Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:44, 22 December 2009 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,021 edits →Climategate← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:02, 18 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,556,510 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-17. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
<!--If changing the archive time, PLEASE REMEMBER to change the AutoArchive notice time below-->
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Controversial-issues}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
|counter = 13
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}}
|minthreadsleft = 3
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=mid}}
|algo = old(36h)
{{WikiProject Computer Security|importance=low|computing-importance=low}}
|archive = Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive %(counter)d
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Weather |importance=Low |climate-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Higher education}}
{{WikiProject East Anglia|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{Image requested|in=Norfolk}}
{{Connected contributor|User1=TimOsborn |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=] relevant affiliation: Climatic Research Unit.}}


{{Article history
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive index|mask=Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
|itndate=24 November 2009
{{skiptotoctalk}}
|itnlink=Misplaced Pages:ITN archives/2009/November
<!-- {{tmbox
|otd1date=2011-11-17|otd1oldid=461039593|otd2date=2014-11-17|otd2oldid=634065122|otd3date=2018-11-17|otd3oldid=869082625|otd4date=2019-11-17|otd4oldid=926631181
| type = content
|otd5date=2021-11-17|otd5oldid=1055648714
| text = This talk page has been ] to prevent disruption from certain users. If you don't have a ], or recently created one, you can post comments related to improvement of the article at ].
|otd6date=2022-11-17|otd6oldid=1121946106
}} -->
|otd7date=2024-11-17|otd7oldid=1257976355
{{BLP}}
{{shell|
{{WikiProject Meteorology|class=C|importance=low}}
{{Environment|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Geology|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Computer Security|class=C|importance=low}}
{{Rational Skepticism|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{ITNtalk|24 November|2009}} {{top 25 report|November 3, 2013|until|November 17, 2013}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes|quickedit=no}}
{{notaforum|anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes}}
{{Old moves|date=26 June 2024|destination=Climatic Research Unit email leak|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1232605862#Requested move 26 June 2024}}
{{Controversial}}

{{Calm talk}}
{{Archives |auto=short |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |1=<div style="text-align:center">], ], ], ], ], ], ]</div> }}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{tmbox
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
| type = content
| text = Issues related to this article have been raised at the ] on
] (archived) and ] (archived) and at ] on ] (active as of December 15, 2009) and at ] on ] (active as of December 15, 2009)
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{tmbox
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
| type = content
|maxarchivesize = 250K
| text = A rewrite of this article is in progress, the outline is being developed at ]. Please discuss the rewrite at ]
|counter = 44
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{tmbox|small=yes|image=none|textstyle=padding:2px|text=
{{todo}}
<div style="text-align:center; font-weight:bold;">Issues related to this article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages</div>
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=1.5 |index=./Archive index}}
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] noticeboard:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


] noticeboard:
== Ongoing discussions on article naming ==
* ]
:''Related discussion: ]''


{{Col-2}}
===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''' * ] (fail)
*'''Climatic Research Unit files incident''' * ] (fail)
*'''Climatic Research Unit incident''' * ] (fail)
* ] (pass)
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? -- ] (]) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{Col-end}}
: 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. --] 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? --] (]) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{Refideas|{{Cite journal |last=Maibach |first=Edward |last2=Leiserowitz |first2=Anthony |last3=Cobb |first3=Sara |last4=Shank |first4=Michael |last5=Cobb |first5=Kim M. |last6=Gulledge |first6=Jay |date=2012-05 |title=The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy? |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.168 |journal=WIREs Climate Change |language=en |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=289–295 |doi=10.1002/wcc.168 |issn=1757-7780}}|{{Cite web |last=#author.fullName} |title=The Trick review: How the Climategate scandal rocked the world |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294061-the-trick-review-how-the-climategate-scandal-rocked-the-world/ |access-date=2022-09-20 |website=New Scientist |language=en-US}}}}
:::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. -- ] (]) 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. --] 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? --] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages must be '''absolutely certain''' before such a controversial term is used in the title of an article. -- ] (]) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::It's been ''stated'' by all the significant people involved. --] (]) 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 ]. This spirited defense of the word now has me ]. What compelling reason is there for "hacking" to be in the title? Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- ] (]) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::: This is special pleading. On Misplaced Pages 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. --] 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::: Things like, "The glorious liberation of the truth from evil scientists"? --] (]) 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 ] (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 ] developing here. -- ] (]) 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. --] 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::Oh, please. You cannot equate my concern for following article naming conventions (entirely a ] objection) with believing the world is flat. I ask again: '''Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?''' -- ] (]) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::IIRC, we had a ] at one point in the article, but it's since been removed. If I get a chance, I will try to find some more ]. ] (]) 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). -- ] (]) 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." from ]. As an student you're on the inside … ] (]) 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. --] 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::So ] 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," in ]. ] (]) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

: Pravda! --] 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:: Ha ha just your comment on Daily Mail and long gone Soviet Union … ] (]) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::If you listen to this Youtube Clip 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! ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::: Now there's typical ] alarmist Watermelon '']'' 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. ] (]) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I've come up with two above ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ]. -- ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::I wonder why controversy again is proposed? Just for distorting the question from ] ('''Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?''')? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. -- ] (]) 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 ] 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. --] 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 ], "''controversy''" is OK if ] also use the word "''controversy''". I found dozens of ] which use the term "''controversy''" so I believe that issue is addressed.

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

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

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

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

]

]

Given the fact that dozens of ] use the term "''controversy''", I believe that the standards within ] have been met. Given the fact that we have several precedents for using word "''controversy''", including an article in this very topic space, ], as well as 9 different articles which have passed peer-review to reach achieve ] or ] status, I think it’s OK for us to use this for the article title. ] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::Whether the controversy is legit or not is irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is ], not truth. It's not our place as Misplaced Pages editors to say that ] are wrong. ] (]) 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 ] makes little mention of reliable sources or verifiability. -- ] (]) 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. --] 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Per ], mainstream news media '''are''' reliable sources. Are you seriously arguing that ] isn't mainstream news? ] (]) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: If our ] 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. --] 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 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. --] 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? -- ] (]) 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. --] 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: 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". <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::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. -- ] (]) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

===Climategate===
I vote for using '''Climategate''' as the title because that is how it is reported. The Misplaced Pages guidelines against using "-gate" apply to phrases made up by Misplaced Pages editors, and to minor scandals. I don't think that this is a "minor" scandal. In fact, there are . 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. ] (]) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Second the motion, particularly in light of recent evidence (and it's getting into the wonderful, "reliable" ] so beloved of Misplaced Pages ], too!) on how ] propagandists who had been infiltrating Misplaced Pages since 2003 in a concerted effort to suppress soundly skeptical science on the subject of the AGW ] and to slander scientists critical of the ] correspondents' mendacity have degraded the intellectual integrity of this online encyclopedia for their own nefarious purposes. <br>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 censorship, and the continuation of this duplicitous denial is no longer tolerable. ] (]) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small>
:::::<small>''Note: There is circumstantial evidence showing that {{user|71.125.130.14}} and {{user|98.232.27.135}} are the same editor. ] (]) 10:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)''</small>

: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? -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Wiki policy states that the must be used for naming an article, and that name is "Climategate" as already has been used or recognized by such ] as ] (), ] (), ] (), ] (), ] () and most of the other language Misplaced Pages 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 ( and ) I proposed this matter to be settled once an for all by a group of <u>real neutral</u> 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.-] (]) 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 ]. 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. -- ] (]) 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.-] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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".-] (])
::::::::Please don't , Mariordo. -- ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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.-] (]) 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 ]). 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. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages (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, Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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.] (]) 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small>
:::::::Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages discussion by making bad faith assumptions and accusing fellow editors of hypocrisy. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages!] (]) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::If you are unable to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for civility and good faith, then perhaps you should find something else to occupy you. -- ] (]) 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.] (]) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:"''There is no scandal''" ] has named Climate-gate one of the Top 10 Political Scandals of 2009. ] (]) 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. --] 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:::LOL. Uh-huh. ] (]) 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. --] 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::"''We carefully assess all reliable sources''" I believe that's an argument in my favor. Consider the ] weight given to a minor element in the lede. ] (]) 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". --] 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::The police have their policies, we have ]. If you want to write for the police, more power to you. But here on Misplaced Pages we're supposed to be following ]. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

*'''Climategate''' is the name used for their versions of this article in the Spanish , Norwegian and Swedish wikipedias. I agree that the current English name is unacceptable. ] (]) 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 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 06:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::No, it should not be changed. See Q1 of the FAQ in the header. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Do you support the change, or not, as an editor? --] (]) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::There is no consensus for a change, and related moves (such as those found in ]) 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 ] 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." That should tell you all you need to know about the problems with such an article name. ] (]) 09:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: In this conversation there is. Might I remind you, ]. 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. --] (]) 18:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles that mention "climategate", do so by saying something along the lines of: {{xt|or, as some have put it, “Climategate.”}} They usually put the word in ], 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.<br />—]&nbsp;(]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: 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. --] 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. --] 20:38, 22 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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..?" -- ] (]) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== Inaccurate name: Climategate is not the hacking incident ==

The opening line is false, "The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, ''referred to by some sources as 'Climategate','' began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich." This article seems to be discussing the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which by all means did happen in November, 2009. However, implying that this "incident" is referred to by some sources (who?) as Climategate is a false statement. Climategate is about the documents, code datasets and information revealed from the "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident." This information did not begin in November 2009, that's when the hacking incident that this article talks about happened. But Climategate is referring to '''the state of climate science over the past decade'''. It's the information revealed from the "incident" that this article is discussing. One of two things needs to happen: (1) the improperly referred to name "Climategate" should be removed, or (2) information about Climategate should be added to the article. Both the hacking incident and Climategate are not one and the same. ] (]) 23:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::<small>''Note: There is circumstantial evidence showing that {{user|98.232.27.135}} and {{user|71.125.130.14}} are the same editor. ] (]) 10:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)''</small>

: What exactly is revealed by this affair about the state of climate science over the past decade, that isn't known from peer-reviewed sources? Do you have a reliable source for the notion that our knowledge of the state of climate acience has been advanced as a result of this hacking incident? --] 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::As far as I'm aware, no mainstream scientific source - as opposed to hyperventilating bloggers and self-appointed amateur "auditors" - have corroborated ''any'' errors in the CRU's data, let alone the rest of climate science, as a result of this incident. -- ] (]) 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Actually, I think that ... uh ... IP, there makes a nice point. It can be reasonably argued that the hacking of the data is a crime. It is also reasonable to argue that the impact of the hacking stands apart from that crime. It would then be reasonable to discuss the scope of that impact based on reliable sources. TS and CO, you can reasonably posit that the effect has been minimal and transient; you cannot reasonably argue that there has been no effect. As I have stated elsewhere I am no longer pursuing a name change because I bow to the WP "-gate" policy, but I remain sympathetic to the idea and continue to be troubled by statements that "there is no spoon". ] (]) 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I'm certainly not denying there's been a ''political'' impact, but that's separate from any ''scientific'' impact. -- ] (]) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::The reputation of the various journals that have been exposed as caving to pressure from outsiders has been damaged. Is that scientific enough? There has been a diversion of budget to review 160 years of UK data as a result of this loss of confidence. Is that not a scientific impact? There's a world-wide scramble to see if all the climate data's real with reports coming out of Australia (the Darwin zero controversy alleging GHCN hanky panky to get a 6C/century global warming rise) and Russia (the IEA report alleging cherry picking warm stations) at least hinting at scientific misconduct. No doubt a lot of those attempts at verification are going to be coming out in the months and years ahead. You really think there's no scientific impact? Really? ] (]) 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::Non-blog citations for all of those claims, please. There has been a lot of hyperventilating by anti-science activists but I've certainly not seen any data being retracted. -- ] (]) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

]. ] (]) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:In this instance, many deny the existence of a chicken. For them the egg stands alone. ] (]) 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::Anon makes at least one valid point: it is an inaccurate name. This is an ongoing controversy that clearly has extended beyond the initial November hacking. Unfortunately, nobody here can agree what the new name should be. ] (]) 11:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::: I'd be happy to take climategate out of the lede ] (]) 13:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with whatever IP wrote this, but I feel that the word "ClimateGate" shouldn't be taken out until it can be put somewhere, since there are large numbers of people who believe that "ClimateGate" does change the dynamics regarding anthropogenic climate change, as per wikipedia's significant minority opinion policy (Rush Limbaugh and Anthony Watts come to mind as huge supporters of this view, and they together have tens of millions of listeners/readers). ], ], ] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:That's poor justification. There are billions of people living on this planet, and only a tiny "fringe-sized" minority of them follow Limbaugh or Watts. -- ] (]) 13:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::As opposed to the insinuated "vast majority" that buy the "planet has a fever" philosophy wholesale? Please. Whether you hate him or hang on his every word (I do neither), you refer to perhaps the utmost political pundit in America, having one of, if not ''the'' largest followings of any political commentator, and you then go and compare Limbaugh's inarguably humongous audience to the '''''world population''''' in order to try to make the downplay work so you can stick that "fringe-sized minority" comment in there? The saying going around is, "who are the 'deniers' now?" In other words, the horse has fled the barn, sayonara horse. (If you can get your "digs" in, why not the rest of us?) As for the primary issue in this sub-section -- by all means, DO disentangle the "alleged 'hacking incident'" article from the Climategate redirect; make them ''two discrete topics.'' No? Ahhh. But of course; that would go against the agenda of the self-important self-appointed Wiki "elites" who have bullyragged other would-be contributors and tortured this article to shoehorn it to their point-of-view, and deliberately hijacked the "Climategate" terminology with that slippery redirect, as part of the whitewash. Objectivity is, at this point, sham. '''I'll re-adopt an attitude of "good faith" as soon as the Wikibully cover-up artists unlock their ''kung-fu grip'' on this "article."''' As jfcj1 says in this talk page, "Why not just rename it 'The Official Wiki Warmist Coverup and Propaganda Page'?" It's as plain as the nose on your face; this charade fools nobody. It's no wonder Misplaced Pages is losing editors in droves. It's being turned into another propagandist tool; and as such will eventually become a coffee-klatch.] (]) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::: The idea that Rush Limbaugh and his views are representative of anything but a tiny minority--even of the American public--is as persistent as it is erroneous. A recent poll commissioned by BBC World Service and performed by GlobeScan found that only 6% of the 24,000 people polled in 23 countries did not want their country to reach an agreement at the Copenhagen conference to deal with global warming. --] 12:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Say what? "Erroneous"? The knowingly false claim that a majority of Americans are liberal "progressives" (we ''all know'' it's far to the contrary) and the propaganda attempting to portray worldwide belief in the AGW theory as "all-but-universal" -- these propositions are as laughable as they are persistent among those of the type who have assumed a death-clutch on this "article" while squatting all day even here on the talk page. In the scientific community alone there are many thousands who are experts in this and/or ancillary fields of study, who have been raising serious questions even from years back. You lasering in on a ludicrous BBC poll (BBC being the British version of TASS) like that further illustrates the horrendous POV-ism going on both on the main page and behind the scenes here. When one's premise requires one to try to "downplay" challengers to the AGW "debate is over" crowd by stating, in effect, that "it's only Limbaugh's audience which is 'fringe' compared to the ''world population''" -- when you start citing polls that are clearly off the mainstream (check one of the two- or three-dozen other polls to use for citation; Gallup or something credible would be nice; oh wait, that might not serve your "intent") then you've not only got a flawed premise and an obvious agenda, you've departed the road of scholarliness. Add to it how editing to this article is jealously guarded by the self-imposed "authorities"; add to it the ''continuous'' recurrence of "we already discussed that didn't you read the talk pages and we don't want to discuss it ''no more'' now let's ''refocus''" as a response to ''anyone who tries to talk straight'' (yeah we heard, the debate is over, somehow that doesn't quite make it); add to it the ''continuous'' implication of "I am a seasoned Misplaced Pages editor -- welcome! peon noob" -- add it up and you've got a seriously un-Wiki-like dynamic going on here. At best it's a travesty; at worst it's sinister. But I guess there are those who will determinedly ignore the elephant in the living room; but he's a growing boy, that elephant. OK, the rustic rabble shall return to the tillage. For now.] (]) 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::: Can we re-focus? There are (as far as I can tell) two issues under discussion: 1)"Should the article be re-named Climategate?" and; 2) "Is the hacking the central topic or is the content of the emails the central topic?" Regarding (1), there is reasoned opposition to the title "Climategate" based on wikipedia policy and the idea that the term implies guilt where none has been proven. To avoid mentioning the almost universally-used term "Climategate" in the introduction, however, would be blatant POV-pushing. Regarding (2), it is pointless to continue to argue that this main thrust of Climategate is computer hacking at a college. The fallout - scientific, political, professional - has almost nothing to do with how the data were released. In a year or two, Climategate may be seen to be a flash in the pan. Or not. But the significance - however great or however small and of whatever duration - lies in the data and how the world reacted to those data. ] (]) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::::: In addition I would like to re-suggest that e-mail is not the only thing that was stolen, so it should be removed from the title to be more general. ] (]) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::I agree that "e-mail" is an unnecessary part of the title, and somewhat limiting. As I said elsewhere, I am leaning toward "'''Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy'''" or "'''Climatic Research Unit documents controversy'''". -- ] (]) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::(@ Nightmote, after ec) - I think that is only partly right. First of all, I think you are right that "Climategate" should '''not''' be in the article name, but should definitely should be in prominently mentioned in the lede. This would be consistent with the way other "-gate" stuff has been treated. Beyond that, however, I must disagree with you. The most significant issue of this matter is the theft of data. Everything else branches out from that, including:
:::::*How the data were stolen (technical details).
:::::*The investigation (by police, university).
:::::*Why the data were stolen (just ''because''? Agenda-driven?)
:::::*Whether or not the release of this data was timed to coincide with the climate conference.
:::::*The scientific impact (minimal).
:::::*The impact on public opinion (some impact, particularly in the US).
:::::*The political impact (minimal, some embarrassment to UK gov, exploitation by some US politicians).
:::::All of these are legitimate points worth covering, and there may be more, but it is still the data theft that should form the central focus of this article. -- ] (]) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::: I think ScJessey's approach is close to the one we've followed so far as the situation has developed, and it seems to work well. --] 17:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::: "''The most significant issue of this matter is the theft of data.''" No it's not. Suppose it had been the English department's archives that had been hacked/leaked — who would care about the incident? It's the view behind the curtain at the way climate science has been done that makes this noteworthy.
:::::::] (]) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::The article is slanted such that it comes across as a POV condemnation of the hacking incident, consisting of email excerpts followed by numerous quotes from AGW proponents supporting the argument that the emails mean nothing and that AGW continues to be real. I don't see that as productive; we already have an ] article, right? The investigation is ongoing; accordingly, we can't assume that a whistleblower released the files out of a sense of altruism, and we can't assume that the theft had overtones of international conspiracy. What does that leave us? The bare facts (what files were removed, when, and when they were disseminated) followed by a BRIEF pro/con assessment of significance (four or six quotes from ] and others of similar prestige, giving no undue weight to either side) and an assessment of *concrete* impacts (quotes from leaders at the Copenhagen summit, data confirmations undertaken by the IPCC, death threats, etc.). The Climategate sandwich is, at the moment, all bread and no Climategate. ] (]) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Wiki policy states that the must be used for naming an article, and that name is "Climategate" because after more than a month it has been already used or recognized by such ] and mainstream media including ] (), ] (), ] (), ] (), ] (). This fact has been recognized by most of the other language Misplaced Pages sites, as they call this article Climategate. 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 tarnish ( and ) I proposed this matter to be settled once an for all by a group of <u>real neutral</u> admins/experience editors (anyone who has contributed in GW or climate change articles should be excluded, including admins). And to keep a decent minimum of NPOV the word "some" in the lead should be changed to "several" (all the refs are in the history I provided were deleted because they look "ugly" and "pointy", with no discussion of the substance), or simply "also known as Climategate"-] (]) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Using a common name is fine, '''''unless''''' that common name happens to violate ''other'' policies, such as ]. ] is a more useful and relevant part of the naming policy. We have an ongoing discussion about what the article name should be, and we must strive to select something that is both neutral and descriptive. "Climategate" is neither. -- ] (]) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I like Scjessey's earlier suggestion: "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". I'd also be find with "Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy" since that's what the majority of reliable sources are focusing on. The nice thing about "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" is that it side-step the 'e-mail vs source code' issue. ] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ignoring the fact that the term Climategate is now used by neutral mainstream media (and RS too -The Economist, NYT, etc) it blatant ], no matter how we try to find support in other WP policies. Some of the arguments that were valid a month ago are not necessarily valid now.-] (])
::::::::::::Misplaced Pages has a different set of policies and guidelines than the media. We don't justify the use of article titles based on what the media decides; "If it bleeds, it leads" is not an encyclopedic approach. And since there are BLP's involved, a slanted article title is not acceptable. ] (]) 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not at all. The arguments that have been made consistently are based on ], a non-negotiable core policy of Misplaced Pages. Specifically ]: "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." Names incorporating ''-gate'' are deprecated in another key policy, ], which specifically mentions the example of "Attorneygate" (which we refer to as ]). We do not use ''-gate'' in article titles because that breaches the fundamental principle of neutrality, and no amount of campaigning by partisans is going to override that principle. The principle of NPOV cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Bottom line - this article will never be called "Climategate". -- ] (]) 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'm warming to ''Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy'', suggested by ScJessey above. This would remove the potentially ambiguous term "hacking" and go with the unequivocal "theft", which is at least as well supported by reliable sources. As a freebie we get "data" which is more accurate than "e-mail". --] 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:This makes me happy. It appears that reasonable editors from both "sides" of the debate are beginning to coalesce on a possible title. '''Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy''' has the advantage of being descriptive, accurate and neutral. All reliable sources have said that the CRU servers were accessed illegally, so "data theft" accurately describes that without using the controversial "hacking", while still leaving open the possibility of a "leak" (which would still be the illegal theft of data, just not "hacked"). '''Climatic Research Unit documents controversy''' also has support. To my mind, it widens the scope of the article and slightly shifts the focus away from the most significant detail (the data theft). I concur with comments above that basically say this article "will never be called 'Climategate'" - it does not really matter how many !votes or cries for "Climategate" there are, because it will always violate Misplaced Pages policy. People arguing for this non-neutral, comic-book term would have to get the Misplaced Pages ''policy'' on this matter changed in order for them to have a shot at getting their way here. -- ] (]) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::Hi, first I don't think there are two 'sides' here with regard to the name of this article and I'm not sure if characterising even the name as a two-sided confrontation when we're all trying to help is really helpful. Back to reality, and I have been worried by references to 'data' and 'data theft' in the title here before because the whole purpose of the CRU revolves around climate ''data'', and many of the emails that are discussed refer to the ''data'' and the other documents include a lot of source code that processes climate ''data''. So 'data' in this case is a specific term, already in heavy use; and what was stolen was not that data, at all. It makes me think of someone on one of these talk pages recently who wanted to educate us that what Watergate was about was someone stealing some tapes to prove that Nixon wasn't a nice guy. I think it's easy to set up the basis for confusion in these cases. I'm happier risking confusing someone as to the fact that many of the documents stolen were not actually emails, than having them tell me in 20 years time that someone stole/liberated all the climate data from CRU in 2009. --] (]) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::: That's a very good point. Perhaps " e-mail theft controversy" is as close as we can get without setting up potential confusion over whether or not raw data was stolen. --] 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::::When I said "sides", I was referring to those preferring "hacking" or similar terminology and those preferring "Climategate" or a more ambiguous version of what we have. Perhaps "positions" would have been more accurate. That aside, I see the point concerning the possible confusion over the use of "data" in the title; however, "data" is still the correct word when attempting to describe "computer files" of varying types. I would rather not have an overlong title ("Climatic Research Unit computer files theft controversy"). Bear in mind that it is normal for the very first sentence of the lede to explain the meaning of any title that needs any sort of disambiguation, so a title change would usually mean also changing the first sentence. You'd end up with something like this:
:::::''"The '''Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy''' refers to an incident in which data of varying types from a UK-based climate research institution were illegally copied and disseminated. Referred to by some sources as "Climategate", the controversy began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years."'' blah blah blah.
::::I think that would remove any concerns over the use of "data" in the title. -- ] (]) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::I disagree, "data" makes you think of "scientific" climate data, and that's not part of the documents, thus "data" is misleading. Almost all news rapports have discussed only a few of the e-mails and not really any of the other files. Regarding hack/theft I think it might be wise to wait for the police investigation to complete, then we will know more about the illegal act and we can hopefully make a more informed decision.<br />—]&nbsp;(]) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::It isn't going to be misleading if it is explained in the first sentence of the article. Besides, "data theft" is accurate legal terminology in the UK, as I recall. "Hacking" should be removed from the title at the earliest possible convenience, because it is a loaded term almost as inappropriate as "Climategate". -- ] (]) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== Possible sources - Climategate and Misplaced Pages ==

*{{cite news| last =Solomon | first = Lawrence|authorlink=Lawrence Solomon | coauthors = | title =Misplaced Pages’s climate doctor: How Misplaced Pages’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles | work = ] | language = | publisher =The National Post Company | page = | date =December 19, 2009 | url = http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx | accessdate = 2009-12-19 }}
*{{cite news| last = Ball | first =Tim | coauthors = | title = Climategate; The Supporting Cast - Thought Police Anyone?| work = ] | language = | publisher = canadafreepress.com | page = | date =December 7, 2009 | url = http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17635 | accessdate = 2009-12-19 }}
''']''' (]) 07:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
: The Lawrence Solomon piece is part of a long series of opinion columns in the National Post. The Canada Free Press piece is so full of distortions and rank falsehoods that even linking to it from Misplaced Pages would raise serious concerns related to our ] policy. --] 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
::Okay okay okay, just suggestions. ], ''']''' (]) 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Solomon's article is hilarious. ] (]) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
: The Solomon and Ball reports are consistent with what I've learned while trying to discuss and edit Misplaced Pages articles related to climate. One need only read the discussion above to see the extreme double standards when applying the rules on reliable sources, depending on whether they tend to confirm or refute the dominant editors' beliefs, which are now way out of the mainstream. BTW, TS, what specific errors did you find in either of the reports? I didn't find any. ] (]) 12:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:: The ridiculous accusations of deliberate deception are the most obvious falsehoods. There are other lies which involve detailed claims, but those big lies are the ones that stand out. The article is apparently written by a retired geography lecturer who has occasionally been misrepresented by third parties as a climatologist. I notice that a note appended to this piece by him again repeated the false description of him as a "former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg." --] 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php ] (]) 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
: I thought ] was not allowed. WTF? --] (]) 06:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that there is a serious ] here after reading all the article editing. This is definitely a controversial issue that needs both views clearly mentioned without a clear settlement. ] (]) 19:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::Not to mention using this talk page to promote his personal blog. Bill, if the content of your blog is helpful in improving the article, just copy and paste your blog post here. ] (]) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::No, WMC's posting of the URL is quite right. He has every right to defend himself against the attacks being aimed at him by Solomon, Ball and their followers. However, it's not really appropriate to use Misplaced Pages to do so. Therefore the appropriate thing to do is to respond on his blog and direct people to his response (and the associated debate), exactly as he has done above. -- ] (]) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:"The other view" on this matter, as expressed by bloggers and opinion pieces in the right-wing media, is that these scientists are liars, frauds and conspirators to destroy the civilised world. All of these opinions fail our ] policy as none of them have been proved in a court of law or by an officially sanctioned investigation. These will come out if there is any case to answer, and then we'll report all the sordid details that are exposed. Until then, there is no COI and there has been no biassed editing here - just reflections of the facts as reported by reliable sources, as it will continue to be. --] (]) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::No, the other view on this matter, as expressed by bloggers and opinions pieces in the left-wing media, is that these scientists are beyond reproach, and any such evidence that shows otherwise needs to be automatically labled as "lies" or "slander", and deleted by the AGW cabal. No biased editing? That's funny, and intellectually dishonest, but we seem to be getting quite a bit of that from the left nowadays, huh? ] (]) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::Nigel: AFAIK, as long as we're citing third-party ], we should be fine in most all situations. Exceptions include religious beliefs, sexual orientation, people who are relatively unknown, dates of birth, names of family members, etc., none of which currently applies to this topic.
::Crazy: I suggest you familiarize yourself with ] so you know what's allowed and what's not. It's extremely important that you cite third-party, ]. You can't use op-eds or blogs for controversial material about someone else. Which reminds me. I hope we're not using RealClimate or ClimateAudit as sources for controversial material about each other or for anyone else. ] (]) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::You are using them, just do a search for RealClimate and you will find 50 something links. And it appear that a few are about opinions of the writers and not factual statements. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Lead getting cluttered again ==

In earlier discussions I remarked that the lead had become very congested with multiple source references. As the lead is only supposed to be a summary, the use of multiple references at that point is not necessary. As I had done before, since the lead had again become congested, I have removed secondary, tertiary, and other references. One is enough. --] 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:The lead is cluttered because profoundly biased editors have insisted on packing every possible negative and speculative word -- "illegal", "stolen", "hacked", etc. into the lead and repeating these flames as many times as possible. We even have a specific quote about the alleged hack in the lead -- quotes obviously don't belong in a lead, for crying out loud. And as another editor commented above, the first sentence in this lead is out-and-out false. "Climategate" as used by well over 90% of the people using that word refers to the content of the documents and the extremely controversial behavior described or embodied in them, and to the resulting investigations and reviews of the documents and of the work of Jones, Mann, etc., not to the alleged hack. CRU is an open scientific research institute holding public scientific data, not a secret weapons research facility or repository of credit card numbers or anything else sensitive, so a breach by itself is not notable. It has only been made notable by what was revealed in the documents and the resulting political storm and investigations. ] (]) 12:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:: You say "quotes obviously don't belong in a lead", but out ] guideline seems to contradict your claim in at least two places:
::* '' Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain '''quotations.'''''
::* ''The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and '''quotations''', should be cited.''

:: There are at present two brief quotations in the lead, both from the University's confirmation announcement stating that "data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites." and "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised." I don't see anything wrong with those--they seem uncontroversial and confirm that the university is taking this theft seriously. --] 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== Was the server hacked? Pt 2 ==

Yes, the server was hacked. Whether the hacker was an insider or an outsider is unknown. ] (]) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:Was it hacked? They state that they had (the compilation of documents), the "file" sitting on the server. If this were the case, then an insider would only need to copy the file using their credentials...this would not be a case in which the server was reconfigured or reprogrammed. If the person who obtained the emails did not use authentic credentials to obtain the information, then one could say the server was hacked. There are notable who believe that the data may have been leaked rather than hacked.] (]) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::Monckton would not be a reliable source for the colour of the sky, let alone an issue such as this on which he has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. We're not going to add speculation, period. -- ] (]) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::The logic behind such a statement is ] and therefore irrelevant. <!-- Appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability -->] (]) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: You are abusing the word ''logic'' here, ''thought processes'' would have been better. --] (]) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:: All the reliable sources say it was hacked. That's what we go with. --] 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Now that's a sensible response. I do agree that for now it seems that the mainstream media is stating that the emails were hacked, but there are other sources still saying they may have been either hacked or leaked. , , , , .] (]) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: I didn't say "the mainstream media". I said "all the reliable sources." I am not referring to any speculation or opinions by any journalists, pundits or commentators. I am referring to ''statements of fact'' by reliable sources. --] 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::: ROFL. This is an incredible position for you to have taken given what you stated just an hour later, . --] (]) 18:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::: As far as I'm aware the sense of both comments is identical. --] 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


: <b>Analysis-Leaked</b> Following is proposed summary text:
“Network specialist Lance Levsen analyzed the emails and documents in the FOIA2009.zip file. Emails were numbered and saved without headers while only one out of 402,839 emails was selected. The computer system topography indicates emails were archived at a gateway server, not from departmental servers or individual computers. Documents by contrast appear “dumped”, by the University's FOI Officer. Levensen concluded: “The details of the files tell a story that FOIA2009.zip was compiled internally and most likely released by an internal source.”” This gives objective factual basis for the argument that the file was collected by an FOI officer and leaked, rather than "hacked".] (]) 03:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::: You're seriously suggesting that we publish a blog article by a former weatherman as a reliable source? --] 04:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::::: No "speculation or opinions by any journalists, pundits or commentators", got it. In that case, we've got some work to do on the sourcing. The first instance of the word hacking is sandwiched between two references. which is an opinion piece and which is a primary source and does not use the term hack or hacking in any case. The next use of the word comes with a BBC news story but has no actual quote stating that the server was hacked, paraphrasing the spokesman's quoted statement that information was taken illegally. The mention of the internal investigation and the story's own computer expert talking about having care with permissions so that users don't have access to inappropriate directories leave the impression that the use of hacking is a journalistic speculation designed to drive traffic and not a proper news conclusion. And really, that's about it for reliable sources. It's a conclusion that's not documented very well and seems to be mainly about jumping to the convenient conclusion that it was not a leak.

::::: You really want to watch that 3rd reference in my list. If that sort of paraphrase is acceptable then Pachauri's recent incendiary slander in the Indian Express really ought to be in the article too. His accusation that journalists Christopher Booker and Richard North's news piece "were coming from the same group of people who had tried unsuccessfully to discredit the IPCC and the “irrefutable science” on climate change by hacking personal emails of some scientists a few weeks ago" is rather intemperate and comes as a bit of a non-sequitur because the news report is an ethical/economic conflict of interest piece. ] (]) 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::: That's an interesting take on matters. The problem here is that you're focussing on the word "hacking" rather than the question of whether the hacking took place. --] 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with TS that the source doesn't meet the requirements of ]. That said, the analysis is interesting, and if the mainstream media would actually do their job, instead of flitting to the next ambulance, we might have a RS weighing in. However, the mandate of WP is well-established, so we can point out these observations on talk pages, which may be leading indicators of material eventually reported, but we can't include them in the article until better sourced.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 14:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::The "analysis" is little more than speculation, and very inaccurate speculation at that. Anti-science activists have claimed that the files were part of a draft FOI release solely because of the filename. ''But the filename was clearly created by the hacker.'' The first version of the zipped file was uploaded to RealClimate under the filename ''foia.zip''. The same file was then re-uploaded to a Russian FTP server under the name ''foi2009.zip''. This "analyst" appears to be ignorant of that fact, and equally ignorant of how the UK FOI regime works - much of the stolen material would never have been releasable under FOI in the first place. The "analysis" is junk, I'm afraid. -- ] (]) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::We don't have to worry: there are going to be enquiries and maybe a trial, that's when more actual reliable facts will emerge. Until then, we have captured the significant statements of the significant parties already and there is no need to rush after more 'news' - there is none. On the subject of that blogger quoted above, he is confused, or just being confusing. He says, "only one out of 402,839 emails was selected". What does that mean? In an email client, you can 'select' an email to read it, but in a zip file, no files are 'selected' unless you display them in a zip client and select one. He draws conclusions from what the "computer system topography indicates". Does he mean the folder names within the zip file? They are only an artefact of the zip file, not of the computer that made the zip, or where the data came from. Even they look like the folder structure in some gateway server that he is familiar with, that does not mean that the "emails were archived at a gateway server" - those folders could be (re-)created in any zip file on any laptop. Anyway, how does a gateway server prove that they were "dumped by the University's FOI Officer"? A gateway server could be hacked externally as well as anything else - better maybe. The hackers could have had weeks to pre-process the data, rebuild the zip file, rename files and folders inside it, rename it... He is misusing a tiny bit of technical-sounding jargon to appear (to the non-technical) to prove whatever he likes. This is why it's not worth debating the present worthless speculation. Let's wait for serious investigations to report some actual facts. --] (]) 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::::He misses the most obvious thing... All of the mails are Jones' - the simple item is that all of these were in a unix mail folder on the same machine (probably labelled tree-work/temp-work or something like that, and then zipped it up . The hacker took this file and dumped the mails into a directory as txt files (simple operation)). All of the network analysis is simply fluff. --] (]) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== Peer Review: CRU emails ==

One the more controversial topics in the CRU emails surrounds the peer review process.

Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones 11 March 2003
RE: Prof. Mann's expresses his concerns and strategy at preventing opposing papers from being able to claim they have been peer reviewed after a skeptical paper is published by "Climate Research". The following is a summary of the key points of the email.

Prof. Mann comments that Soon & Baliunas could not have cleared a "legitmate" peer review process.
Prof. Mann concludes that "Climate Research" has been hijacked by skeptics.
Prof. Mann list De Frietas, someone in his department as hijackers. Prof. Mann also speculates on the positions of the editors on the editorial board.
Prof. Mann believes the only choice was to ignore the journal and stop submitting papers to, and citing papers in it.

Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann and others on the cc list
Prof. Jones states he is going to tell "Climate Research" that he will have nothing more to do with them until they get rid of the troublesome editor.
Prof. Jones notes that a CRU person is on the editorial board but not the person dealing with the papers <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I believe the peer review discussions are covered in the article already, from reliable sources. --] 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:: New information's come out . It looks like a good source. Any trouble with it? ] (]) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::: It's an opinion piece, and cannot be considered to be a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of ]. Whether Patrick Michaels' opinion belongs in the article is another question. --] 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::: I believe it is important to have a separate category for peer review as it is a key issue, the WSJ article is a reliable source. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::: Tony it is not neutral or fair to consider every skeptic as an unreliable source. Please suggest a skeptic you would consider a reliable source. There is all kinds of opinion in the posted article with zero evidence to support them. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::: I've already told you. As I said above, Patrick Michaels is a reliable source for the opinion of Patrick Michaels. The only question is whether we think Patrick Michaels' opinion is significant enough to go into the article. I am undecided on that. If we use Michaels' opinion, we will of course make it absolutely plain that his words represent his opinion and only his opinion. --] 10:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::: Actually, I believe that established experts in the field ARE considered ] for statements of fact. This is the argument continually set forth to justify the inclusion of tripe from ]. So in this case your assertion appears to be vacuous. --] (]) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::: Here's the relevant bit from ]: "Self-published material 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'''." An editorial is effectively self-published material which is why it is normally treated the way you mention. However, Michaels is an established climate expert with peer-reviewed publications in that field and as such he is more than qualified to discuss the peer review process as it exists in that field from an insider's perspective. --] (]) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::::: You know what, TS? I've decided that it's OK for me to lose my patience with you a little bit. You believe that a quote from ] should be in, but that a quote from ] should be excluded? I'm going to go with the previous request, TS, that you name an honest-to-God hard-line skeptic that you will accept as a bona fide reliable source. It is time to put up or shut up when it comes to NPOV, and if you're not willing to accept that there *is* another side to this discussion, then I am going to find it increasingly difficult to accept that you're seeking any kind of consensus on this article. ] (]) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::: You write "You believe that a quote from ] should be in, but that a quote from ] should be excluded? "

:::::: No that is not what I believe and indeed it contradicts what I wrote. If you're going to lose your temper, please first get your facts right so that you will be getting angry over something rather than nothing. --] 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::It's important that we don't fall into the trap of turning this into an article about the global warming debate. It is ''also'' important that we don't fall into the trap of giving skeptics like Michaels a platform by distorting ]. For every AGW skeptic you can probably find a thousand who are ''not'', so the skeptic POV is actually ''fringe'' POV. -- ] (]) 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: " ... As it is, just one qualified expert has been consulted, to our knowledge, and this is what he has to say. I think the quotation should remain ... " (TS on stub-worthy Weart) "Qualified"? Maybe so. But if Weart is significant, then so is Michaels. And if Michaels isn't qualified, then it is fair for me to ask (twice, now) for you to name a skeptic that you are willing to accept as a Reliable Source. Scjessey this has nothing to do with whether AGW is "fringe" or "non-fringe" - this is about the UEA data breach and whether an editor is willing to acknowledge that there exists an honestly-held opposition view without injecting his *opinion* whether that reliable source is right or not. Any Creationist can acknowledge that Darwin is a reliable source for statements on Evolution without compromising his/her beliefs. So, TS - name me the skeptic's Darwin, already, and make me eat crow. ] (]) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::You're missing my point. It's hard to find a "legitimate" or "qualified" skeptic of climate change because it's such a fringe view. In otherwords, ''having'' such a view virtually eliminates them reliable source contention. To use your own analogy, AGW is mainstream science in the same way as evolution is (considerably revised since Darwin's time, of course), and people skeptical of evolution are generally regarded as having a fringe view also. -- ] (]) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you got it backwards, Nightmote. Darwin is the scientist, creationists are anti-science, climate research is a science. Who's the one who's right among the creationists? When you tell me that, I'll try and find the CC denier who's right. --] (]) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::It seems to me that Nightmote is trying to find a ] to "counterbalance" a ]. Which seems to be very much a case of promoting a false equivalence between fringe and mainstream scientific viewpoints. -- ] (]) 17:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yeah. That's a better way of saying what I was trying to say. Ride that dinosaur! -- ] (]) 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I beg your pardon, but I am afraid that you have ALL missed my point. Darwin is a Reliable Source regarding Evolutionary Theory. The Bible might be cited as a Reliable Source for Creationist Theory, or ] or ] or ]. Reliable sources for the oppostion viewpoint. Climate research *is* a science, and certain scientists now stand *accused* (not convicted, by any means) of improprieties involving data fudging and corrupting the peer review process. Many scientists are standing up to defend the accused scientists' good names. Other scientists are standing up and demanding more openness and transparency, or suggesting that the billions of dollars of government funds are just as corrupting as the billions from Big Oil. Reliable Sources for the varying points of view exist, but if TS is unwilling to accept that individuals of good conscience exist on BOTH sides of the issue, then consensus on article neutrality cannot exist. STILL waiting for a name, TS. One name. One person of good conscience and reputation that you don't agree with. ] (]) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:I think I see part of the problem. This is '''not''' a scientific dispute; this is a dispute about how the scientists are operating, and one does not need to be an active scientist in the field to have a credible opinion about whether some of the actions suggested in the E-mails ''would'' be improper. What we need is a noted ] ethicist to comment on this, except that there is no such animal. — ] ] 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Thank you, Arthur. What you wrote is far more productive that most of what I've written. ] (]) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


::No, I think the problem is that there is no Bible quote that says you can pollute the atmosphere by burning up all the fuel in just a few hundred years and leave the crippled earth like a 'used kleenex' when you're done with getting rich and spoiling yourself in luxury. Even creationists have stuff to quote, these CC deniers are out on their own. Anyway, this is an article about an e-mail hacking incident and, until the investigations/hearings/trials are published we cannot speculate in the way bloggers and op-ed writers can. We can only report the facts via the reliably published statements of the involved parties, as we've done. --] (]) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


== "stolen" data ==
::Let's not forget that there is no confirmation that the scientists have actually done anything wrong. All we have at the moment are allegations. Your hypothetical ethicist would be in the same position as all the other commentators - speculating, without any firm knowledge of whether there had actually been any ethical violations. -- ] (]) 18:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


It seems that RS, at least the AP, seem to agree that the data was "stolen" except for the fact that the rightful owners were never deprived of access to it, which is a key component to conventional theft. It is unfortunate that sources want to draw analogues between theft of conventional property and copying of data, because data piracy is a different thing altogether. ] (]) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little perturbed that, despite my pointing to the fact that it's contradicted by my own prior words, Nightmote continues to misrepresent my position as being opposed to the quoting the opinion of Patrick Michaels as an expert climatologist. I note that we already do, in fact, quote Michaels as such, and there's no question of that quote being removed simply because his opinion is opposed to that of most climate scientists. But I'll take up that matter, if necessary, with Nightmote himself, as it's an interpersonal matter. The fact is that I'm considering wheter we might incorporate Michaels' opinion piece into the article, and if so, how we should do it. Nightmote could not be more wrong. --] 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:So what? I think it is unfortunate that the reliable sources do not call the people who bought the stolen mails "fences".
:Why is this on this Talk page? How is it connected to any suggested article improvement? --] (]) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
::Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. ] (]) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article ] which points out {{tq|The phrase data theft is actually a misnomer}} (without a source). The term is still used, and the article exists. I cannot see any problem with using the word "steal" here. --] (]) 11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


== Taxpayers? ==
:::Again, I beg your pardon, TS, but you argued in writing for the inclusion of Weart's quote, and then stated in writing that you were "undecided" on the Michael's quote. I am willing to concede that I may have inadvertently misrepresented your position (for which I apologize), but surely you can see where I might be confused? My position on *both* quotes is that they have little bearing on the article and should be removed, but if Weart's quote should remain describing the unprecedented attack on science, then some balance is required to identify the source of the outrage. ] (]) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Hot Spots From Twitter:
:::: Thanks for acknowledging that I'm undecided on inclusion of the Patrick Michaels quote. If you think his quotes shouldn't be included, then why are you attacking me for considering that they might be? If your purpose is to confuse me, if have succeeded.


Toby Young on Twitter:'''
:::: I do not understand your argument on balance. Do you contend that Michaels is an expert on the history of science? --] 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


The Foreign Office is helping to pay for the rewriting of '''wikipedia''' entries on climate change to eliminate all traces of doubt about the claim that we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency'.
Arthur laments the absence of a citation from a "reliable" ethicist. Actually I believe the AP article cites an ethicist, or something close. During the past four days we seem to have become a little paralysed and haven't really incorporated the AP piece into the article, and I think that's a mistake. So, perhaps a reboot is in order. --] 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Sissy Willis on Twitter:'''
== Proposal: To seek consensus before acting ==


"The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the #StockholmEnvironmentInstitute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Misplaced Pages’.
This article covers a pretty controversial event, and partisan views are evident everywhere. I would like to propose that editors seeking to change the article '''first win consensus''' for their change on the talk page, unless the proposed edit is ''completely uncontroversial'' (like fixing a typo). <small>]]</small> This would be similar to having the article fully protected, but conducted on a voluntary basis that allows us to make minor changes without administrator assistance. -- ] (]) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


SEI is closely connected with the United Nations & the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
*'''Support''' - As proposer. -- ] (]) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”
*'''Oppose''' - The existence of this poll. The policy is already stated in the infobox at the top as well as the means to resolve conflict. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”
* '''Oppose''' - ] is tried and true. --] (]) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Source:'''
* I'm neutral on this. One of the complaints made about the climate change articles is that they are "owned". Whether this is true or not is another matter, I don't believe they are, but a general resolution on consensus prior to all edits would tend to act as a hold on all edits, and I think that situation could become rather unhealthy. There are some merits, but too, I can't support this at present. --] 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/16/british-government-funds-campaign-to-rewrite-climate-science-entries-on-wikipedia/
*'''Oppose''' (thanks for the redaction) My edit was made in good faith and refected my genuine opinion. I do not want to engage in an edit war, nor do I intend to, <s>but I have grave reservations that some of the editors are unwilling to acknowledge that Reliably Sourced opposition opinions exist.</s> but I am concerned that I seem to be unable to make headway towards "consesnsus" in the face of "bold editing" and rapid reverts. ] (]) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


*'''Oppose'''. Agree (probably for the first time ever :) with GoRight. This is unnecessary and diametrically opposed to how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. -- ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Any British taxpayer here for the comments? ] (]) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


*'''Eh.''' In general, it's a ''good idea'' to discuss major changes here first, but I think it's best to follow established WP policy otherwise. ] (]) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC) :See '']''. If the article is correct, "The ''Daily Sceptic'' is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial". Looks like a waste of time. . . ], ] 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


== Climate Deniers ==
This is all well and good, but time and again it has been proven that editors have been unable to "do the right thing" and continue edit contentious, tendentiously and disruptively. If this sort of poor behavior doesn't stop, I will have no choice but to request full page protection and have this limit imposed - a far less convenient solution. GoRight is wrong in saying "] is tried and true", insofar as it only works effectively on relatively quiescent articles. In contentious articles like this, it is a recipe for disaster that constantly sparks edit warring. Complaints of ownership are ''indeed'' a problem, with one or two editors imposing themselves with overly-rapid discussion closures/archiving and unilateral edits that other editors would prefer to see discussed. Editors expressing a skeptical view (and in some cases, fringe view) have just as much right to have their concerns addressed in a meaningful discussion as those expressing a mainstream view. Everyone needs to calm down, ''talk'' about things more, and stop acting in ways that create discord. Although Nightmote's edit (referred to in my comment above) was made in an antagonistic manner, the editor makes a valid point about rapid reverting being a problem; however, bringing it to the talk page first would have been infinitely preferable. -- ] (]) 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


This is a wrong description used throughout this site. The scientific consensus is not Science. Science is and always has been a process of proof. When the Climate change believers are asked simple scientific questions, which they cannot answer, they try to be-little the scientific question using derogatory terms in order to demean the other side of the discussion. If this article were to be balanced, please remove terms such as. 'Climate Deniers' and replace with 'scientific unanswered counter arguments'. I feel that this article is a white-wash of the real problems with using exclusive terms such as consensus and science in the same sentence. ] (]) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal: delete "Similar incidents" section ==
:Misplaced Pages is ] and not on your opinion. So, it is no problem for Misplaced Pages that your opinion and Misplaced Pages articles do not match, it is your problem.
:If you had reliable sources that agree with your opinion, it would be a different story. --] (]) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move 26 June 2024 ==
This section was added without a clear consensus -- see earlier discussion -- and doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit a separate section. Perhaps a mention in passing elsewhere? See this for a complete report; this is the cite we should use, if we retain a mention of this (single) incident. Dr. Weaver is a redlink, and appears to be a publicity-seeker, and a bit paranoid. Note this line from NP: Weaver "believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion." " Thanks, ] (]) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
: He may be a redlink on Misplaced Pages, but he's an IPCC lead auithor. --] 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' The term "Controversy" was selected as better encompassing the subject matter in this case, but from reading this the possibility of a better title, should anybody find one, is still open. <small>(])</small> ] 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
== New expert commentary ==
----


] → {{no redirect|Climatic Research Unit email leak}} – 'leak' is more ] about what actually happened: the mail leaked. The controversy part is what some hacker wanted to create by leaking them, but in the end there wasn't really any controversial content and the scientists were just doing their job fine. ] (]) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;] (]) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
] has published an article today about this controversy. I plan on adding the following quote to the article:
:'''Oppose'''. First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower. This was burglary. The "controversy" (such as it was) was the ''result'' of selective release of the messages with misrepresentation of their content. The ''effect'' was to undermine the political of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, causing an unforgivable delay in response to it. So the key factor was the effect; the method is incidental. I agree that the name is not great and should be reconsidered, but 'leak' won't do. --] (]) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:''"People who have in the past applauded whistleblowers in business, in the military, or in Republican administrations, and who lionized the New York Times for publishing the classified Pentagon papers, are now shocked and outraged that someone dared to expose massive evidence of manipulations, concealment and destruction of data— and deliberate cover-ups of all this— in the global warming establishment."''
::>First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower
I'm certain that many of you here don't agree with many of Dr. Sowell's opinions. However his notability can't be ignored. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, they were stolen by a hacker indeed, but that hacker then leaked them to the public, taking over the job that is usually done by the insider. I'd say leak is an appropriate term here.
: What relevance does this blogged opinion have to the event? Everybody has an opinion on this. We can't include them all. --] 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::Do you have any alternative suggestions? I'd be open to moving the page to a different name if there is a good alternative. ] would be good to me as well. The page ] contains some title inspiration. ] (]) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Blogged? Dr. Sowell is as far from a blogger as you can get. His published works far exceeds that of Spencer Weart. Then again, to use the standard you're using here, the whole Reactions section can be deleted since it's just a bin of quotations without any summation of the event in question. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Again, that puts the emphasis on the hack as an exploit (which was almost insignificant) rather than on the deliberate disinterpretation of the messages and consequent reinforcement of the denialist conspiracy theory{{snd}} which led to politicians failing to act on the IPCC report. "Controversy" has the benefit of focusing on consequences rather than the ]. --] (]) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::: You added his commentary to "Other expert commentary". What is this fellow's expertise? --] 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It was never a great title but the controversy is what has mostly been written about and the controversy had an impact on climate change policy, as has been pointed out. So keep as it is in its imperfect way. ] (]) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 00:02, 18 November 2024

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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconComputer Security: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
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.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWeather: Climate Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconHigher education
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
WikiProject iconEast Anglia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Climatic Research Unit email controversy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Norfolk may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 17, 2011, November 17, 2014, November 17, 2018, November 17, 2019, November 17, 2021, November 17, 2022, and November 17, 2024.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
? faq page 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.
On 26 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Climatic Research Unit email leak. The result of the discussion was not moved.

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, 45
/Climategate usage, /emails, /RFC Climategate rename policy query, /RFC/CRU Hacking Dispute, /RFC/Death threats against climate scientists, /RfC on article name change, /Subpage

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Issues related to this article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages

BLP noticeboard:

NPOV noticeboard:


Requested moves:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:


"stolen" data

It seems that RS, at least the AP, seem to agree that the data was "stolen" except for the fact that the rightful owners were never deprived of access to it, which is a key component to conventional theft. It is unfortunate that sources want to draw analogues between theft of conventional property and copying of data, because data piracy is a different thing altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? I think it is unfortunate that the reliable sources do not call the people who bought the stolen mails "fences".
Why is this on this Talk page? How is it connected to any suggested article improvement? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article Data theft which points out The phrase data theft is actually a misnomer (without a source). The term is still used, and the article exists. I cannot see any problem with using the word "steal" here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Taxpayers?

Hot Spots From Twitter:

Toby Young on Twitter:

The Foreign Office is helping to pay for the rewriting of wikipedia entries on climate change to eliminate all traces of doubt about the claim that we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency'.

Sissy Willis on Twitter:

"The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the #StockholmEnvironmentInstitute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Misplaced Pages’.

SEI is closely connected with the United Nations & the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”

Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”

Source:

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/16/british-government-funds-campaign-to-rewrite-climate-science-entries-on-wikipedia/

Any British taxpayer here for the comments? Kartasto (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

See The Daily Sceptic. If the article is correct, "The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial". Looks like a waste of time. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Climate Deniers

This is a wrong description used throughout this site. The scientific consensus is not Science. Science is and always has been a process of proof. When the Climate change believers are asked simple scientific questions, which they cannot answer, they try to be-little the scientific question using derogatory terms in order to demean the other side of the discussion. If this article were to be balanced, please remove terms such as. 'Climate Deniers' and replace with 'scientific unanswered counter arguments'. I feel that this article is a white-wash of the real problems with using exclusive terms such as consensus and science in the same sentence. 86.21.163.120 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. So, it is no problem for Misplaced Pages that your opinion and Misplaced Pages articles do not match, it is your problem.
If you had reliable sources that agree with your opinion, it would be a different story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The term "Controversy" was selected as better encompassing the subject matter in this case, but from reading this the possibility of a better title, should anybody find one, is still open. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climatic Research Unit email leak – 'leak' is more WP:NPOV about what actually happened: the mail leaked. The controversy part is what some hacker wanted to create by leaking them, but in the end there wasn't really any controversial content and the scientists were just doing their job fine. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower. This was burglary. The "controversy" (such as it was) was the result of selective release of the messages with misrepresentation of their content. The effect was to undermine the political of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, causing an unforgivable delay in response to it. So the key factor was the effect; the method is incidental. I agree that the name is not great and should be reconsidered, but 'leak' won't do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
>First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower
Yes, they were stolen by a hacker indeed, but that hacker then leaked them to the public, taking over the job that is usually done by the insider. I'd say leak is an appropriate term here.
Do you have any alternative suggestions? I'd be open to moving the page to a different name if there is a good alternative. Climate Research Unit email hack would be good to me as well. The page Category:Email hacking contains some title inspiration. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Again, that puts the emphasis on the hack as an exploit (which was almost insignificant) rather than on the deliberate disinterpretation of the messages and consequent reinforcement of the denialist conspiracy theory – which led to politicians failing to act on the IPCC report. "Controversy" has the benefit of focusing on consequences rather than the proximate cause. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was never a great title but the controversy is what has mostly been written about and the controversy had an impact on climate change policy, as has been pointed out. So keep as it is in its imperfect way. Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (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. Categories: