable source. I may get a copy myself because it appears to have information that would be helpful for expanding several different articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Experience shows one should be wary of anything with "truth" in the title, but I might take a look at it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The title is obviously somewhat sensationalized. I thought his series of articles was well-written. I hope the book does expand on them with all the additional information I'm sure he gathered but was unable to print in the newspaper due to space limitations. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just ordered it (along with Kraftwerk's new complete box set). Hopefully I'll be reading the book while listening to the tunes soon. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Kraftwerk? Ah, good, there may be hope for you yet... you should check out Faust (band) if you like Kraftwerk Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When the source calls the controversy Climategate....

When the source calls the controversy Climategate, we should ordinarily follow suit, I believe. I raise the point because editor ChrisO recently replaced "Climategate" with "the affair" diff in our "Media reception" bit re a NY Times editorial that opens "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us..." , and did the same thing diff to an Atlantic essay entitled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie."

I don't see any valid reasons for these edits, and propose to return to the term that the source actually used. I don't think this would be controversial, were the "C-word" not involved. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. That is what the source said, and that is what we should use. GregJackP Boomer! 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Pete Tillman - Are you refering to a specific section of the article? Could you call out what sentences you are focusing on?

As a general rule, I'd note that if some event/contraversy is given several names by various reliable sources, it seems a little silly to jump back and forth between the different names within the WP article about that event/contraversy. On the other hand, I do always think one should stick as closely to the RS as possible. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's our Media reception section 4.4. The NYT leads this section with

A New York Times editorial, after the July 2010 reports, called the affair a "manufactured controversy," ...

Para. 3 of same section opens,

Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into the affair, ...

In both cases, the original sources refer to "the affair" as Climategate, see links above. Diffs. I thought of your concern, looked before my first posting, and the original flows better, imo. Less confusing, too, as "the affair" has, um, other connotations ;-} Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the source calls it Climategate, then it's probably ok to use the word "Climategate" in the text describing what the source said. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

In light of the tags restriction : why is there still a POV tag on this article? It appears that the (articulated, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) concerns have been addressed.

I propose removing the tag. It makes the encyclopedia appear foolish and causes one to doubt the content of what appears to be a fair article written in accord with WP's content policies (especially WP:DUE). Bkalafut (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. I see no new discussion about it here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The restriction refers to the addition or removal of such a tag, so it looks like we're stuck with it for now. I don't think that it should be there either, as there appears to be no realistic possibility of achieving a version of this article that somebody doesn't think is POV, which is not the purpose of such a tag, to quote part of Template:POV, "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. " Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears the restriction only requires consensus. So I'm fishing for an articulable explanation for not removing the tag.128.196.189.36 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if consensus can be gathered to remove it, feel free to do so. NW (Talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support removing the tag. Minor4th 01:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Have all the concerns listed here been resolved? I tried to mediate a discussion to resolve them but it seemed to bog down after just the first one or two were resolved. Are there any remaining open items from that list? Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

These were the concerns:

• • 1. Title should be "Climategate" because that is the term most often used in the media- This may be true, but the majority opinions in the most recent RfCs on the issue (above) rejected that title. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    2. Insufficient use of the word "Climategate".
    3. Insufficient use of the word "scandal".
    4. Undue weight being given to the University of East Anglia's position.
    5. Insufficient coverage of the initial allegations and undue weight on the scientists being cleared.
    6. Insufficient coverage of allegations that the investigations weren't truly independent.
    7. Over-use of POV terms like "deniers" and "sceptics." I'm striking "deniers" because neither it nor "denier" is used at all, according to my page search tool. --Yopienso (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    8. Over-use of primary sources.
    9. Insufficient weight given to the opinion that the emails may have been stolen by an insider, not hacked from the outside.
    10. The lede falsely portays all critics as climate change sceptics. In reality, Judith Curry, George Monbiot and many others were critical.
    11. Cherry-picking excerpts from sources (especially primary sources) to present an unbalanced view of the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    12. Undue weight to death threats in the lede. (This was fixed before, but it looks like someone added it back in.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

#1 is not a content dispute. The title is not content. The POV tag reflects on the article, not its "handle" on the site. #2 is not a content dispute. We could decide to call the incident "Shirley" with the instruction that to readers who call what happened "Climategate" "Shirley"="Climategate" and to readers who call it an "email controversy" or "manufactured pseudoscandal" "Shirley"="Email controversy". The information contained in the article remains the same. But more seriously, a mention that the term "Climategate" has become common but not universal slang for the incident should be enough. #9 was perhaps a valid concern last December but has since been made obsolete. Bkalafut (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not all the concerns have been addressed. I'm just not a big fan of tags. I'm probably not the best one to weigh in on this one. Minor4th 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: Aside from our own internal use to improve the articles, POV tags serve as important warnings to our readers that this is a difficult article for us, and that they should take everything they read with a piece of salt. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I just took care of #10, and I don't think there is anything to do for #1. So why don't we start addressing points 2-9 and 11 one by one and trying to resolve them? Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As you say, if the POV tag going has to wait for #1, it can wait for ever. But neither is it acceptable to stuff in lots of "cliamtegate"s just to make "skeptics" happy William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC, please see the discussion When the source calls the controversy Climategate...., above, and comment there. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. POV tags are a poor substitute for dealing with content disputes. If we allow everyone who disagrees with things to place POV tags, then all articles on difficult subject will be indefinitely tagged. Personally, I think "climategate" is a fine term and I wouldn't be afraid of it whichever side I am on... but that discussion was had a long time ago. Actually, all of these are old discussions. Ideally there would be a different tag to note, as AQFN says, that this is a difficult article, not that a particular editor has a problem with the content. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

#8 is going to be the one that "sticks" but only because this is recent history and secondary sources are few. It should be possible to move forward (and remove the Badge of Shame) before it's possible to fully switch to secondary sources--and whether or not a "history" article is POV shouldn't depend on the recency of its subject. We seem to be left with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and maybe 11. I came to this as a "dis-interested" editor but would be willing to have a go at 6. Bkalafut (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it :) Cla68 (talk)

Hacking, cracking, or inside job

Who has called the incident a "breach" or referred to the data as "stolen"? The Norfolk police referred to an "alleged breach", and a Washington Post writer called the data stolen: "Hackers broke into the electronic files."

But is this a case of a reporter giving her own opinion - out of thin air? Or was she summarizing information she got from someone else? (If it's the latter, I'd like to see that source.)

All I've seen from the University of East Anglia is, "This information has been obtained and published without our permission ..."

Now I'm not calling it an inside job. In fact I doubt it, personally, but WP:OR says my opinion doesn't matter; I'm just a contributor, not a source. But I'm wondering who our source is.

Is our source a Washington Post writer? Or does she have a source we can quote directly? That's all. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: hacker or whistleblower

Discussion

There are only two ways to write this article, in regards to the question of hacker or whistleblower:

1. Ignore the issue, on various grounds
2. State that there is a public dispute about whether the data was "hacked" or "leaked by a whistleblower"

I'm not going to read the entire archive, but here's a typical (and erroneous) comment:

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

Unfortunately for the sanctity of WP:NPOV, there is indeed a reliable source that says "allegedly" - or "alleged breack" to be precise. It is the Norfolk police, and the news report containing this information is already ref'd in the article.

Here is my reasoning: if someone can credibly say that none say "allegedly" even when a reliable source already used in the article says "allegedly", then there is a serious violation of NPOV.

What is wrong with saying that sources disagree on whether there was a "breach" or that the information was "leaked" from inside? Specifically, how could it possibly hurt the neutrality of the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why two sections to say the same thing? And why oh why oh why quote Monckton in the article? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

They never figured out who did it or why, right? So any characterization in this regard is just speculation. All we know is that it's an unauthorized release of computer documents, and that it probably involved unauthorized access to the computer. We also know that there was some kind of investigation and a lot of people involved in the incident said a lot of things, all of which isn't terribly conclusive. So whoever did it is a... wait for it .... unauthorized releaser of documents! Beyond that, the facts of what happened aren't in question, the question is what to call it. So that's a POV issue, and best to be neutral in description even if the act itself was not a neutral act. I hope that makes sense. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is overstated. What we know for certain is that the university has stated that the material was stolen from one of its servers by a hacker. And guess what, we report this in the article: "According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking." We're not endorsing that statement, we're reporting it. There is no dispute that the material was stolen (whatever method was used, it was stolen); the only dispute is whether it was stolen by a hacker (which the vast majority of sources have reported) or by a whistleblower (which a few opinion writers have speculated, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the present status of the article on this issue seems appropriate, Chris's argument is fatuous, at best. No one (other than the person or persons who actually leaked the data) has indicated that he/she/they have any evidence to make informed speculation as to whether it was a hack or leak. As for "stolen", to the extent that material should have been released under FOIA requests, it wasn't stolen. It's not clear (at least from what was stated in the article) whether the material the ICO found should have been released is related to the material that was leaked.

If the university concludes that it was hacked, that's fair to say. A whistle-blower implies, among other things, that the person doing so was an insider who was permitted to access the information, and released it against the organization's wishes to inform the public of a misdeed they felt the organization was not going to disclose. Several of those elements are speculative. "Stolen" is a loaded term that doesn't apply too well to data, and controversial to apply it to unauthorized disclosures. It adds a judgment about what happened without actually saying anything about what happened. Again, what happened was an unauthorized disclosure of data that was apparently hacked (or less likely, leaked). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The university is the owner of the data. It has said unequivocally that the data was stolen. As the owner of the data, it is the party whose property rights have been violated. The dispute, such as it is, is over the method of the theft, not whether the theft took place in the first instance. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum before - see FAQ #5 above. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" is fine. But that does not allow us to fill in the blank with anything. We cannot say "it is possible that the angel Moroni presented the e-mails on gold tablets to Morano" and we cannot anymore make claims about whistleblowers. There are zero "informed" sources alleging that there was a whistleblower. That is something that someone made up without making a case. Whimsy. I want to point to WP:NOR but WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE are what applies. A conjecture that someone puts out at best wildly and with no evidence and at worst libelously is not a RS. That it became a popular meme among a peculiar subculture doesn't make it an RS. Perhaps there is a way to mention the meme in the article but it would have to be done carefully so as not to run afoul of WP:DUE. And I dare say that those who want to treat something without RS as coequal to the narrative currently being given by law enforcement are not here to build an encyclopedia but instead want to abuse this website to spread disinformation. Bkalafut (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When this incident first happened, I added a source in which a cyber security expert opined that in incidents like these, the data is almost always stolen by an insider. My addition was quickly removed. There are both opinions out there on what may have happened. You can say something in the lede and the first section like, "The University states that the documents and emails were hacked by an outsider, but there has also been speculation that it was done without authorization by an insider. Police are currently investigating the breach." That statement right there would resolve the concern because it doesn't take sides or favor one view over the other. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, have the problem of false equivalence: the owner of the data (and the aggrieved party) being put on the same level as some obscure security expert with absolutely zero knowledge of the particulars of the incident. Plus there is the not insignificant fact that the security expert in question was, as I recall, a climate change denialist himself, passing on claims made on other denialist blogs. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 has the right approach if one wants to have a NPOV. To assume that the University is correct is to take a POV position. GregJackP Boomer! 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE. We need not assume that the University is correct, although to assume that they are being less than truthful is absurd. But we have no source aside from fringe speculators claiming that this was a "leak". The nature of the documents doesn't even point to a leak since they have revealed no scientific misconduct whatsoever and the vast majority don't point to any other misconduct--these aren't the sort of things somebody working at a research institution would "leak"--a source claiming a leak would have to address that somehow and so far all the sources do is Make Things Up--they claim it's a leak because they say so. The University and Norfolk Constabulary on the same level as fringe speculators Making Things Up? WP becomes Uncyclopedia. WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE. Find an RS.150.135.51.22 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you about questionable sources. WP:POORSRC. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." We are not to give something equal weight in an article because we can find a third party without access to the facts speculating about it. Maybe, just maybe, the speculation is encyclopedia-worthy as an event in itself, but it certainly doesn't belong as part of the narrative, let alone in the lead, until there is an RS.Bkalafut (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still assuming the truth of the University's claim. How do you know they didn't leak the info themselves, just like politicians do?

Since none of us Wikipedians knows what happened, it would be better to say quote whoever says it was stolen, hacked, leaked or "allegedly" breached.

Gosh, we might even try reviewing WP:NPOV and choose not to state as fact anything which disputed but rather "describe all viewpoints fairly".

And I'm still waiting for a reply to my question about the Norfolk Police as a source. Are they reliable enough for "alleged breach" or not? If not, why not? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I think you are arguing at cross purposes here. The article simply reports what the various parties have said, without giving undue weight to speculation by uninvolved parties. The Norfolk Police statement you mention, by the way, was a fairly old one if I remember rightly - more recent ones were unequivocal (dropping the word "alleged"). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else but ChrisO object to giving equal weight to all the theories, with sources, on how the files were released? If not, I think we can go ahead with the change and cross this concern off the POV tag list. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I do. Your proposal violates policy, unless all of the theories are equally prominent in reliable sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that we inventory all reliable sources to see which theory is predominant instead of simply using a sentence which mentions both (internal leak vs outside hack) and using a couple of sources for each assertion? Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Inventory, no. Do our best to find a rough proportion, yes. To do otherwise violates Misplaced Pages policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also object. A speculating third party with no information to substantiate his claim is not an RS. Doesn't even come close to being an RS. It's surprising that this is even up for discussion.Bkalafut (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find this surprising, you must be new around here. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, I also object, and I would have put my objection in the words Boris uses above, but Boris beat me to it. --TS 21:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to resolve this concern so we can take the POV tag off, we're going to have to find a compromise. Are you three (TS, SBHB, and Bkalafut) dead set against incuding any text in the article mentioning that some of the reliable sources have speculated that the leak was an inside job? Is there any compromise wording that you three would agree to? Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual I'm dead set on staying with policy. If somebody wants to tag the article, let them. There is no reliable source of evidence to support the rampaant speculation that has come from some people. --TS 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, lets start listing the sources below that speculate that the leak was an inside job. I'll try to find the one that I used several months ago, which I think was from an IT magazine. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Speculate"? Really? Is that what we've come to here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the allegation that was it was a hack isn't also speculation? Since the police investigation isn't complete, I assume it's all speculation. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is speculation that it was an outsider allowed, but speculation that it was an insider not allowed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got me. Perhaps Tony could clarify his statement, which appears to say that it is against policy to add sourced speculation that it was an inside job, but not against policy to add sourced speculation that it was a hack. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The notion that it was a hacker is based on evidence. The notion that it was a whistleblower is pure speculation. --TS 16:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the evidence, other than a claim by a Washington Post reporter?

And why should we give "equal weight" or ascribe "equal validity" to any idea? Why not admit that we - as Wikipedians - do not know? What's wrong with simply reporting what each verifiable source has said about the release of the email? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

List of sources

(start list here)

1. Fred Pearce, "Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit", The Guardian, 9 February 2010. "Who might have been involved? Three groups of people have been suggested: UEA dissidents. Disaffected people at the University of East Anglia, potentially with routine access to internal servers. Another possible source within UEA would be the Freedom of Information office. Superficially there is a case that the hack must have been an "inside job", say computer experts.". Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
2. McMillan, Robert, "Global warming research exposed after hack", Computerworld, November 20, 2009. "Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.". Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Guardian: "The use of foreign servers proved to be a red herring. The Mail on Sunday claimed the Russians must therefore be behind it, and King speculated about a "highly sophisticated" cyber attack. In fact the use of so-called "open proxy" servers to remain anonymous is on page one of any whistleblowers' manual. A programme called TOR, for example, can be downloaded which will automatically switch between a random variety of servers. Digital forensic examination of the archive of emails and documents suggests that it was first created around 30 September, and subsequently added to during October and finally in November – when one of Osborn's sets of program code was added – just ahead of the full-blown leak".
4. Johnson, Johna Till, "Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack", Network World, 25 November 2009. "Lesson 1: Don't let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature -- which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump". Cla68 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Hans von Storch, "Good Science, Bad Politics", The Wall Street Journal, 24 Dec 2009, " the influential network of researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their colleagues in the U.S. -- whose sanctum was exposed last month when a whistleblower or hacker published e-mails and documents from the CRU server on the Internet". Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Totnes, Peter Wyatt, "Leak exposes myth of global warming", Western Morning News (via Financial Times, ltd, European News Wire), 1 December 2009, "I think that as the file is 160 megabytes it is much more likely that a "whistleblower" rather than a "hacker" is responsible.". Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
7. CBS News: "It's not clear how the files were leaked. One theory says that a malicious hacker slipped into East Anglia's network and snatched thousands of documents. Another says that the files had already been assembled in response to a Freedom of Information request and, immediately after it was denied, a whistleblower decided to disclose them. (Lending credence to that theory is the fact that no personal e-mail messages unrelated to climate change appear to have been leaked.)"
8. Australia Herald Sun (news blog): "his is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle."
9. U.S. News: "Preliminary analysis of the contents of thousands of E-mails and documents taken from the computer archives of the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia—possibly by a hacker, possibly by a whistleblower—indicate a number of the world's most important scientists engaged in research designed to prove that global warming really does exist may have been cooking the books."
10. The Weekly Standard: In mid-November a large cache of emails and technical documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain were made available on a number of Internet file-servers for download by the public--either the work of a hacker or a leak from a whistleblower on the inside. "
11. Washington Examiner: "Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia in Britain. "
12. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and former climatology professor at U. Winnipeg, writing at Canada Free Press: "Major clues suggest the leaks were from an insider. A few emails were sent to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reporter Paul Hudson on October 12, weeks before full release. This indicates someone trying to draw attention, but Hudson did nothing. He knew of the wrath and reach of Michael Mann. "Minor4th 03:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

It would be more useful to focus on sources that are straight news reporting rather than partisan commentary. Protip: a piece subtitled "A corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists" might not be entirely impartial and objective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you but when I made that argument on a skeptic BLP article, I was told that NEWSBLOGS were reliable sources. I was also told that partisan opinion and editorial commentary is perfectly acceptable as a reliable, verifiable source in a BLP article (e.g. Monbiot is a reliable source on Monckton, as is John Abraham...ask Tony Sidaway). Go figure. Protip: Pick a position and stick with it, and encourage your bloc to do likewise.  ;) Minor4th 04:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get personal like that in article talk page discussions. Keep the discussion on topic. In this situation, editorials are fine, because since we don't know which happened, hack or insider breach, then we use opinion sources. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, we have 12 reliable sources currently listed above which speculate that the breach could have been an inside job. Of the 12, a little more than half of them are editorials or newspaper blog posts. That leaves us with several news-type articles written in major news organizations or for IT journals. I really don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that we have the sourcing to support mentioning in the article that speculation on the source of the data breach includes outside hacking or insider leak. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We can have as many reliable sources for speculation as you like. They're still not reliable sources for the proposal that there was a whistleblower, just that some people have waved their arms in front of a journalist and said they think it might have been. Worthy of a filler article for a newspaper, perhaps, but this is an encyclopedia. --TS 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If we had an article called Climatic Research Unit email speculation, it could go there. I'd vote for its deletion. --Nigelj (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, nobody suggested it at the time, but back in February if somebody had suggested renaming the version of this article that existed at the time to that title, I would have agreed readily. Those days are gone. We don't need to speculate any more on most things, and as for how the hacking was done we're still waiting for the police to report. --TS 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note -- and this is directed at Minor4th -- Tim Ball is not, nor ever has been, a "climatology professor". Via former New Scientist reporter Peter Hadfield Wikispan (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally this Telegraph article from April is the most recent item of news I could find from the Norfolk police about their investigation. They said, in April, that they were looking into anyone who could give clues to who stole the emails and working with experts in "extremism" (the italicised wording is a paraphrase by the journalist). They had already questioned staff, skeptics, and were moving on to question those who had asked for information.

Of course we cannot speculate on why they're doing that. They'll report when they have something to say. --TS 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, it sounds like you and Nigelj are saying that the speculation that it was an outside hack should also be removed from the article. If you're not saying that, why are you saying that speculation one way is ok, but not the other? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Why is speculation that it was an outsider allowed, but speculation that it was an insider not allowed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This sourcing exercise has been useful. There are definitely enough reliable sources to include content that speculation ranges from whistleblower to hacker. Has anyone included this yet? Minor4th 06:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The alleged hacking can be sourced to the University of East Anglia and early Police statements, if my understanding is correct. It seems pertinent that the individual who hacked RealClimate was in possession of the CRU data. On the other hand, the whistleblower theory is idle speculation, based on no evidence whatsoever, and carries far less weight. Of course, every ray of light upon a subject can be classed as evidence, but evidence is not necessarily proof (hence "According to the University"). Wikispan (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Still wrong. "According to UEA" is fine, but the police statements, the last time I checked, were that they were "investigating" it as a "data breach". That does not mean they think it was a "data breach", nor does "data breach" mean "hack" in British English.

There are no "informed" sources, unless the hacker/whistleblower comes forward, so limiting ourselves to "informed" sources means that all we could say is "according to UEA". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Need a cite - Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme

We need a cite for the last two sentences of the "Content of the documents" section. Obviously, I should put a {fact} tag for those two sentences, but the last time I pointed out that we had unsourced content in this article, I got viciously attacked for days, so I'll just post a message here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I put a {cn} there. I get attacked on a regular basis, so I'll take the hit for the team... GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the confusion. The source is here. It was formerly cited in the article but for some reason it seems to have got lost along the way. I've restored it to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the same source covers everything in the paragraph after "According to an analysis by The Guardian..." - it is this analysis that is being cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just found a fuller, sourced version here, as well. --Nigelj (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've no idea why someone removed that material, since it's obviously relevant. I've put it back in. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

{EC} ChrisO: Are you sure it supports everything that precedes it? Maybe I missed it but I don't see any mention of the "hockey stick graph". BTW, please make sure you haven't violated the 1RR restriction on this article. It appears as if you might have already violated this restriction. Perhaps you should self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Actually, looking at it again, it doesn't seem to mention Mann at all. It mentions Briffa, not Mann, as one of the four. I'll take that bit out. Thanks for pointing that out. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the edit by Heyitspeter where the citation disappeared. --Nigelj (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why he did that, since it's not in the previous section. I think he might have got mixed up with Schmidt's previous statement on the hack of RealClimate. This statement by Schmidt concerns the hack of the CRU (he was the one who alerted them to it). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit history for 30 March, it was one of a whole series of edits he made that day. Maybe when somebody makes a string of 20-30 edits on a single day on a 1RR article, with some controversial ones buried in the series, it might be better to revert the lot and work forwards again, to avoid 1RR problems. Actually I don't know if that would work, as re-inserting their stuff after double-checking it might count as reverts too. Maybe 1-revert articles need 1-contribution limits too? --Nigelj (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A string of uninterrupted edits or even reversions counts as a single edit for #RR purposes. NW (Talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Some recent edits concerning Parliament and the government

Some recent edits have changed the term "Parliament" to "UK Parliament". This is ugly and, given the context, unnecessary. The section on Parliament has been moved into a subsection under the government, which is incorrect. Parliamentary committees are engaged in legislation and oversight, while the term "government" in UK usage refers to Whitehall, the Admiralty, etc, and Downing Street. --TS 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre

The following text has recently been added:

In his review comments on the report, Stephen McIntyre objected to this graph being truncated, and said that the whole reconstruction should be shown with comments to deal with the "divergence problem". John Tierney wrote in the New York Times that "the graph adorned the cover of a report intended for policy makers and journalists. The nonexperts wouldn’t have realized that the scariest part of that graph — the recent temperatures soaring far above anything in the previous millennium — was based on a completely different measurement from the earlier portion. It looked like one smooth, continuous line leading straight upward to certain doom."

This gives a vast amount of exposure to a single minority view. Why? --TS 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, have you read the emails? The major focal point of most of the animosity in the emails was McIntyre. McIntyre and McItrick's papers on the hockey stick were what set off almost this entire controversy. The resulting NAS and Wegman reports, the congressional hearings where the findings were discussed, and the continual tug of war between McIntyre, the Climate Audit regulars, and Mann and the CRU over data and code. Remember, many of the controversial emails involved Jones and other scientists and staffers discussing ways to avoid providing the data under the FOIA requests. McIntyre is as key a player in this controversy almost as much as Mann, Jones, and Briffa are. As far as this topic is concerned, McIntyre is not a "minor" player and his views are not "minor." Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla's version of events is wrong. Stuffing McI in here is also wrong. Further, this entire section has a se-main to the documents page, and so is bloated - it needs to be cut down further, not expanded William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start at cutting it down William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, AQFK has reverted without troubling to read any of this discussion or contribute in any way William M. Connolley (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: You've already been sanctioned for trying to edit-war the source code paragraph out of the article and I see no need to repeat the discussion if you don't have anything new to add. As for Tony Sidaway's claim that McIntyre is minority view point, he is flatly incorrect. McIntyre's viewpoints regarding this article's topic have been featured prominently in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Minority view points can appear in reliable sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris: I think you might have overlooked "regarding this article's topic" in my post. I'm not saying McIntyre's is a minority viewpoint. Rather, I'm saying it's a major viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again. As you say, AQFK's non-seq isn't helpful. That section is, as I say, far too long for a see-main William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And I reverted. 5 of 8 editors have put forth strong arguments for inclusion, please do not remove material without consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that there is a concensus to remove this material. The version left suggest that Inhofe and Palin were the people foremost in discussions.Slowjoe17 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look you'll see that it was I, not William M. Connolley, who raised the problem. For the record, I think it's clear that Cla68's defense of the inclusion is original research based on his personal reading of primary sources. I don't advocate immediate removal, but I think we'd need a jolly good reason to include such copious coverage of a minority view. --TS 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the fuller account, in Climatic Research Unit documents, you'll see that McIntyre's original remarks were from his review comments on Keith Briffa's section of the IPCC 4AR. I disagree that giving McIntyre a single sentence here constitutes "a vast amount of exposure". I think McI's views are appropriately weighted here. Are you also objecting to the NYT columnist's remarks? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Tillman that McI's views are appropriate here. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are mischaracterising the comment as a minority view. The comment was a review comment for AR4. The fact that the alleged suppression of the divergence problem came up in review is notable.Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any evidence, as opposed to conspiracy-mongering, to support the notion that this is anything beyond a personal view expressed by McIntyre. Why are McIntyre's words, expressed in AR4 review, at all relevant to an investigation carried out based on emails illegally released in 2010? --TS 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony: I think your use of "conspiracy-mongering" is inflammatory and inappropriate.

And I think you are lost. This isn't about the investigation -- this is about the leaked CRU documents, specifically the famous Phil Jones "hide the decline" email, and the context thereof. "Content of the documents . Again, please see the main article for the leaked documents. for context -- this is just the summary. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, you see. Combing through the documents and making up stories about what they're about, that's conspiracy-mongering. This is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be doing that. If the article you refer to is doing that, it should not be. --TS 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, please don't cast aspersions on the motivation or agenda of other editors on this page. That's a violation of NPA. Stay on topic. We're saying that McIntyre is a major player in this controversy. We have sources to back that up. Do you need us to list them for you? To give you a hint were at least one of them will be coming from, he's an environmental journalist named Fred Pearce and he writes for a major newspaper called The Guardian. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- mark your calendars -- I actually agree with Conolley on this one. The content about McIntyre's analysis of the hockey stick data is too tenuous with the topic of the email controversy. It appears to be coatrack-y. If there are sources that directly tie McIntyre's conclusions to the emails, then that might be more appropriate, but the way it was stated in the article was going off topic. That being said, the other content that has been repeatedly removed regarding the Wall Street Journal and New York Times references should not be removed -- it is about the controversy and it's reliable sourcing in main stream news publications. I am restoring it. Sarek's edit summary that it isnt clear that the final investigation supports what was reported in the WSJ and NYT is irrelevant. This is not about any final investigation or its conclusions -- it's about the controversy itself. Minor4th 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said several times, but I suppose I'll have to say again: there is a very good reason for removing this stuff it is already in another article, which article is linked by the see-main. We should not be repeating stuff at great length here. It should be said once William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's covered more fully in the other article, but it's fine to have a more summary version here. In fact, this article would be incomplete without it. Minor4th 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to cut something else out of that section then, I'm not terribly fussed what. But that section is far too long for material that is covered elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most of that could be included under "Responses" -- most of this is commentary reacting to the contents of the emails. I think "Contents of the documents" is not the right heading, although I do think a short description of the salient email contents should be described somewhere prominent in this article because otherwise the article won't make much sense. I will look at whether there's a way to structure it better and post suggestions here if I think of something better. Encourage others working on this article to do the same. The article is very long -- not sure it's at the point that it should be forked or pared down yet but that is something to consider. Minor4th 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the McIntyre comment does make the section stay better on topic, so I concede the point. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Section on "Content of the documents"

The current flurry of edits hasn't quite played out, and this section is now a bit of a mess. I put back the Tierney/NYT quote re the "Trick" in Para #5: this para. would be seriously unbalanced without it, and no one discussed removing this stable text at talk, so perhaps this was inadvertent.

Here are some other problems, while I have a few minutes free:

• 3rd para: "A few other commentators such as Roger A. Pielke ... -- needs fixing

• 4th para: "The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others and to withhold scientific data". It's not clear to me who "their" refers to, either in our paraphrase or even in the article cited. I'm pretty sure their = the "ringleaders" in the subject emails: Phil Jones, M. Mann, et al. Maybe we need a clearer source? Or a better paraphrase?

I agree that this section seems overlong for a summary, but, given the contentious topic, we may have to live with that for now. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting that back -- it was inadvertent. After I screwed up my edit, I was trying to fix it and had to attend to something at work and could not finish getting it back in shape. Sorry. Any thoughts on a better structure for that section? Minor4th 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Speculation on the source of the data leak

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The regular participants in this article appear to be deadlocked on the issue of speculation on who might have stolen the "Climategate" emails and documents from East Anglia University. Several editors have proposed adding text, supported by one or more sources from this list, that detail speculation that the email leak could have been done by either an outside hack or an insider. Editors opposing the addition state that speculation, sourced or not, is inappropriate for the article and therefore only East Anglia's opinion, which is that the breach was an outside hack, on the matter is relevant. A police investigation into the breach is currently ongoing. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Support inclusion of sourced text on the speculation of both an outside hack and an insider leak. This Guardian article by Fred Pearce is especially convincing to me that media speculation on the possibility of an insider breach or accidental release by the university is noteworthy and merits brief mention in the article. The fact that there are 12 reliable sources speculating that it may have been an insider breach I think also establishes the notability of this opinion. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- there are many sources for the speculation that the "hack" was a whistleblower or inside job. The thing is, irrespective of what anyone believes happened, the fact is there are reliable sources referencing possibilities of hacking or whistleblower, so I think we cannot present it as though it's known to be one or the other. We need to report that there are a range of possibilities reported in reliable sources. Minor4th 05:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- In addition to the arguments presented above, even if we find it inappropriate to include "speculation", then UEA's comments need to be removed, also. They are "speculating" (or accusing). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- per Fred Pearce logic.130.232.214.10 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I am struggling to find new words to express the same thoughts so please excuse the repetition. There is a difference between expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence and idle speculation. The alleged hacking can be sourced to the University of East Anglia and NASA's Gavin Schmidt (the two parties most directly affected). The individual who obtained the CRU data attempted to distribute the material by hacking REALCLIMATE.ORG. This is of precise logical relevance. The whistleblower theory, on the other hand, is idle speculation, based on no evidence whatsoever. The current wording ("According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking") is entirely satisfactory, however I would like to see some of the unattributed "hack" statements, further down the article, removed and replaced with "data breach". Wikispan (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - what is the point in adding worthless speculation? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support It id painfully obvious it was leaked and no hack took place mark nutley (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Fred Pearce article simply lists all the ways the data could have come into public knowledge, and presents no evidence that it was leaked. Newspapers have a quota of pages to fill up every day, and speculation is common. This is not the case with encyclopedias. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- No one seems to have a problem with including East Anglia's own speculation. Obviously they are hardly disinterested bystanders, and have a vested interest in portraying this as an outside attack. Remember this is not just an article about the leak itself, but its effects in general, and the controversy it engendered. Speculation about the source is quite obviously part of the controversy itself. Fell Gleaming 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Oppose --"Reliable speculation" is a contradiction IMO. On a more practical point, are we aiming for encyclopedic coverage of speculation? The section would never be "complete", and a constant source of edit wars. Best IMO to find a source which says "The source or mechanism of the leak is not clear" unless Norfolk police actually catch someone.Slowjoe17 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The victim's story of what happened in a crime is an integral part of the story and is worth a brief mention. Uninformed speculation by outsiders generally is not, especially when it serves for political manipulation more than anything else. Hans Adler 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Weather articles
• Low-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• C-Class Computer Security articles
• Low-importance Computer Security articles
• C-Class Computer Security articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment