Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/FAQ: 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.
< Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:31, 14 December 2009 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,230 editsm Reverted edits by 99.144.192.74 (talk) to last version by Viriditas← Previous edit Revision as of 04:33, 14 December 2009 edit undo99.144.192.74 (talk) Undid revision 331560682 by Viriditas (talk)let's discuss this. Please use talk to support your editNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
|show=no |show=no
|q=Q1<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why is this article not called "Climategate" or have the word "scandal" in its title? |q=Q1<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why is this article not called "Climategate" or have the word "scandal" in its title?
|a='''A1''': because some guy decided that a "Style" suggestion was now the word of God and beneath even discussing. No matter that the the NYT's, Nation, Science, WP or thousands of others disagree. Verified, Reliable Sources in Reputable outlets only count when it's from your side.}}
|a='''A1''': Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Misplaced Pages's ] requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are ] and should not be used in article titles. ] is a redirect to this article, so users typing that in the search box will be directed here.}}
{{FAQ row {{FAQ row
|show=no |show=no

Revision as of 04:33, 14 December 2009

Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate" or have the word "scandal" in its title? A1: because some guy decided that a "Style" suggestion was now the word of God and beneath even discussing. No matter that the the NYT's, Nation, Science, WP or thousands of others disagree. Verified, Reliable Sources in Reputable outlets only count when it's from your side. 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 by published experts writing in their field of expertise, however, are 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. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia", and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. 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: A9: .