Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:25, 31 December 2009

Template:Shell

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

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

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

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

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

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 28 November 2009 (archived) and 21 November 2009 (archived) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) and on 23 December 2009 (active as of December 24, 2009)

A rewrite of this article is in progress, the outline is being developed at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/outline. Please discuss the rewrite at #Rewrite

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Ongoing discussions on article naming

Related discussion: Move proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"

A new move proposal has been proposed at #Requested_move and posted to the requested moves page. Please join the discussion.

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
• Climatic Research Unit files incident
• Climatic Research Unit incident

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? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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. --TS 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? --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. --TS 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? --Nigelj (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. --TS 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been stated by all the significant people involved. --Nigelj (talk) 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 WP:NAME. This spirited defense of the word now has me concerned. What compelling reason is there for "hacking" to be in the title? Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 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. --TS 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Things like, "The glorious liberation of the truth from evil scientists"? --Nigelj (talk) 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 article naming (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 ownership issues developing here. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. --TS 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. You cannot equate my concern for following article naming conventions (entirely a policy-based objection) with believing the world is flat. I ask again: Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This could have been a leak, no one knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.63.106 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, we had a WP:RS at one point in the article, but it's since been removed. If I get a chance, I will try to find some more WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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). -- Scjessey (talk) 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." Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails? from Daily Mail. As an student you're on the inside … Nsaa (talk) 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. --TS 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So Daily Mail 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," 'Climategate' Exposes the Global Warming Hoax in Pravda. Nsaa (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pravda! --TS 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha just your comment on Daily Mail and long gone Soviet Union … Nsaa (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you listen to this Youtube Clip Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower, Not A "Hacker" 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! Nsaa (talk) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now there's typical AGW alarmist Watermelon argumentum ad hominem 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. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with two above Daily Mail and Pravda. 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. Nsaa (talk) 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 Chewbacca defense. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 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. Nsaa (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why controversy again is proposed? Just for distorting the question from Scjessey (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?)? Nsaa (talk) 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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 WP:WTA. 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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 Requested moves 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. --TS 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 WP:AVOID, "controversy" is OK if reliable sources also use the word "controversy". I found dozens of reliable sources 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 Killian documents controversy and Global warming controversy.

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

AACS encryption key controversy

Essjay controversy

Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man

Old Court – New Court controversy

White House travel office controversy

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

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

John the bookmaker controversy

Given the fact that dozens of reliable sources use the term "controversy", I believe that the standards within WP:AVOID have been met. Given the fact that we have several precedents for using word "controversy", including an article in this very topic space, Global warming controversy, as well as 9 different articles which have passed peer-review to reach achieve Good Article or Feature Article status, I think it’s OK for us to use this for the article title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the controversy is legit or not is irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. It's not our place as Misplaced Pages editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on naming conventions makes little mention of reliable sources or verifiability. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. --TS 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, mainstream news media are reliable sources. Are you seriously arguing that BBC News isn't mainstream news? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If our verifiability 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. --TS 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 WP:RS. 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. --Nickhh (talk) 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. --TS 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? -- Scjessey (talk) 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. --TS 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is how it is know everywhere. The same thing is valid for the global warming page. Global warming per se doesn't relate to human causes. Even so it is called that as that is the most common use of the world.Echofloripa (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the discussion of the title is worth the amount of time has gone into it. The currently title isn't terrible. But my preference would be something like "CRU document release". "e-mail" leads to a misimpression about the contents of the release. Hacking implied that the focus is on hacking, whereas most of the focus is on the release of documents (or the documents released). I agree that it is most likely that it was a hack. However in most cases when someone says a server has been hacked there's some evidence of hacking on the server. The statements I've read (and I admit I may have missed something) say things like '"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.' This isn't a specific statement that they saw evidence of hacking on the server. I oppose "climategate," although it should be mentioned in the article. The press seems to like to call everything they can xxxgate. That is just silly. I'd prefer Misplaced Pages not let itself get caught up in that, but use a more professional-sounding title. Hedrick (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CLIMATEGATE How about calling this page by the name that the public know best because that is the name that will draw the most people in to read this steaming pile of propaganda that has been edited by at least one individual (William Connolley) who was actually in the leaked emails and was a colleague of Mann and Jones. There's a conflict of interest to begin with. I say call this webpage Climategate and make the subject area the content of the emails or abandon this page to the cover-up mob and start a new page called climategate. The emails aren't copyrighted by the way and no one will take any legal action against wikipedia for linking to them so there is no reason why they shouldn't be linked to other than the people who represent realclimate and the CRU here wouldn't want anyone to read them. realclimate is even cited in the article. Thats not biased is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

CLIMATEGATE Call this page by the name the world refers to it by, ClimateGate! Who initaly established this page and whatever the initial motivation for this convoluted name, times have changes, so lets get Wiki with the times and update the name to something the rest of the world understands. BTW there is much information that indicates this was an inside job and the data was leaked not hacked. I also agree, William Connolley and other AGW Misplaced Pages gate-keepers have a conflict of interest regarding this subject.

206.47.249.252 (talk) Sun Spot —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Are we in danger of turning into a chat room, here? I see a lot of discussion, but not a lot of mind changing, or improvement to the article. Should we take a straw poll and see if there's consensus, so we can discuss other things? --DGaw (talk) 17:16, 30 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 many Misplaced Pages articles about various -gates. 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. Q Science (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Second the motion, particularly in light of recent evidence (and it's getting into the wonderful, "reliable" MSM so beloved of Misplaced Pages apparatchiki, too!) on how AGW propagandists who had been infiltrating Misplaced Pages since 2003 in a concerted effort to suppress soundly skeptical science on the subject of the AGW fraud and to slander scientists critical of the CRU correspondents' mendacity have degraded the intellectual integrity of this online encyclopedia for their own nefarious purposes.
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 Watermelon censorship, and the continuation of this duplicitous denial is no longer tolerable. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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? -- Scjessey (talk) 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. Nightmote (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy states that the most common name must be used for naming an article, and that name is "Climategate" as already has been used or recognized by such reliable sources as The Economist (here), Reuters (here), The New York Times (here), The Guardian (here), CNN (here) 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 (see this and here) I proposed this matter to be settled once an for all by a group of real neutral 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.-Mariordo (talk) 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 pointy. 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.-Mariordo (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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".-Mariordo (talk)

Please don't edit war, Mariordo. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.-Mariordo (talk) 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 WP:3RR). 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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!MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"There is no scandal" US News & World Report has named Climate-gate one of the Top 10 Political Scandals of 2009. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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. --TS 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Uh-huh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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. --TS 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The police have their policies, we have ours. If you want to write for the police, more power to you. But here on Misplaced Pages we're supposed to be following WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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. --TS 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 WP:NPOV, you should take it up with the editors there. Please let us know how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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 Radley Balko crime reporting.TMLutas (talk) 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. Pete Tillman (talk) 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 the most common name 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. Q Science (talk) 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. --GoRight (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. See Q1 of the FAQ in the header. Viriditas (talk) 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? --GoRight (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 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. Dragons flight (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you support the change, or not, as an editor? --GoRight (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a change, and related moves (such as those found in this discussion) 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 this NPOV noticeboard discussion 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. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In this conversation there is. Might I remind you, consensus can change. 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. --GoRight (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles that mention "climategate", do so by saying something along the lines of: or, as some have put it, “Climategate.” They usually put the word in scare quotes, 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.
—Apis (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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. --TS 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. --TS 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Who sent Paul Hudson the emails he reported received on Oct 12, 2009? Who uploaded the UEA emails along with other documents reported place on realclimate.org Nov 17, 2009? Unless the identities of these person(s) are known, it remains unproven whether the two events are connected or not. Neither Paul Hudson or the BBC can know if the events are connected unless they know who posted the UEA documents to realclimate.org, which they apparently do not.

Why were personal emails and administrative emails removed prior to placing the emails on realclimate.org? What reason would a hacker have to do this? Hacking is an offence in itself, regardless of the content. A whistle-blower on the other hand would have motive to remove these documents. Internal release of FOI requested documents would not be illegal, while release of personal information could be actionable. The title of the released file suggests the file was released for FOIA reasons.

Also, the time required to sift through emails and remove personal and administrative emails would expose a hacker to risk of discovery and thereby prosecution. Why would they want to do this? A hacker will more likely wish to access and transfer the files with as minimal contact as possible to limit the risk that they can later be connected to the information.24.87.71.192 (talk) 15:29, 29 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 Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 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. Grundle2600 (talk) 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..?" -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you didn't post a link to support your claim. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I did. I posted it at WP:ANI, because this is not the place to get into lengthy meta discussion about your agenda-driven editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote which you attribute to me is not what I said. I posted the accurate quote at that section. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, Grundle. You promised not to edit anything related to climate change, yet here you are. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus to rename this article Climategate, as it is almost always called and as some above have established. Mamalujo (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. And even if there were a thousand editors all insisting we called it "Climategate", that would still not happen because it would be against policy. Even Watergate is not called "Watergate" on Misplaced Pages (it's called Watergate scandal, and only because it is the name of the hotel), and that's the source of all the "-gate" bullshit. Most reliable sources that use the term have it in scare quotes for a reason - because it is a term cooked-up by the skeptics to make more out of the incident than it really is. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus to call it "Climactic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"? That's a lot more loaded than referring to it by the common name. In any event, if we have consensus we have consensus. Policy does not trump consensus, it is a creature of consensus. If people reach a consensus that a content position satisfies Misplaced Pages policies, nobody gets to say "you're wrong, and because I know policy better than you do I get to interpret it." You should know that from quite a few battles where people in the minority were claiming that they are right no matter what anyone thinks. This isn't a BLP or copyright type of thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon, and it's time to call the question. This is getting ridiculous. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous indeed. If anything, there is consensus not to use the -gate term, continuing to pester everyone about it won't change that.
—Apis (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be called by the most common name, which is "climategate". Or even better "climategate scandal". Scjessey: It won't stop being a scandal just because you say so.Echofloripa (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What scandal? And why should this article be named "Climategate"? We already have a redirect. Misplaced Pages isn't a sensationalistic media outlet that relies on skewing headlines and pushing a POV. Time magazine made it very clear that this term was chosen by anti-climate change skeptics. Why should we use their term over a more neutral name that doesn't take sides? Please answer this question directly. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• To the anti-Climategaters: can you folks count? I don't know how to make a formal motion to change the name, but reality (and consensus) trumps preference. The article itself is bad enough -- must the name be a laughing-stock, too? Sheez. And Merry Christmas! Pete Tillman (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is rather funny. Climategate is the obvious name, not some mealy-mouthed agenda-laden alternative. Crap article by the way, but that is another issue. Fails most of the intent of the pillars, while, of course, obeying the letter exactly. Encyclopedic my arse. Greglocock (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is self-evident that the name Climategate has reached critical-mass and has nullified any claim that Time Magazine has made in the past. Consensus has been reached and the title must be changed! So whose dragging their feet? -MrGuy

Change the name back to Climategate and link to the emails. If this article isn't called Climategate and isn't about the content of the emails then I would suggest that a new article is started entitled 'Climategate' to cover the relevant facts. There are two sides here. One side wants to cover climategate and one side wants to cover it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Climatic Research Unit email controversy be renamed and moved to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit documents controversy — as a more accurate description of the subject matter. —TS 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion: #Ongoing discussions on article naming and Move proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"

Is there any support for "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" for the article title?

Support

• Support as proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified support - I have more support for this than the existing title, but less than the version using "data theft". Frankly, I would rather see a speedy move to this "middle ground" option and continue to discussion on other options than leave the inaccurate and POV "e-mail hacking incident" wrongness in place. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - While I reserve the right to revisit my proposal above at a later time, this seems a bit of a step toward a more neutral title so I will support it. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support-This is a step in the right direction, but still a poor title in that the term "documents" does not cover source code. I would favor something along the lines of Revealed/Exposed Climate Research Unit information/data incident/controversy. I still think that this endless naming discussion is due to the lack of a straightfoward naming policy/convention on Misplaced Pages. The current name is truly quite bad, and we should move to something more accurate while the discussion drags on. I experienced an endless debacle in trying to get Bing (search engine) changed to Bing. Nonetheless, as long as we can put up redirects, it doesn't seem to be something worth wasting much time on.Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This shouldn't be called climategate for reasons mentioned time and again, and is nice and general. Ignignot (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, for the reasons given in the preamble.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, it has been decided (many times I believe) that the title should not to restrict article content from discussing the fall out. As such, a more appropriate title would do a great deal to clear up these common confusions about "what the article is about." jheiv (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This title isn't ideal but it's better than the current one. The problem with the current title is that it is about the hacking itself, when the majority of the content of this article is about the controversy that resulted from the content of the documents. Oren0 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. What Oren0 said. That East Anglia was hacked is a supposition without evidence. It is just as likely to have been done by an insider.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified Support The current article name is both in error and POV, and thus it should be renamed, but the new suggestion up for vote is just confusing. It should be a general name for the actual information release incident as well as ensuing fallout, or there should be two different articles. I've posted a link to a Nobel Lauerate panel at this talk page supporting the view that these are two separate issues. (EDIT: Moved from Opposed to Support after having re-read previous move discussions, sorry for the multiple edits) Troed (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The proposed title is not ideal, but it would seem to be a good deal more accurate than what we currently have. The big argument here seems to be that the allegations surrounding the content of the emails cannot be discussed in the article because the article is about the leak/hack of the emails. But in the same vein, it is impermissible to create a separate article about this notable controversy. To some, it would seem the goal is that this controversy not be discussed at all. The situation is unacceptable, and a middle ground must be found. »S0CO 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. GreenMountian (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)— GreenMountian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Inaccurate characterization; User:GreenMountian's edits thus far have been focused solely on Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington. »S0CO 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed title is not ideal, but is better than the current one. I would strongly support "climategate", as this is how all media has been calling the case.Echofloripa (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The document should be titled as neutrally as possible, so as to neither endorse nor condemn the release. Controversy is descriptive (and accurate, if this talk page is any indication.) The proposed move is therefore an improvement. --DGaw (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

• Oppose: -- it's a step in the right direction, but we will continue to look silly to call it something other than Climategate, as the rest of the world does. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages tries to follow a neutral policy. While the rest of the world calls it climategate, certain wikipedians believe that such a name has a negative connotation with scandalous implications.Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete, would you be opposed to using this title with the understanding that the renaming debate would continue? I ask because I have deep concerns about the existing title, and I think that almost anything else would be better, even it is only temporary. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the present title is just awful -- it's making Misplaced Pages a laughing-stock, in the press & elsewhere. This proposal is at least a little better. OK, put me down as "weak, limited interim support." But, eventually, we need to call it what everyone else (even including UEA faculty) does: Climategate. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with the "Climategate" part of it, I am glad that you agree that the current title is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - while we're at it let's retitle Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Release of dense metallic material over Japan. Call it Climategate. Greglocock (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Coverage in the media has focused overwhelmingly on the emails, the hacking thereof, and their implications. Any title that fuzzes "e-mail" to "documents" would be a step away from what the reliable sources are covering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per the RS I provided before in this page, mainstream and reliable media is now using Climategate, therefore it is no longer a pejorative term used only by GW 'contrarians'. The existing and proposed names are blatant OR as the discussion demonstrates that wiki editors are engaged in trying to make up a name for the title. Regarding the interpretation of other policies to support other names, WP:Avoid opens by saying that "There is no word that should never be used in a Misplaced Pages article..." Clearly, we have a qualified exception to the use of the term -gate, because it is the popular most common name and after a month used by media considered RS here at Misplaced Pages, and to avoid the connotations of the term scandal, we could called "Climategate controversy" for the sake of NPOV and to comply with the spirit of WP:Avoid.-Mariordo (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  There is no hope whatsoever of you getting anything that says "Climategate" in the title, because it violates too many policies. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I think "controversy" is an improvement over "incident", but "documents" is just strange. While not completely accurate, "... e-mails controversy" would better reflect the focus of the topic and is closer to what people will search for. Simonmar (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having thought about this at some length, I am pretty much of the same opinion as Simonmar. The fact is that the e-mails are overwhelmingly the main focus of the controversy. The other documents (draft papers and source code) have received very little coverage in reliable sources. Changing the name to imply that they are a major part of the controversy would be misleading and would open the door to demands for coverage of these items by non-reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. CRU certainly has many many more documents than the ones release in this incident. And while one can quibble with possible interpretations, neither emails not source code come to mind when talking about documents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the best suggestion so far perhaps, it excludes the hacking and other events related to the supposed controversy (which is a word to avoid btw). As others have pointed out, the media focus has been on the hack and the contents of e-mails. We should keep the current name until we have more information.
  —Apis (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:AVOID, please see. E-mails, source code and text files are all types of documents. In fact, source code files are text files. I'm a software developer and although I edit my source code files with Visual Studio 2008, I could just as well use Notepad, Microsoft Word and any word processor or text editor I want to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that most reliable sources refer to this as a controversy, even if some do (perhaps even many). The article also cover more than the supposed controversy, for example the "hack" itself and so on. Documents might be technically correct, but emails or source code is not what most think of when they hear "documents" thus it's misleading (just as "data" would be). The central event is the hack of the emails, everything said so far revolves around that: the emails, the "controversy", the police investigations, the FOI investigation, the political reactions and so on.
—Apis (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title perfectly describes the current verifiable truth. The media have solely focussed on the e-mails, which give us a term that is much more identifiable than 'documents'. After statements/enquiries/investigations/arrests/trials in the future, we may get more verifiable information, and then we can rename the article if necessary. There seems to be about one proposal a day to rename this article, and, per Tony Sidaway below, I worry that every single one of them tries to exaggerate, or downplay, some POV aspect or another. --Nigelj (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this article needs some stability - two name change request in less than a month is distracting. Although I accept the name may not be perfect, I think the name debate is serving as an excessive distraction. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning heavily to oppose. I'm concerned that the data theft--which is being investigated by the Norfolk police and the Met., is downplayed by this proposal. --TS 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's part of the documents controversy. Should be just fine.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  That concerns me too, but it is better than the existing title, surely? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, I think it may be a worse title. I'm adding a "further discussion" subsection for extended discussion. --TS 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  After more contemplation, and noting with thanks all the arguments expressed for and against, I've decided to oppose because I agree that this is a distraction. --TS 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not every reader of the emails considers their content to be controversial. In fact almost all informed readers do not. "Controversy" is an interpretation that has been put on them by some people with an agenda to push. To concede that they are controversial would be partisan and make the article POV. Lumos3 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  Use of the term "controversy" does not imply that the emails themselves are controversial, only that they have generated controversy, which is nearly impossible to deny . By your same logic, should we remove/rename the global warming controversy article? Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the term "controversy" implies that the emails themselves are controversial. I would be happier with a word like "dispute". Lumos3 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  Your statement that "almost all informed readers" do not consider the actual content of the emails to be controversial sounds to me like weasel words and POV. If I am wrong about this, I apologize. That the actual content is controversial can be proven by the sheer amount of sources. A discussion about how "informed" such sources are is a discussion that is appropriate for the article.Jarhed (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The focus of the article needs to be on the facts, not on the surrounding controversy. That is, we primarily need sources reporting on the facts, not sources reporting on how other sources are discussing the facts. "Climatic Research unit e-mail incident" might be a better title, as the e-mails themselves, rather than the particular way in which they were obtained, are the main focus of most reports.  Cs32en  14:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It is an email hacking incident. Also, although I searched "climategate" for lack of a better idea, I was very glad to see that climategate was not used as the title of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• "'Oppose'" This incident has been named "Climategate" by the public and the press. There is a Misplaced Pages article on Watergate, Nannygate, and even Monicagate. There's even an article listing all the -gate scandals that Misplaced Pages writes about. This article should be called Climategate. The "redirect from climategate" to this page suggests to the reader that he or she should also "redirect their view" of the scandal. I would like to see Misplaced Pages become a repository of facts. The global warming believers want to stop pages like this from undermining their case for global action, which is precisely what Climategate is all about: scientists substituting data they don't like for data they do like. So rename it Climategate.--Kevan Hashemi 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevanhashemi (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

No, there is not an article called Nannygate or Monicagate. Also, it is worth noting that (I'd bet) that there were not thousands of words written on the Misplaced Pages talk pages to argue the article title in the Lewinsky affair. That should tell you something. Gandydancer (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Call it ClimateGate, thats what the world knows it by. Any title with hacking in it is speculative as ot may have been an internal leak.

206.47.249.252 (talk) Sun Spot —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

• Oppose Just looking at the principles listed in WP:NAME "Deciding an article name", the proposed name (much like the current) appears: not recognizable, not easy to find, hardly preicise (actions of scientists other than from CRU could be within scope of the article), not concise, and no opinion as to consistency. Doc15071969 (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• -Kmhkmh (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Because we really need more of it! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this section is so that people will have somewhere other than the for/against straw poll to put their comments.

I've started the process of requesting this move. The discussion should last seven days and then if consensus is achieve the article can be moved. --TS 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Article title

New discussion moved here to avoid redundancy - Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This title: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident :is to POV towards the premise that this was definately a "hacking".

I propose a new title: Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy ith a re-direct sending the old page title to the new page.

Comments? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Q5. On the suggestion of a move, see the discussion at #Requested move which concerns a very similar suggestion. TS 19:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on either front. The FAQs don't have a lot of force and they have been added rather speedily, but moreover, the fact of a police investigation does not establish either that something is true, or that its truth is part of the nomenclature of things to the point where the title is made for an assertion of truth. In fact it is likely that the emails were hacked, but that's just not how the sources choose to summarize and title the event. The public discussion centers more on what the emails say, and the political forces behind that, than the presumably illegal way in which the emails were released. The discussion was rather free-form and posed in a way that made it impossible to reach consensus. One thing it did establish is that editors in general prefer a neutral, descriptive, and broader term like "e-mail controversy" over "hacking incident", although no single proposal found a great number of adherents. I think whatever we decide in the end we should at least improve the title. At present it sticks out to readers as a peculiarity, so I don't think it does them or Misplaced Pages a great service. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the daily restart of the renaming debate. It is clear from this proposal that what "sticks out" to this reader is that it mentions 'hacking' and doesn't emphasise the ensuing blogosphere 'controversy' enough for their taste. Every suggestion is based on some POV. I maintain that we have sufficient evidence from the statements of the involved parties (including the UAE and the police) that the server was hacked and that this wasn't an intentional publication. The hackers' intention to create a blogosphere hoo-hah that exactly coincided with the Copenhagen conference has been surmised by several commentators close to the facts (including the British Prime Minister). Therefore I regard the present title as much more balanced than this proposal as it takes no POV at all, other than not to pander to the hackers by recognising their (now past) partial success of creating a minor controversy among climate denier blogs during COP15. There is no scientific controversy, and the results of the enquiries are not yet in as to whether there will be a staffing controversy within UEA. --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, how can you say the word "hacking" is not POV? It's only been alleged there was a "hack". There's no proof, no culprits, no charges, no arrests, no prosecution. Personally, I feel my efforts to get the phrase "reported hacking" to replace plain "hacking" is more accurate and honest - based on what's actually been in the news so far. The media has done a great job of characterizing the source of the initial release as a "hack/hacking" but beyond the intial assertions by the center, no information, data or proof has come out which supports this. Where are the findings? No audit trail from the servers yet? Where is the proof that a forensic examination - routine in such a serious breach - has occured? Don't you see how simply parroting the the term "hacking" with no qualifier such as "alleged" or "reported" is sheer and obvious bias? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The main body of the controversy, judging by the sources and extent of coverage, is not over the fact that private electronic files were released, presumably illegally and in a selective or manipulative fashion, but that the release of the files fomented doubt and dispute among politicians, partisans, the public, etc., over the state of climate change science and its research institutions. To characterize the whole thing as a hacking incident misses the point. That is one part of a multifaceted public controversy, and not the largest part. It is not a matter of "taste" and "pandering", etc., and I would appreciate a toning down of the testy overblown rhetoric on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

After all that was said and done, more was said than done. Sigh.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the legal system works in your country, but here in the UK, once the victim calls in the police and the police say they are investigating a crime, that's about all we expect to hear until the arrests and then the trial. we don't expect to find server logs on the police website at this stage. They have told us the facts once, and that's it. We're not going to start altering those facts, or drfifting off into blogosphere-style speculation here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ almighty this is getting ridiculous. What happened at the CRU was data theft, plain and simple. Data (emails, code, other data) were stolen from the CRU when their server was illegally accessed (POV term "hacked"). Controversy arose when the data were disseminated, because lots of climate skeptics and extremely stupid journalists misinterpreted (or deliberately misrepresented) some of what was being said in the private emails. So the article should have a title that includes "Climatic Research Unit", "data theft" and "controversy" (I'm being charitable with that last one) - Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy sounds about right. Anything that doesn't say that will probably not get my !vote unless somebody tries to buy me off with a lifetime supply of Krispy Kreme doughnuts or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You are getting emotional and I suggest that you calm down. If you are some authority about what constitutes data theft, then that is POV and original research. There has been a lot of speculation in reliable sources on this subject, but nothing has been determined one way or another. "Hacking" and "data theft" might be appropriate to describe this incident someday, but also may not. Right now, I can't imagine any other approach than to stick to the facts.Jarhed (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, you are wrong the e-mails were not and never private. They were all subject to foi requests. Yes it was stolen, even if released by a whistle blower or the .zip was left on a public server by mistake, (there is no way it was a hack no hacker could have gotten all those files seperatly) But the constant claims that they were private is plain out wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Climatic Research Unit data-breach controversy (or incident)? That would take care of the hacking/leaking unknown. It also covers things other than e-mails which were included. JookBocks (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

It looks as if the proposal (Is there any support for "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" for the article title?) has (albeit a narrow) consensus when considering that most of the oppose !votes don't actually address the new title but propose using Climategate. Can we get this over with and close this topic? jhe_iv (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

hack or leak?

There is an edit war going on:

• Original edit:
• Reverts: , , , , , , ,
• Editors: 216.153.214.89, Nigelj, RMHED, ChrisO, KimDabelsteinPetersen, 141.157.189.3, Scjessey, Psb777

It would be nice to get a consensus about the edit on the talk page rather than bumping the rev count. I am fine with the qualified language, and actually don't see what is so bad about it. jheiv (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy about being templated for this. I am not in the business of checking to see what edits other people have been making. I simply reverted the last edit I saw which seemed to put unsourced speculation into the article, and then I found myself being accused of edit warring. I call BS on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

a) I apologized for templating and not simply notifying you, b) That fact is, you made an edit in the middle of an obvious edit war that perpetuated it, if you don't want to check the history, I don't know what to tell you. Of course the edit was in AGF, there was no report made about edit warring, simply a notification that one was ongoing. I'm sorry if I'm trying to stop the edit war -- would you prefer edit wars go on without being pointed out? jheiv (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the matter was brought up here first. 8 different editors, which (assuming good faith) acted independently of one another should not be accused of edit warring. Hopefully, this can be regarded as one of those "teachable moments" everyone seems to be referring to nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was brought up here first. This section was added ten minutes before your revert. I'm trying to be fair here but repeatedly commenting about getting notified about being involved in an edit war is a little weird. WP:EW states: An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Unfortunately, this is, and was, the case -- hence the notification on your talk page. If you have further problems with me or my actions, please take it up on a noticeboard or on my talk page. jheiv (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit different when we are talking about reverting WP:SPA activity, or original research. Arbitrarily declaring it to be an "edit war" because of your strict interpretation of WP:EW is unreasonable when each editor has only made a single edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The theft is alleged, it is not yet established as fact. It is possibly leaked by an insider, and there is even some very very wild speculation that it was deliberately released! In the interim, until someone is charged or confesses, best surely to refer to the release/leak/theft of the emails using a less emotive term. I would prefer "alleged theft" or maybe "leak". "Alleged theft" is factual. "Theft" is not. Edit war or not, surely we must be uncontroversially correct? "Alleged theft" is not controversial. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. Verifiable reliable sources use words like "hacked", "stolen" and "theft" consistently. Read WP:TRUTH for more on why original research like adding "alleged" and other ambiguous terms would be inappropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source for the claim is EAU. They have issued a claim that their data was stolen, and until there is a reliable source that states that the data was actually stolen then it is only alleged that it was stolen. For example, if someone dies under unusual circumstances one cannot state that they were murdered explicitly because that is a statement of fact. This is the same situation. EAU is making a statement that there data was stolen, yet this is only their claim, and to present this incident from their point of view would be aviolation of NPOV. At this time it has only been alleged that the data was stolen, and there is nothing wrong with stating that. WP:TRUTH does not apply since we are not stating a truth. A truth would be to state explicitly that they were stolen or were not stolen without an RS that makes that claim. If anything WP:TRUTH weakens the view that it should not be stated as "alleged" since you are making a statement of truth without a RS to back it up. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Arzel, you said it much better than me.216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Arzel is wrong. For example, The Washington Post: "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center." The Associated Press: "The theft of the e-mails and their publication online..." -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You just do not read what you are replying to, The precise WP-rules-compliant rebuttal to your argument is contained in the posting to which you only appear to be replying. Yours is merely an argument by contradiction, so it is worthless. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ, Sure you won't refuse to address the points I made elsewhere on this page, will you? And by "address" I don't mean the off-topic snideness you posted here. Now, to address the point you make, which is that some reliable sources, OVER A MONTH AGO, simply parroted the center's claims of "hack and "stole"; my answer to that is big whoop! At the time, the media seemed willing to take the center's assertions at face value, this is obvious. What is less obvious is why YOU want to cripple the narrative of this article by refusing to add perfectly true context. When framing an article, decisions must be made by the editors so as to not mislead our readers. At this point, to omit that nothing more than "allegations" support the claims of "hack" and "stole" is to be patently dishonest. The decent way to handle it is to make clear that the hack is alleged and link to contemporaneous articles which directly quote those making the allegations. Its' totem-pole "news" to link to media echo-chamber reports. The BBC article was fine because it directly quoted the center's spokesperson. We are improperly coming down on the side of the accusers if we print unqualified conclusions without reliable source PROOF of the conclusions. That the emails are now out is an undeniable fact. But, how they got out has only been asserted, not proved. It's a conclusion to say "hacked". It's a conclusion to say "stolen". There is NO FOUNDATION for those conclusions to be found IN ANY reliable source other than the allegation of the center. Therefore, it's "alleged". FYI: If someone in authority comes out and says (ie; police) "we have investigated and can confirm a hack/theft", then we can drop the qualifer. Not until. By the way, if your house burns down and you say "it was arson", does that make it arson? No - "arson" is a conclusion regarding a crime. Conclusions of law are made by authorities, not by perceived victims. If the Fire Marshall says "arson" then it's arson. But even with that, if someone is charged, it's still "accused" until convicted. I know this is contentious, but it need not be so - please just be clean about the proper premise. Don't hang your hat on media-parroted allegations. Merely because you rely upon them, doesn't transform those allegations into fact. The fact regarding the hack is that a hack was reported. That's true - a report of a hack was made. What's not clearly true however, is if a hack actually occurred. Until we have better sourcing beyond raw assertion (media repeated or not), this is "alleged" and/or "reported", nothing more. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

216.153.., get a name! You're comment is extremely well thought-out and the comparison a very instructive one -- it would carry more weight with many if backed by a username. jhe_iv (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I tried taking a user name that was the same as my IP and was refused. I really don't even want a name. I want people to read my posts for what they are worth - which is no more or less than if a name was attached. Each edit should speak for itself. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world I cannot even see what the counter-argument is! The theft is alleged. The release of the info is not confirmed as theft and certainly not proven so. I think that we just tone down the language to something emotionally neutral. And that we start now. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Could the hacking have been committed by an insider? Yes, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld, Reuters and PC World which which quotes an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News, CNET, MSNBC, eWeek, InfoWorld, USA Today and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. Previously, it has been established that the sentence "Robert Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said that "80 percent of the time it's an insider." meets reliable source guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have already established that Graham is anything but reliable, due to the fact that he is a self-confessed climate skeptic. His "expert" opinion is rendered with no access to the servers that were compromised, and no access to the investigators. His tainted opinion carries no weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that his is a skeptic regarding AGW equates to his opinion being deemed worthless? Since when did you become the arbitor of what is or what is not valid? Arzel (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact he is a stated skeptic is part of the problem, but his opinion is basically worthless because he based it (and he freely admits this) on scant information (he only had access to the stolen files, but nothing else). Why are we having to cover this ground again? -- Scjessey (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This conclusion "due to the fact that he is a self-confessed climate skeptic" is quite unacceptable. There's a broad range of views in the gamut of climate skepticism, some of which are undeniably cranks, some of which (e.g. Lomborg) largely accept the IPCC findings. To dismiss someone simply because they could be labeled a skeptic is wrong. Let's not do it.--SPhilbrickT 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. His opinion should be dismissed based on the fact that his "analysis" was limited to the zip file, so most of the conclusions he drew about the workings of the UEA servers were speculative. The fact that he is also a climate change skeptic weakens his credibility further. All this he freely admits in his own blog on the subject, so I don't know why this is seen as "unacceptable" on my part. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he is also a climate change skeptic weakens his credibility further. No, it doesn't. You are imputing causality when even correlation is unlikely. It would be difficult to draw conclusions beyond broad generalities from that appellation, but nothing at all can be inferred regarding credibility. I don't know the person, so it is possible he is not, in fact credible, but that conclusion cannot be gleaned from your premise.--SPhilbrickT 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the word "hack" is that in the common vernacular, it's generally understood to be an illegal intrusion into a computer system (in the computer power-user context, it can mean an unorthodox and/or ad-hoc, make-do solution) therefore, because of the connotation of illegality, unless and until there are reports of some sort of official findings from legal authorities, then it's got to be described as "alleged". There's no reason to be confused about this. Let's take the arson example and apply it to this case: If the center spokesperson said "we suffered a fire" and we found that quote in a reliable source, we would print: "The Climate center suffered a fire". But if the spokesperson said, "we suffered a fire, it was arson", even if the reliable source prints that as "Climate center suffers arson fire", because the allegation (arson) is one which requires an official finding to be true, we must write it as "alleged". Same with this. What the spokesperson says is not determinative of what actually happened - not without more proof or an official finding. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources are specific on this matter, and we say was the reliable sources say. That's all there is to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously correct in terms of Misplaced Pages policy; this is how the overwhelming majority of reliable sources have reported the matter. But something tells me this isn't "all there is to it." People will keep arguing and pressing and arguing and contending and disputing and contending and pressing and asserting and proposing and arguing and insisting that this is "alleged" until they get their way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable source" is not a carte blanche which we attach to a given list of media outlets - a carte blanche which compels us to accept as accurate everything they publish. Reliability of the sources is a standards test to weed out flaky oddballs, not to blindly force us to parrot verbatim what they publish. The media may not want to concede that this is "alleged" only, but we do not need a source which phrases it that way. We only need the PRIMARY source, which the direct quote of the center spokesperson. And based on that quote alone, it's only an allegation. No source, reliable or otherwise has appeared on scene as an authoratative Primary source. It's a two part test 1) authoritative primary source and 2) printed by a reliable source. So far, prong #1 has not passed muster. This remains alleged only. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. It is a central policy of Misplaced Pages that everything must be verifiable, and that a preponderance of reliable sources will hold sway over a smaller number of conflicting sources (or any number of crappy sources, of course). -- Scjessey (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The BEST reliable source is one which quotes within it a direct connection to a primary source. If you take two NY Times articles (NYT being reliable) with one having direct quotes by those involved, and the other having only the conclusions of the reporter, the one with the quotes is superior as a source to the one without. Now if you take this further and you have quotes in both, but one quotes bit players and the other quotes the authorities, the article which quotes the authorities is a better source. And to take this even further, if you allege something that only an expert or authority can definatively say is so, then unless your article quotes an expert, the source is deficient - even if published by an otheriwse reliable organization. Unless an authoritative expert weighs in, the claim of "hacking" is nothing more than an allegation. Read definition #3 here 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible soulution. Simply attribute the claim to CRU without explicity stating it is a claim. This follows the reliable sources that Scjessey will accept and removes the statement of fact. Arzel (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not acceptable, because there are many reliable sources (including two I noted above) that describe the incident as a theft, or the data as stolen, that are independent of the CRU statements. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ, the "reliable" sources you refer to are all derivatives of the sole primary source in this issue which is the non-authoritative contention of the spoksperson. Somehow, you seem to think that totem-pole reporting elevates the contentions of the spokesperson to authoritative status. It's now obvious that you are being intentionally obtuse and are refusing to delliberate here. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the reference I just added to the article (which is also used elsewhere) uses only the CRU statement as a "confirmation" to their own reporting, so we now have an independent source that means we don't need to attribute the info to the CRU or stuff in "allegedly"-type language. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - Do you even know how to understand a primary source reference? Yes, the WAPO is a reliable source and yes the Climate center's spokesperson is a primary source, BUT for the assertion being made, that spokesperson is NOT authoritative. It would be no different than if the valet for Brittany Murphy said "she died, of a heart attack". WTH does a valet know about a cause of death? Nothing. WTH does a spokesperson know about the source of access? Obviously nothing. How do we know this? Because the center called in the police to investigate. It's clear that answers are still being sought and have not yet been arrived at. Until they are, it's only an allegation. Once again, please read definition #3 here 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." - like the WaPo article. WP:RS and WP:V trump your WP:TRUTH. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I am simply shocked at your reasoning. Without primary sources, there ARE NO secondary sources. All secondaries are always derivatives and ALWAYS fall in their validity IF the primary source they are derived from is faulty. It is simply faulty reasoning to accept at face value an allegation by a non-authority on the matter of criminal act. The spokesperson IS NOT an authority on what constitutes "a hack". If you can't understand this, there is no reasoning with you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how it is possible for you to reason with me when your logic is inherently faulty. On Misplaced Pages, we follow Misplaced Pages policy. Funny, eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy does not include re-printing unsubstantiated allegations of criminal acts - whether they are directed at actual persons or just lobbed out there as this one was. As for my logic being "faulty" I think the word you seek is "misapplied". If you claim that my conclusion is wrong because I fail to follow policy, that doesn't make my logic is wrong, it means my premise is wrong. Personally, I think you are wrong too, so in that we are equal. It's my view that you can't see the forest for the trees here and are trying legalistically escape from the inesecapable. The assertion of "hacking" is unproven and for that reason, it remains nothing more than an allegation. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting that "hacking" is appropriate. In fact, I have spoken often on why I believe the word to be inappropriate in this article's title. What is not in doubt, however, is the act of theft. It has been covered by a number of independent reliable sources, and also confirmed by the CRU. So we have both primary and secondary sources agreeing that data were stolen in an act of theft. The investigation being conducted by Norfolk police seeks to identify the thief or thieves, not whether or not a theft occurred. You've been reading too much skeptic fantasy blogs, by the sound of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The spokesperson MIGHT be an authority on whether the material was taken without permission, but he might not. We don't have enough information to know. Even so, it's still only alleged that the material was stolen. That is, unless we are going to presume anonymous guilt. I am not willing to presume guilt in criminal matters, that's why I prefer "alleged". Do you see my point on this? Does wikipedia have a policy on the presumption of guilt in open criminal investigations? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see your point. Reliable sources establish a theft took place. Guilt has yet to be placed because no offender has been identified. In otherwords, they have found the mutilated corpse but they haven't found the murderer yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Please show me ONE article that has even ONE SHRED OF PROOF that an actual hack occured or that the release of this information rises to the level of theft. Summations by reporters don't cut it. I want an article with an actual quote by an actual person in position to speak authoritatively. You won't find one because the center's spokesperson parsed his words very carefully to SOUND this way, but in fact nothing directly quoted back to him or the police rises to a standard beyond conjecture. You have simply fallen into the trap of failing to carefully read what's actually been published as quotes. And it's funny you refer to a corpse because that is what I am calling on you to do - show me, the corpse (Habeas corpus) 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have described the incident as a theft of data. That is what Misplaced Pages relies on. Reliable sources are Misplaced Pages's equivalent of a corpse. This is basic stuff. Maybe you should actually read some of Misplaced Pages's policies? -- Scjessey (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerous sources repeat an allegation of theft. Those sources are not necessarily reliable. At present all we know is that there was an unauthorised release of data. This may have been a 'hack', or it may have been a whistleblower, the investigation by UK and US have neither confirmed nor denied any hack. The claims of a 'hack' originate from either the CRU or Real Climate. Whilst they may be reliable sources, they also have conflicts of interest in protecting their reputations. Prior to the FOIA.zip leak, other data had been found on public FTP servers at CRU with weak or no protection. After that became known, access was removed. CRU staff had admin rights on the Real Climate servers and the released emails show lax or relaxed security with passwords being mailed around en clear. Pending any neutral or impartial sources, eg law enforcement statements regarding the incident, I would suggest wiki's neutrality policies be followed to avoid emotive references. But one thing this incident has shown is how hard it can be to avoid emotion and bias in this debate, not to mention speculation from unreliable and/or uniformed sources such suggesting state intelligence agencies were involved. The way this debate is being conducted just highlights how entrenched people's views are, and how polarised the climate debate is.81.130.208.8 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The numerous sources you refer to do nothing more than reliably repeat an allegation. An allegation, repeated by a source, reliable or otherwise, does not become a conclusion. Perhaps you should pay more attention to honing your reasoning, and stop condescending me with instructions to adopt your (mistaken) understanding of how to rely upon WP:RS. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just realized who I've been debating with all this time. I shall waste no further time with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your false allegation is slanderous and is being used as a straw-dog by you to avoid conceding anything. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that the university spokesperson is, in fact, a secondary source. Her only affiliation with the e-mail incident is that she works at the university where it happened. She is not directly involved in the incident itself. So she has no possible hidden motivation to report anything but the truth. One could argue that she, being the spokesperson, must represent the college in as positive a light as possible, but "hack" does that no better than "leak" or "whistleblowing". so why choose hack? Because, obviously, it was a hack. The police are ivestigating a hack too. How is this in cotention at all?Farsight001 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the article which quotes the spokesperson stating the word "hack"? Come back and discuss your point after you find one. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?! Have you read a single citation provided in the article? It's all over the place. It took me literally 10 seconds to click on the first citation of the article body to see mention of the spokesperson calling it a hack. Many of the following citations say the same.Farsight001 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please post the verbatim quote here and a link to the article containing it here and I will reply. I am not going to guess what you are referring to. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you are too lazy to go to where I pointed you to, you have absolutely no business editing or even commenting on this article, or contributing to wikipedia at all. It is not hard to click on the "article" tab at the top of the page, scroll to the beginning of the article body, click the very first citation used, and read the article it directs you to. that you are unwilling to do something so simple reveals to me and everyone else that you're just trying to be difficult. I'm not going to play your game. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collaborative effort. That means we all contribute, not that I wait on you hand and foot and provide you with everything you ask for without you having to do anything. I have enough needy patients as it is.Farsight001 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The spokesperson did not use the word "hack", it was used by the reporters in their summaries, but it has not be attributed to the spokesperson and there is no quote contending that it was. And please don't call me lazy - that's a personal attack and it doesn't belong here. Also, with less keystrokes than it took you to post your harsh retort, you could have simply cut & pasted the verbatim quote and the URL link. This tells me that you can't. I say you can't because it's not there. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In one sentence you say that the spokesperson didn't use the word hack in the article. Two sentences later you claim that the article doesn't even exist. So does it exist or doesn't it? This blatant self-contradition that simply can't be made on accident, in conjunction with the fact that anyone following my instructions can see the article for themselves, just affirms that you're not here to contribute, but rather to make trouble. Farsight001 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to post the verbatim quote and URL linking to the article containing it. You have declined. I do not claim to have perfect reading comprehension, nor do I claim to have read every news article on this subject. However, of the ones that I have read - including the majority of those linked to by this article, I do not see any which quote the spokesperson as using the word "hack". It would be simpler for you to post as I've asked you to, but this is too much trouble for you? Perhaps if you feel that talking to me is "trouble" the easy solution for you is to not talk to me. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to post the quote, yes. Rather than do your work for you I directed you to how to find it. My instructions were simple and just as effective as posting the url and quote. Perhaps instead of telling you where to find it I should have told you where you to stick it instead? Seeing as how you're refusing to check the link I pointed you to, or to even look for it as far as I can tell, both suggestions would be equally effective.Farsight001 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You are asking me to prove a negative, I am asking you to prove a positive. You say the quote exists, I say it does not. You say you know which article it's in, I say you are mistaken in that what you read is not a direct quote. The disagreemnt can be solved only by you posting the specific quote. Also, since link position is relative, anyone following this thread might not look at the same link you originally pointed to. The best, most accurate solution is for you to post the quote AND link here. If you don't, I take that as a concession by you that your assertion made above is false and/or that you are mistaken. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROLLPlease don't feed the troll. Farsight001 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FS- I think you calling me a troll is out of order here and I ask that you remove that post. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell.Farsight001 (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROLL WP:SOCK. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - I am again admonishing you to desist from making unsubstantiated (and false) "sock" accusations. You are far too experienced to make such accusations without checkuser corroboration. If you don't stop it, I am going to flag your user page with a warning about personal attacks and I will additionally post an alert about you on WP:ANI. Your conduct here so far has been deplorable. You should recuse yourself from this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. My suspicion that you are a sock puppet is based on your editing behavior and language. I see from looking back at your own talk page that other editors have come to the same conclusion as I have. I would request a checkuser, but any evidence I presented would have to delve deeply into your past history. Frankly, I can't be bothered. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - You just don't "get it" do you? This talk page is not the place for your suspicions. And it's certainly not the place for your slanderous accusations. Imperious and demeaning comments really have no place here. Please stop. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing discussion. However, it's also amazingly POV-infected. Scjessey repeatedly states that all sources claim this to be a hack/theft and that there are no or not enough (?) reliable sources to support the language of "leaked". This is clearly wrong, many MSMs that copied the statements of "stolen" verbatim from the beginning how now changed their language to "leaked" instead or in addition to*. It's not up to us to decide which is correct, but we should report both viewpoints according to reliable sources - "making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". *) CBSNews Washington Post Wall Street Journal Troed (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just glancing at the URLs you've provided, it appears that you are citing blogs/opinion pieces. Which supports your paraphrase of Scjessey. Yet you seem to take issue with his point. If so, you need to provide evidence which supports your position, not his. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was quite sure I was linking to MSM in accordance to reliable sources to help solve the apparent dispute regarding how MSM are wording this incident. Feel free to correct me if you feel the use of "leaked" in my links is not supported by CBS News ("Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com"), Washington Post (who selected the panel Ben Lieberman is on) and Wall Street Journal (who selects op-ed pieces for publishing). According to reliable sources - "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". Thus, it's not up to Scjessey to claim that the language used in (for example) the links I gave is of no interest for Misplaced Pages to document. Troed (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something. I was not aware that any reliable source existed that said the data were "leaked". If such a link exists, feel free to post it on my talk page (it is getting all to easy to miss stuff on this page). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The links can be found in my post just above these ones. Since MSM uses "leaked" to describe the data we must, according to guidelines, report it as well. It's not up to us to start a discussion on whether one or another opinion on the matter is more factual or not. Or maybe I've misunderstood the (long!) discussion? Troed (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"I was quite sure I was linking to MSM in accordance to reliable sources" - the articles you linked to were blogs and opinion pieces, not news reporting. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, since we're talking about the description "leaked" in MSM. Please stop pushing your POV here. Troed (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Its completely irrelevant for me to point out that your sources contradict your argument? OK then.... Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All three of the sources provided by Troed are opinion pieces, and not mainstream media reporting at all. There is no mainstream media (and certainly no reliable source) supporting the use of the word "leak" or similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey and Guettarda - you are not, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, judges of what to include from MSM or not here. I've sourced MSM as using the word leak, and I'll happily add "allegedly hacked" (Hilary Whiteman, CNN) to that. Why do you believe a Misplaced Pages article should reflect your personal views and not the material supported by our guidelines? Troed (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're citing opinion pieces and blogs which, per our guidelines are less than reliable for things like this. Please familiarise yourself with the policies you're citing. Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This seems to stem from the fact that you believe we're supposed to take side in what has actually happened. We're not. We're reporting what the MSM says about the subject, and I've clearly shown that they're using (contrary to what Scjessey claims at this talk page) qualifiers as "allegedly" and "leaked" in addition to stolen/theft etc. THAT is what we're supposed to report. Please familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages guidelines on original research and NPOV. Troed (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to understand them first, before you lecture others on what they mean. Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, exactly. S/he was complaining about your comment that there are no reliable sources which support her/his point. And then proceeded to quote unreliable sources. And when I pointed that out, s/he said it was irrelevant to point out that her/his "evidence" supported your point, not her/his. Which is why I am baffled. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Farsight, I'm not sure why you are refusing to post the quote. It would take far less time to post the quote than to play these games. I've seen this approach used in many online discussions. What often happens is that the other person does search for the quote, pulls together a coherent argument against the quote, only to be told, "that wasn't the right quote". You say it is the first citation. Let's examine it. The first citation is . The first observation I'll make is that it does not contain the word "hack". This is game, set, match, but let's AGF and see if the citation supports the general contention. We could selectively quote and post the phrase "illegally taken from the university", as support for the contention that "illegal" is support by RS. However, note that a fuller quote says" appears to have been illegally taken from the university". The qualifying phrase is critical. The spokeperson is being careful, not definitely saying it is illegal, but appears to be illegal. On the basis of this alone, the wording should be changed, but if someone wants to do an exhaustive survey, and can show that this is an anomalous quote, we can debate changing it back.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, minor update, I see that the current version does have the proper qualifiers. My argument still stands - the onus is on those wanting to remove "alleged" to show why the first RS is not so reliable.--SPhilbrickT 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All: Given the length of the discussion above, it appears both sides have staked out their positions very clearly. I am not seeing a lot of indication that either side is working toward compromise, however. Maybe I'm simply overlooking it.

My own objection to the word (last week) was based in part on our responsibility as Misplaced Pages editors to strive for an impartial tone in all articles: "...Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. ...The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

The term "stolen", even if cited in reliable sources, is an accusation of a crime for which no conviction has been secured AND a characterization favored by one side in a heated dispute. It is therefore inherently partial.

The fact that some media accounts use the term "stolen" does not mean the article must necessarily use it, correct? Could those who favor the use of the term explain to those who do not why they believe it must be included, even with the concerns other editors have raised? Is there a more neutral term you would find acceptable? --DGaw (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. The claim that this was an "alleged" theft is not supported by sources. No reliable sources are claiming that the release of these emails was with the permission of either the UEA or the authors of the emails/files. They were "taken without permission". The claim that "theft" is not substantiated is the opinion of various editors here (and perhaps some bloggers). So the issue is simple - do we follow sources, or do we diverge from sources to include the opinions of various editors? I think the answer to that question is obvious. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, you are demonstrating a clear POV here. Please refrain from doing so. A whistleblower or public release by accident (which has happened before) is also "without permission" but still do not merit the wording "stolen". Additionally, there are NO (zero) reliable sources since the investigations aren't completed. The issue is being reported by the MSM as both "hacked" as well as "allegedly hacked" as well as "leaked". That, and not your POV, is what we should document here. Troed (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, a whistleblower who steals documents still steals them. For the greater good, perhaps. But it doesn't make it not theft. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since we're reporting what the MSM are saying. We're not making the decisions on whether they were stolen or not. There is clear and sourced support for use of the words "allegedly" and "leaked", as I've shown they're in use by the MSM. Troed (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating "MSM" (whatever it is you mean by that) with "reliable sources". A blog published on the website of a major news outlet is still a blog. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And the link above is not, even though your comment is irrelevant to the question. It's clear that you are pushing a single POV at this talk page - I have properly sourced all the statements I've made trying to achieve NPOV. Until the investigations into the incident have completed there exists nothing but "opinions" as to what has taken place. The important factor for Misplaced Pages is to report upon what the MainStream Media says about the incident up until then - with a neutral point of view. Troed (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The use of "alleged" and "supposed" is nothing more than unsourced personal commentary added by individual editors. That has no place in this or any other article. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since "alleged" can mean "declared or stated to be as described"], all actual thefts are also alleged thefts by definition (even though not all alleged thefts are actual thefts). So the use of "alleged" is actually supported by ALL of the sources that uses the phrase "thefts."

However, my sense--and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that some editors who object to the use of the word "allegedly" are concerned that the word carries with it the connotation that something is said to be so but isn't really, per the alternative meaning, "doubtful; suspect; supposed". If that is so then both sides here are concerned about the impartiality of the article. So the question remains: how do we work together to make the article more neutral? Our job, after all, is to improve the article, not win an argument.

Let's say we don't use the phrase allegedly. Even if the word "stolen" is factually correct, it's not impartial. What other wording might be used to improve the neutrality of the article, and reach consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGaw (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WTA? Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I haved indeed read WP:WTA and it specifically allows for "alleged" to be used regarding legal allegations. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed, which is why if you look just above your reply, you will see I said, "Let's say we don't use the phrase allegedly." I also wrote, "...both sides here are concerned about the impartiality of the article. So the question remains: how do we work together to make the article more neutral? Our job, after all, is to improve the article, not win an argument" and "Even if the word "stolen" is factually correct, it's not impartial. What other wording might be used to improve the neutrality of the article, and reach consensus?" --DGaw (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it not impartial to use the normal English terminology? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As for consensus - what is the correct compromise between, on one hand, "apply policy" and on the other "disregard policy because I don't like the word 'stolen'"? Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the discussion. It's not about not using the word stolen, it's about not pushing a single POV. The MSM are, pending ongoing investigations by the authorities, calling it a leak as well as the material having been allegedly stolen. That is what we should document. Troed (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, no. You're mistaken. Sorry. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Until you've managed to support your opinions I can't say you're in a position to claim others to be mistaken. You're trying to push a POV, I'm not (feel free to use the word "stolen" as much as you want - in addition to the other descriptions in use by the media). I'm sourcing my statements, you're not. "Mmm, no" doesn't really cut it. Troed (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda important that your sources support, rather than contradict, your assertions. Really, it is. Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, they do. Please refraim from posting falsehood in support of your POV in the discussion. Here is an example where CNN in a journalistic report use the phrase "allegedly hacked and leaked". Troed (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be really nice if this discussion were not so overtly pedantic. When a crime is alleged to be committed, it is always referred to as "alleged" until a crime has been proven in a court of law. There is no point in being obtuse and arguing the specifics to whether this is sometimes referred to as "Allegedly Stolen" to sometimes referred to as simply "Stolen". How can anyone here claim with good concience that a crime actually took place with 100% conviction? It has been almost two months now and there are not even any specific suspects, only vague accusations that it was "The Russians", like some cold war mentality of applying all evil ills to one entity. WP is not the place to "Prove" your case. Arzel (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, re: "How is it not impartial to use the normal English terminology?" You are saying it's not impartial to use the normal English terminology "allegedly." That's how.

The correct compromise between using a word that one group feels is biased and another word another group feels is biased is to use neither word, and find a neutral word both groups can agree on. You have not yet proposed an alternative, so I'll offer one. I propose the first sentence is both descriptive and more neutral when both words are simply omitted:

"The breach was first discovered after someone hacked the server of the RealClimate website on 17 November and uploaded a copy of the files."

"The material released comprised more than 1,000 e-mails..." etc.

The third use of stolen is appropriate, as it appears as an opinion in a quote from CRU.

"The files also included temperature reconstruction..."

If you don't like the above, please explain and/or propose an alternate formulation. Thanks! --DGaw (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Taken without permission" = "stolen", not "allegedly stolen". That's normal English. "Allegedly" suggests that there's some doubt as to whether they were taken with or without permission. No reliable source (AFAIK) has suggested that they were taked with permission. Plain English conveys the meaning accurately. Adding "alleged" adds meaning which is not supported by any sources - the idea that there is doubt as to whether the files were taken without permission. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to be relevant, since the word "allegedly" appears nowhere in the text I am proposing as a compromise. Here's where we are: you and others believe "stolen" is POV. I and others disagree. Other editors believe "allegedly" is POV. You and others disagree. There is no sign that either side is convincing the other, so it appears a compromise is required that uses neither "allegedly" nor "stolen". My proposal is above. If you have an alternate proposal that uses neither "allegedly" nor "stolen", I would be interested in hearing it. --DGaw (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) A policy question: this article has a BLP warning tag. If a specific person were accused by the police (let's say they accuse... Rex Tillerson in a conspiracy with Putin and Al Gore) of hacking the CRU and legal proceedings began to take place, wouldn't we have to call it alleged? In the US, at least, newspapers are guilty of libel if they say someone has committed a crime before they finish a trial and they are later found innocent in a court of law. Ignignot (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The BLP tag applies to accusations of misdeeds by the CRU (and other) scientists. The identity of the hackers remains unknown, so the question of making accusations against them is moot. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think its moot at all. You are basically admitting that once the hackers are identified the entire stub will have to be rewritten to comply with BLP and various libel laws. You are playing in nothing more than an undefined limboBigred58 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if we couldn't simply say that the data/emails were "released without authorization from the CRU," rather than all the inflammatory accusations. Doesn't that present this as fact? Kenckar (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the information simply escaped of its own accord. But seriously, the information "was publicly revealed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillednutria (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the documents were stolen. It doesn't matter if they were released by a whistleblower. Our jobs as editors is to make this article as neutral as possible. "Stolen" has a negative connotation, "whistleblower" has a positive connotation. Neither is neutral, therefore neither is NPOV unless within a quote or clearly identified as someone's opinion. "Which the CRU says is stolen..." is NPOV. "That climate skeptics suggest may be the work of a whistleblower..." is NPOV. If you need a term for the article iteself, find a neutral term like "released", "published, etc.

You know, I can't help but get the impression that some of those arguing for "stolen" may be trying to make it clear that whoever released the documents is BAD, while some of those arging for "whistleblower" and similar variations may be trying to make it that the people who released the documents are GOOD. Anyone else get that impression?

--DGaw (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Some? I'd say most of the wikipedia editors on this talk page are very clearly pushing that narrative. The bias in this article is painfully obvious, it reads like an opinion piece from a high school newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.63.106 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is referred to by the neologism "Climategate"? (reprise)

Now that it seems that what I understand to be "Climategate" and the alleged theft of the CRU docs are both to be documented in the same article I would like to raise the issue again about what Climategate is. I assert there should be common agreement

• Climategate is not the theft/revealing of the CRU docs.
• Climategate is the allegedly bad behaviour of scientists revealed therein.

For illustration I would like to compare with Watergate. Watergate was not the illegal break-in to the eponymous hotel, it was the behaviour of Nixon&Co revealed as a consequence.

OK, so this is WP and you may not agree. If you do not agree, if you do not think Climategate is the alleged unscientific conduct of certain scientists then where will that be documented at WP? Under what article title?

Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict, so added to this new section> Hi, Psb777/Paul Beardsell, I don't think you've quite got the hang of WP:NPOV, and the effect of your changes was to give undue weight to a political viewpoint which is clearly fringe in terms of established science. There are two aspects of this incident. Firstly, private documents including emails were illicitly obtained, through what is commonly described as hacking but as far as I know other techniques have not been definitively ruled out. Secondly, the material was distributed by "climate warming sceptics" to create a controversy which they choose to call "Climategate", implicitly claiming the same legitimacy as the revelation of Nixon's wrongdoing. That's blatantly a politically loaded label, and has to be shown in context to meet NPOV requirements. The "climate warming sceptics" have clearly misrepresented emails, and as this is a scientific subject the majority scientific view has to be shown as such. Similarly, pseudoscientific arguments against global warming have to be treated in accordance with policy. I made some changes before the page was locked, with the last minor edit adding a link to anthropogenic at the same time as page protection was applied. Please take this revised version as a basis for discussion, taking care to comply fully with the policies I've linked above. You may find it useful to make proposals on this page to seek consensus on the best wording. Thsnks, dave souza, talk 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope we don't have to agree to disagree. But I think it is you suffering the NPOV failure. The UEA seems to think Jones has a case to answer. He is being critised not just by the lunatic fringe. There is a controversy, it is natural for us to give things names, what do you want me to call the resultant controversy arising from the content of the leaked documents? Or are you saying we should not document it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The UEA properly wants an independent investigation into the whole affair, including the hacking or otherwise leaking as well as all allegations of wrongdoing. What are they calling it? . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No! The UEA is conducting TWO investigations. One into the leak/hack/theft, and another into the behaviour of its scientists. And I don't care what they call it, they don't get to decide. There already is a widely used term, however distasteful to you, and you know what it is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither do you get to decide, you have to present reliable sources per WP:TALK and make proposals to gain consensus. "Climategate" has already been discussed, and current consensus appears to be that it's an unsuitably loaded term. I await your detailed proposals for improving the article with interest. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some e-mails have been explained and others not. Some e-mails require a most generous interpretation to restore them to acceptability. Some remain embarrassing! Just because the lunatic fringe gets involved doesn't permit us to ignore well reasoned crticisms from respectable sceptics and from mainstream climatologists also. I am sure you are not proposing a whitewash here at WP? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should cover it as reliable information becomes available, but wikipedia is not a news source and we must avoid giving undue weight to fringe views, particularly when they attack the reputation of living people. . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course BLP policy must be respected. That is not the same as saying that the e-mails, the source code, the manipulation of the peer review process, the "trick" etc etc should not be on WP. I am also not suggesting a blow by blow headline by headline updating of WP, but what is known must not be hidden here either, unless WP be considered to have a bias. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And, to answer your new question, "climategate" is a term pushed by one side to describe the controversy they have created by selectively publishing some leaked emails. The controversy includes the actions and behaviour of those promoting this political controversy as well as the alleged misdemeanours and defensive responses of those accused: we have to cover the accusers as well as the accused, using reliable sources. To the extent that this deals with science rather than politics, the standards for scientific sources apply. . .dave souza, talk 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No :-) the controversy is real. That the scientists did or not behave badly is the controversy. It might be settled the way you say but the Jones is still not back in charge. What do you want me to call this allegation of bad behaviour against certain climate scientists, if you don't want me to use the term Climategate? Like it or not, it's the biggest GW story this year. WP should reflect it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, around five emails out of fifteen years of private informal discussion can be quote mined to mischaracterise ordinary debate, including a ten year old dicussion, and in your opinion this is the biggest GW story this year? Maybe politically, thought I'd have thought the Copenhagen summit was bigger, but certainly not in science. We have an agreed heading for this article, and the political term "climategate" appears in the lead. From your comment on my talk page, I'd hope that you're happier with the current formulation. . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, second biggest. Will you concede the point now? All my life I have behaved well except for a few times, when I behaved attrociously. Same with some of these guys, maybe. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of Climategate scandal closed with a recommendation that the name of *this* article be changed. Are you in favour of that? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As for "selectively published e-mails" I know you know that there are not other e-mails which, if published, would neutralise the damage. The unpublished e-mails were mundane, uninteresting. So you create a false impression, I think. But you are wrong also to suggest that this is just a political controversy. many respected scientists do not see it as that only. There is a scientific case to answer. Are you suggesting we do not document that here? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of other specific emails neutralising "the damage", it's a question of how a tiny fraction of the emails taken out of context are being misrepresented to claim a global conspiracy among scientists. The scientific consensus on global warming seems pretty clear, and we don't have to document that here, in accordance with making necessary assumptions policy. The specific scandals or otherwise do have to be documented on the basis of reliable third party sources: that a "paper" published in the Daily Mail is currently cited is shoddy and unacceptable. . . dave souza, talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave, that's simply not correct. At this point, as well as a fairly extensive review of the emails, there have been a number of reviews of different code and data files, and — following the release of raw data that was apparently compelled by an attempt to limit the damage of the original revelation — there have now been a number of efforts to analyze what has been learned. There are significant questions of both scientific misconduct and apparent criminal behavior. Dismissing it as "a few emails out of context" is mistaken. I haven't been joining in the editing because I've been one of the people doing original reporting on this, and while I don't want to scoop myself, there is a lot mor to come out.

Clearly there is no global conspiracy; on the other hand, there does seem to have been misconduct by a small clique of roughly 20 people. That, and the controversy that folloed, deserves to be covered in a calm, NPOV, well-sourced fashion.

Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I too do NOT think there is a global conspiracy, but I do think there has been *some* bad behaviour. I do not think the position of science, the public view of science, is advanced by sweeping anything under the carpet. I cringe at the damage being done to science by this incident. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Watergate is not a close parallel to climategate. Watergate is an undisputed case of bad acts perpetrated by Nixon's foot soldiers, who were caught in the act by the local police. There was a secret informant, "deep throat", who revealed details only after the incident became known. The informant himself was not accused of illegality. Here, the supposed bad acts in the form of climate scientist actions are not clear-cut and were not publicly known before the scandal arose. They were revealed only by the disclosure of files that were supposed to be private. The terminology similarity is due to the use of the Snowclone "-gate", which has become a general purpose assertion that an incident is some kind of cover up and scandal. It seems to have been coined by an activist pundit for his own unstated purposes that have something to do with promoting his position that climate change scientists had engaged in scandalous behavior. Whatever the original purposes in calling it "...gate" the term stuck, and probably means different things to different people. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not a close parallel, but a parallel. Forget I used it if you like. But there is widespread controversy resulting from the info leaked. A different controversy than the alleged theft. What do you want me to call that controversy. Popularly it is called "Climategate". Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The hack/theft/leak of the climategate files should be named something other than 'climategate'. If the files had contained no controversial content, then there would have been no 'climategate' - it would have been reported as a mundane hack with little associated controversy. The content of those files is what has turned this from a mere hack into a career-threatening controversy which can be named 'climategate'. Cadae (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While interestingly Zeinab Badawi uses the word "climate change" the Swedish translator types "Climategate", in this Nobel Laureate panel video. They talk about climategate from 13'50" in to 25'. They're also clearly talking about the scientific behaviour and not at all the leaked CRU material. This would support the viewpoint that Climategate and the CRU leak are separate incidents to report upon. (Note: The link will expire 21st of Jan and links to a Swedish state owned broadcasting channel) Troed (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize winner panel is co-produced by Swedish television and BBC World together. I just found out that the BBC version is available on Youtube, and the second part starts with what I wanted to add to this discussion. Troed (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original question, it is not entirely clear what the neologism "Climategate" refers to. The term was apparently invented by news hounds on or about November 23. James Delingpole claims that he coined the term, using it first in this November 23 blog piece for the London Daily Herald, an assertion backed up by his colleague, Christopher Booker. If so, the term was invented by an anti-AGW advocate to cast aspersions on climate scientists for their allegedly unethical conduct in the affair. However, Andrew Bolt (who is more of a general-purpose contrarian columnist) of Australia's Herald Sun wrote this blog post the day before, in which he asked his readers to submit names for the emerging scandal, himself leading off with the suggestion, "climategate". That claim too is backed up by his own colleagues. If that's true then it is definitely a climate change skeptic term, but intended in a more tongue-in-cheek self-mocking fashion. Additionally, the term has appeared sporadically in reference to unrelated incidents. People just like to add "-gate" to things. Whatever the term was originally intended to mean, a more pertinent question is how pervasive the term is now and just what it means. So far, answering that here is all speculation and WP:OR by us Misplaced Pages editors. I tend to think that in this postmodern world most snowclones are used at some level as self-parody. But asking what's going on in people's heads when they use or hear a word is a tricky business best left to professionals. I have not yet found a good source. Observationally, we can see that major UK and American media organizations (e.g. BBC, CNN) use it as an umbrella heading to describe the entire ruckus, including the scientists' email and surrounding behavior, the hacking and publication of the emails, the advocacy of the climate change skeptics (or whatever you call them), and the public debate that ensued. But again, making that claim in the context of article content would be WP:OR. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 unreliable source

In this section, the paragraph "Stephen McIntyre claims in this paper that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted in discarding the tree ring data starting from 1961, because the proxy data for this years demonstrated a sharp decrease of temperatures, contrary to the real data - casting therefore doubt on reliability of all the tree ring data reconstruction." is sourced to the Daily Mail, a tabloid which is not a scientific journal, or even a remotely reliable source for anything but its own right wing views. The paragraph is unclear, and doesn't note McIntyre's "skeptical" background. Propose deletetion of this paragraph. A clearer explanation can be put together from reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

dave, as you point out, what is at fault here is that the wrong source is quoted. The same conclusion can be drawn from other more reliable sources. But what needs fixing is the source. If you delete the para maybe it will never come back. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, skepticism is NOT anti-science! Any good scientist is a skeptic. McIntyre is not on the lunatic fringe. OK, he is not mainstream either, but several highly respected scientists have said his arguments need addressing. And he has usefully found some errors. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the discussion we had earlier - "skeptic" in this case isn't a descriptive statement, it's a brand name which has nothing to do with skepticism. And yes, there are reliable sources to support this. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph seems neutral and well sourced. Your opinions on the source are your own POV, as well as your views on scientific scepticism. Troed (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The daily mail is the second biggest selling paper in the united kingdom. It does not matter if you think their views are left right up or down, as a part of the msm they are a reliable source. mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that the Daily Mail is reliable for anything in this article. We should be using sources of the quality of AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN and Newsweek. Moreover, should minimise use of other news sources that are normally fine - by that I mean all the UK broadsheets, the NYT and the WSJ. This may seem overly rigorous, but it seems to me that taking the article back to what is covered in the best sources will be the only way to keep it encyclopedic and neutral. Post on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS advises, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." The Daily Mail, while popular, is certainly not in the high-quality end of the market. — Matt Crypto 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Particulary" still does not mean that all other forms of MSM are banned. Until another source of "higher quality" can replace the current quote there's no reason to remove the one we have. The suggestion by dave souza is clearly POV. Troed (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is notorious for its poor science reporting. For example, the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. Simonmar (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but anyone looking at your list will assume that only news outlets with a left wing bias can be used as sources in this article, this article should be treated no different to any other and the usual sources are all equally valid. --mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reality has a well known liberal bias Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean my list? If you see that as a list of news outlets with a left wing bias, then, well what else is there to be said? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what he means is that the BBC by admission of Jeremy Paxman(top presenter of their top news programm(newsnight)) is hardly impartial. Jeremy Paxman; "I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jan/31/broadcasting.digitalmedia "Paxman accuses BBC of hypocrisy over environment"

--MichaelSirks (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 11#Images show how they used a "trick" to "hide the decline." (see my comment) says it all. Do we really want to be using a source which continued to spread nonsense arising from misunderstanding a 3 day old blogger post (which other people had recognised was probably nonsense early on in the comments on that same blog) and which had been explained by said blogger in the very next post the day after i.e. 2 days before they wrote the story? Surely any sensible definition of a reliable source at a minimum requires they actually bother to read subsequent blog posts to make sure they aren't missing something that was later addressed when screaming conspiracy based on a single sentence? Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording can be improved, but this source isn't being used for anything scientific. It's being used to source that McIntyre said such a thing. Does anyone seriously doubt that McIntyre is making these claims? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's even worse. I shudder at using the Daily Mail for anything which hinges on BLP Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That, and per the discussion you linked to before, McIntyre isn't an expert on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Except we have a primary source which seems to corroborate the secondary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't whether McIntyre said this, the issue is whether McIntyre's contribution is appropriate. If a reliable source reports on his opinion, we need to consider it. If a somewhat unreliable source (the Daily Mail on science) reports on McIntyre's blog post, it does nothing to validate the importance to McIntyre. It's like a blogger quoting a blogger - the second source doesn't make the primary source more reliable. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, sorry - you're saying that McIntyre citing an article quoting McIntyre attests to McIntyre's reliability as a source? Um, no... Guettarda (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a blogger quoting a blogger. That's just plain nonsense and more POV-pushing to keep content one doesn't like out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, using an unreliable source to validate an unreliable source is like using a blogger quoting a blogger. And seriously - lay off the insults and the assumptions of bad faith. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's pure nonsense. Per WP:SPS, a self-published source is reliable for the viewpoints of it's author. The fact that the primary source seems to corroborate the secondary source proves that it's reliable for this particular claim. Sorry, we'll need another excuse to keep this out of the article, which is locked so the point is moot anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<ri> The current wording "Stephen McIntyre claims in this paper" implies a scientific paper, which would be expected of a scientist. What it should say is "Stephen McIntyre claims in this tabloid newspaper" and it should make clear McIntyre's part in the controversy if it's being used to show what he's saying. As phrased, it gives an unreliable source for a scientific claim, indeed a source famed for pseudoscience. If McIntyre is claiming scientific credence, why isn't he publishing in journals? . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably becuase the peer review process has been compromised leading to this whole incident, but he has been published nevertheless. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's not about whether this reliably reflects McIntyre's opinion. The question is why we should care about McIntyre's opinion. As has been discussed previously, we don't care about McIntyre's opinion simply because it's his opinion. He isn't a notable source on the matter, so his blog fails SPS on that level. Now if a reliable source quoted his blog, then we'd have a secondary source that attests to the importance of McIntyre's opinion. And then it would be a matter of editorial decision whether we would want to include it or not. However, it seems to be fairly well established that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on science reporting. So the fact that an unreliable source cited McIntyre's blog piece does little to add to its credibility. It's still a self-published opinion by a non-expert. And being cited by the Daily Mail does not add enough gravitas to the post to make it a worthwhile source. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntrye is probably the most well known scientist (he has been published) skeptic regarding AGW the main reason why this is a global incident. The Daily Mail is a reliable source for the opinion of McIntrye. I would ask why are people so intent in trying to censor McIntrye and in general any information relating to this incident? Arzel (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. McIntyre is not a scientist, and has only a single publication in the peer reviewed literature that I'm aware of. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC) This misconception has already been covered - check the archives. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you have no idea what a scientist is, there is no specific number of publications required to be suddenly declared a scientist. That other editors are also confused does change this fact either. Now you may not like his POV or his research, but that is an entirely different subject. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What research? He seems to be noted for criticising statistics in the press rather than publishing research. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<ri> What I'm puzzled about is why we're citing the geologist turned amateur critic of climatology for the astonishing revelation that the long known divergence problem cast "doubt on reliability of all the tree ring data reconstruction" when exactly that doubt, and how to deal with it, was discussed in detail in this paper (pdf) – note, that's a scientific paper, not a tabloid. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually an advanced degree in a science, coupled with active research and a record of publication is required to be considered a "scientist", although the term is often applied to people with PhDs who are in primarily teaching positions. McIntyre lacks an advanced degree in science, and has only a single peer-reviewed publication. That makes him about as much a scientist as does an undergrad who has coauthored a pub based on research done under the supervision of one of their professors. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, an advanced degree is not required. Normally, scientists do have an advanced degree, but it is not a requirement. It is obvious by your disdain regarding his "Research" work that your bias is strongly linked to your attitude towards this issue. You personal feelings are irrelevant towards his scientific research regardless of how much you personally dislike him. Arzel (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is, again, your POV and completely irrelevant to what we're doing here. McIntyre is a published scientist in the relevant area, named in the leaked correspondence this article is about and regularly interviewed by the mainstream media on the subject. All three items above qualify the paragraph in question on their own. It's strange you're arguing against it if you're trying to uphold NPOV (and the same of course goes for dave souza). Troed (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. It's standard usage and the long-standing norm on the project. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to support your claims. It's trivial to find many other Misplaced Pages articles where the items I supplied above are enough for inclusion, and you know that as well as I do. Troed (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my job to do your research for you. If you refuse to WP:AGF and take more experienced editors at their word, the onus is on you to raise it on an appropriate noticeboard or do your own research. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude is making it all but impossible to assume good faith when you present a personal attack against McIntrye as you did regarding his research work. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack against McIntyre? What the heck are you talking about? I made no comment on McIntyre, I was simply correcting your misunderstanding. If correcting the factual error in your statement makes it "all but impossible to assume good faith", that's a problem you'll have to sort out on your own. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, you disqualified yourself from WP:AGF by on more than one occasion at this talk page posting falsehoods knowingly. If you want to be taken in good faith I'd suggest using your experience to reach NPOV, something that seems to be very hard for some to do here. We have WP:RS referring to the incident as "allegedly stolen" and "leaked", but in spite of me having sourced that at several places you continued to claim further down that this is not the case. Feel free to start explaining your actions and sourcing your statements instead of pushing your own POV. Troed (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you're funny. Nope, you aren't allowed to make up your own exceptions to policy. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate as to what you are referring to. You seem to rather deal in personal attacks than in helpful editing, which I find curious, especially since your posts show a very one-sided POV including posting complete fabrications. Troed (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre is clearly not a scientist by either training or occupation. He is a notable writer on climate issues though so his reaction to the events described here could be relevant. But with the important proviso that it should not be sourced to the Daily Mail. If his comments have not been taken up elsewhere in the news media then they are not notable, but if he were, say, to be interviewed at length in The Financial Times then that should be considered for inclusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre interviewed at length by Fox News (linking to part 2 of the program, the interview continues in other parts). McIntyre interviewed by CNN (link to part 1 of 2). Both of these links are relevant to this article and the paragraph in question. It's also not up to us to judge his "scientism" - he's factually a published author on the subject of statistics in climate science. Troed (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say the CNN interview is reliable for McIntyre's response to the events. We can draw a line under discussion of his professional background. This isn't a science article but an article about a current event. The appropriate sources for the facts of what happened are news media. Sourcing in the "Responses" section is slightly different; there we are looking for statements by a range of people whose views are notable enough to have been made known in public. McIntyre definitely meets that criterion. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The press interviews all sorts of people. It still boils down to the question of why we care about the analysis of science by a non-scientist. Rush Limbaugh is more notable than McIntyre. We obviously wouldn't go to him for scientific analysis. Obviously McIntyre is far more of an expert than Limbaugh, but the simple fact that CNN interviewed him doesn't mean much - CNN has surely interviewed dozens of people on this issue. If we want analysis of a topic, we go to experts, not well-known amateurs. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No-one is, I hope, talking about going to McIntyre for scientific analysis. If we refer to his views we must be absolutely clear that we are not referring to him as an expert but as someone with a role in these events. More seriously, I am reconsidering my approval of the CNN source. It was an ephemeral TV interview that only exists on YouTube - that is unless there is a transcript on a CNN-related or other reliable website. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick search revealed two transcripts of CNN with McIntyre. The first is of the video I linked to, the other one I haven't read. here and here. Troed (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

False premise is the start of dispute

This statement "Reliable sources establish a theft took place" made by SCjessey (above) is the sort of false premise which is roadblocking us here. The "reliable sources" we have pointed to are all news sources and news sources DO NOT "establish" legal conclusions, they only report them. A finding of fault in a legal dispute is not adjudicated by the media, this is axiomatic. The only actual facts we have so far are:

1. The center's spokesperson used carefully parsed words to announce this issue. The quoted words attributed to that spokesperson DO NOT include the word "hack" or the word "stolen" - See the link to the BBC article here.
2. The various police/officials began investigations
3. Since this story broke, much of the media have been using the terms "hack" and "stolen", without the qualifier of "alleged".

It's clear that the media has been putting on a full-court press to disregard the unproven nature of their own characterizations of the spokesperson's comments. This is why we need to have the RfC I've suggested. We must remove the impediment that SCJ and others are clinging to. Do the news reports "establish" that a theft took place? Or does the news REPORT that officals have established such a thing? If the news reports that a cow jumped over the moon - with no proof, do we print that without any qualifiers too? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What reliable sources suggest that the emails were taken with the permission of either their authors or the UEA? Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your error of logic is that you equate "taken without permission" with "stolen". The terms are not interchangeable. Clearly the center is able to state authoritatively that the release lacked permission -if they were certain of how it occured - which they have not claimed to be. But even so, when the media itself converts that to "stolen", then the media impedes the story and attempts to substitute its POV for the facts. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What center do you refer to? The nearest thing to a "centre" would appear to be the CRU, and their update 2 includes a statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research, that "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation." You were saying? . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement you refer to was from the professor who made it only. It's his personal characterization of events and is not an official statement from the CRU - please read the page for yourself and see. On the same page, the CRU itself asserts only "Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained...". The inability of people to distinguish what has actually been said by whom astounds me. And even with that, CRU saying "illegally obtained" DOES NOT mean the emails were stolen, nor does it mean they are even correct when the say "illegally". Rather, the CRU is alleging illegalities. Can't you understand what is happenening here? The CRU asserts this or that and the media runs with it, embellishes the language and some here want to reprint those embellishments verbatim. The current phrasing of "unauthorised release of documents, allegedly obtained by hacking of a server" gives more than enough weight to the position of the CRU speakers, without adopting their allegations as proved. This is the best way until the investigations conclude. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What source do you have that claims that the files were legally obtained? How else might the files be illegally obtained without their being stolen? Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Under The Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 if it was a whistleblower its legal. In both the US and the UK whistleblowing is a legally protected act its not considred theft. Bigred58 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that there is not a single reliable source calling this an act of "whisteblowing". All sources say the information was stolen. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All sources you personally define as reliable. You have already been told by an admin that you cannot discount an experts analysis simply because he is a skeptic. And the point I was refuting was that it had to be a theft regardless of circumstance. The law in the UK and the US for that matter says otherwiseBigred58 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with what I personally think. Reliable sources are usually obvious, but if there is some doubt about any we wish to use we simply open up a discussion at WP:RSN. And which admin told me what? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it's the same. It is in English, anyway. Which is the language we're using here. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, of course. I highly recommend you to brush up your understanding of English words theft and larceny to see that, at least in plain English, not everything taken without permission is stolen. For example, things of no value cannot be stolen - thus a guy rummaging through your trash is not stealing from you, permission or not. Dimawik (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In Great Britain, in particular, the term "theft" does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property. :-) Dimawik (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took offense at these (imo) rather innocouos remarks: .

What is the etiquette for deleting other people's comments on a talk page? Am I supposed to poke around in the history if I want to know what was said?Jarhed (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice you didn't respond to the substance of my remarks, which were: it's an alleged theft, until trial & conviction. Innocent til proven guilty, y'know. Do you agree? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reposting links to personal attacks is equally unacceptable. Policy does not permit you to call other editors stupid. That's all. Try to follow our policy. It isn't that hard. Guettarda (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no. It's not an alleged theft until the trial is over. It's a theft from the start. The defendant in the trial is the alleged thief until the trial is over. It's not the same thing. When police say they're investigating a murder, it means a murder has taken place and they're just trying to figure out who did it. Theft is theft. There need be no suspect, conviction, or even trial for theft to have occurred. Muggers steal money on a daily basis and never get caught. We still call it theft.Farsight001 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FS - You are kidding right? You are just repeating yourself and ignoring all reason to the contrary. We can all benefit from a RfC. but just in case it helps, please read definition #3 here "Allegation: A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations." You do understand that the assertions of the CRU associated staff, in absence of supporting evidence, are not "proof", right? And you do understand that there are certainly sometimes when police investigate for murder, but ultimately find that what happened was not murder, right? You need to step back and look at this with a fresh set of eyes. There is no proof to the assertion of theft. The investigiation itself, is not proof, An assertion without proof is an allegation. Do you understand this? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(reply to FS001) I hope we can all agree that the hacking(?) incident was considerably less serious than murder <G>. It is discouraging that we can't come to consensus regarding such simple things as this dispute, and even the name of the article -- which remains just awful, and makes Misplaced Pages a laughing-stock. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Farsight: I do not think that police is saying they are investigating theft. As far as I know, in the British law, the information is not even considered subject to theft (you should really read this article :-). Do you have any quote from the UK police (as opposed to CRU) saying that a theft has occurred? Dimawik (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Scotland Yard and Norfolk Police are leading the investigation into the email theft at the University of East Anglia." It's the Daily Mail (a tabloid nowadays), but it's still "reliable" according to others here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is not what the police is saying. Police says, "This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. ... We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed." Some journos convert this to "theft", but we shouldn't, as, once again, one cannot steal information in GB. Dimawik (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dim - I do not recognize your source as it appears to be a UK site I am unfamiliar with, but presuming they quote the Norwalk spokesperson correctly, I feel you've helped advance the dialog here. Thank you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a local newspaper. Dimawik (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought." . It is an allegation of a crime and allegations of crimes are to be referred to as "alleged" unless we want to advance the presumption of guilt, which I am quite confident we do not want to do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there is no doubt that a theft took place. And we have umpteen reliable sources to verify the use of the word. Due diligence has been done. "Alleged" is not necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - In this you are just simply wrong. Each and every one of your sources are faulty for the purpose you are trying to use it for. The source must be a reliable secondary source. For your source to be a valid a secondary source on a matter which requires an expert opinion - and allegations of criminality do require this - the secondary source must itself cite or refer to the primary source which rendered the opinion. If you don't understand this, then there's really nothing more I can tell you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources say "theft". As I've said before, WP:RS trumps WP:TRUTH. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - are you simply going to ignore the 2nd prong of the reliable source requirement? The reliable source must be a secondary source. None of the sources you cite are acting in a secondary capacity. I have explained this to you until I am blue in the face, so at this point, I suggest you re-read what I've already posted on this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, police said, alleged breach (see above); I am yet to see any other quotes from police. How this gets converted by the AGW crowd here into definitely theft, beats me. Dimawik (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let's not refer to some of your fellow editors as "the AGW crowd" please. Secondly, I responded to this elsewhere. As I said before, the "breach" may have been referring to the manner of the theft. In other words, the information was stolen during an "alleged breach". Because of the omission of detail, we must fall back on other reliable sources to verify the facts, and they all say theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel offended; it sure feels like at least some of the pro-AGW editors identify themselves as part of a team fighting against the dark forces of ignorance, so it was not intended as an offense, just a convenient label ("crowd" has few, if any, negative connotations). Anyhow, police clearly says, alleged breach, an RS reports this fact. Some sources forget to report the word "alleged" and substitute "theft" for "breach" - but this does not turn an alleged breach into a definite theft - it simply makes the "theft" sources somewhat less reliable. Dimawik (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on this article

Someone has made an allegation that some of the editors on this article are sockpuppets. I don't know how to check that and frankly I don't care to know. I do know that if this accusation is true, it is damning. I would appreciate it if you administrators and other experts would please check for sockpuppetry and ban the instigators immediately. This is an article about a controversial issue, and frankly, I can't imagine why this has not already been done.Jarhed (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you worry, the investigation has likely been done. The unfounded allegation of sockpuppetry is often a dishonest trick used to cast aspersions against the other side in the argument. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are three suspected sockpuppet editors in the 'Opposed' section on the title change. So, when you have sockpuppets causing problems on a controversial article, what do you do?Jarhed (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You name them. Then you ban them. What is improper is to make unfounded allegtions of sockpuppetry. Not that I say you do. Just name them and get them banned. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

HEY LISTEN UP. I am here to help with this controversial article and I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth. I did not name a single editor because anyone can use the search tools as well as I. Go look them up yourself and stop acting as if it is not a problem. I would take the steps necessary against these editors, but I don't have a clue what those steps might be and I don't care. I would appreciate it if all of you good faith administrators would simply take the appropriate steps.Jarhed (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this earlier so I could have replied immediately. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, and I regret I have seemed to. My intention was really to express dismay at any sockpuppetry. But there are comments above (and I had not thought they were yours) to the effect that some army of sockpuppets has parachuted in with an opposing opinion and therefore the opinion can be discounted. I say no, name the sockpuppets. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I said three suspected sockpuppets because a search on their usernames shows that to be likely the case. I am not sure what in this you find to disagree with. As you said, "What is improper is to make unfounded allegtions of sockpuppetry." I am saying that I expect the WP administrators and experts on this article to handle this problem in good faith. If that is happening then I am fine. However, I know at least a few of the sockpuppets, and I will be watching for any disruptive behavior from them.Jarhed (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now. It is obvious that sock puppetry and meat puppetry are a constant problem on controversial hot-bed articles like this. Let's not pretend otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.Jarhed (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On the GW pages, coordinated editing is also very visible ;-) Dimawik (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tackling NPOV issues - "personal information"

One of the items I mentioned is that the lede includes mention of a concern about compromise of personal information. This does have a proper source, so the issue isn't whether someone actually said this, the issue is whether, in the hundreds of thousands of words written on this subject, does this issue rise to the level of importance to be included in the lede? Our WP:LEAD section notes that the lede should "summarize the most important points", but it gives no guidance on what metric should be used to determine this. Not a surprise, as it probably doesn't lend itself well to a formula. However, one would expect that something rising to the level that it could be considered one of the most important aspects would be included in a material percentage of the coverage, and possibly the main subject of multiple articles. I see three questions to answer:

1. Is it the function of the lede to include the most important aspects of the story (as opposed to, say, including a mention of everything in the article)?
2. What is the right metric in this instance to determine importance?
3. Does this aspect meet the hurdle?

I think the answer to the first question is clear, based upon the reading of the guideline, but I've seen other editors take a different position, so I don't take this question as settled yet. I've hinted at how I would answer the second question, but obviously, others should weigh in. The third question should be tackled after we settle on the second question, although I suspect they will be discussed together. Does this sound like a good approach for tacking this question?--SPhilbrickT 14:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One consequence of the leak was that usernames and passwords were divulged (and I'd gladly link but I'm unsure as to what our policy is with linking to the emails directly at the talk page). That's considered personal information and could be seen as serious. I'd vote for it being important, and if WP:RS could be found as to why then that should be added. Troed (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead must indeed include the very most important points. What makes the unauthorised publication of the information notable is not the leak/theft itself, but what it was that was leaked. Like it or not, the conduct of some scientists is being called into question as a consequence of the contents leaked. That is the story, And that should be noted in the very first lead paragraph. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of WP:WEIGHT and specificity. The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The central matter of this case is a theft of data. All other aspects are a result of this core incident, so obviously they are accorded less weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That something reveals something else, that something precedes something else, that something causes something else does not necessarily make the antecendent the more important of the two, A butterfly flaps it's wings, a cyclone causes havoc. What is the story? The butterfly or the cyclone? If you lift a rock and find a nest of vipers, what is the story? the lifting of the rock or the nest of vipers? If the consensus becomes that this story is not about what is popularly known as Climategate but is about the unauthorised publications of documents, and that Climategate will just get a mention in passing, then where is Climategate documented at WP? Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is an important part of the "story" as you insist on calling it, but it must be treated with the proper WP:WEIGHT. Bear in mind that it is still very much a fringe view that the documents stolen from the CRU are synonymous with your "nest of vipers" analogy. The controversy is the product of the fringe hype machine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that some entities, such as the UN, consider the data theft to be the most important part of the story. However, the UN has its own POV and can't be considered the authority on this. The U of East Anglia is conducting an investigation into the email content itself, as is Penn State. There are rumors that the Dept. of Energy has put a legal hold on all East Anglia material including emails pending their own investigation. So clearly some entities weight the aspects of the "story" differently from others. I see no reason that all of this can't be explained in a NPOV manner in this article, and I see no reason at this point to exclude anything from this article that is sourced reliably.Jarhed (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Internal investigations by Penn State and the UEA are just for covering their asses, quite frankly. It's SOP to ensure there is no appearance of impropriety. I've not heard of any Department of Energy "rumors", and so I can't offer an opinion on those. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you can see that your opinion about "covering their asses" is pure POV. If they must cover their asses, then obviously there must be something to cover their asses from. I would say that if you don't know about the DOE litigation hold instruction, you have not been following this story very closely. I am watching reliable sources for someone to report this rumor, and just as soon as they do, I am going to slap it in this article as a notable fact.Jarhed (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is one those cases where you're clearly wrong. I'd urge you to watch the link I've already posted to the Nobel Laureate panel by the Swedish state television where they spend a large amount of the total time talking about Climategate. Not the "email hacking incident", but the fallout as to how that is reflected upon and by the scientific community. Calling this a "fringe view" is POV, plain and simple. Troed (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a link to a Swedish video? I'm only interested in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. The programme is in English, with Swedish subtitles, and the Nobel Laureates are of course speaking English. As for "reliable source" - are you even serious? Troed (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link to the same Nobel Prize panel, but the BBC World version available on Youtube. Using a fifth of their total time to discuss this topic, with this years Nobel Prize winners, would indicate it's not a fringe view that this is a serious controversy in the scientific community. Troed (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article from top to bottom and the two biggest issues IMO with regard to WP:NPOV are the article title which focuses on the initial hacking rather than the subsequent controversy surrounding the e-mails, and the undue weight given to the death threats in the lede. I think if we can address both of those issues, a lot of my concerns are alleviated. I also think that Wikidemon brought up an excellent point about the excessive use of "stolen" emails, "hacked" files, "illegal" actions, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you being too reasonable here? Don't you think you should beat everyone up and win every little niggling point you can?Jarhed (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the insanity, Jarhed. Please see my user page for an explanation of what's really going on here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Hack 2

In a section above, another editor states If reliable sources supported it, I could support "alleged hack".... I disagree that this is the correct way to look at this. A reliable source is supposed to be used as a secondary source. In other words, the newspaper reports what a witness/participant says. The person quoted is the primary source and the paper reporting it is the secondary source. However, in instances like this case, when the term "hack" is a characterization being advanced by the media itself - with no attribution back to a primary source, then the media become the primary source and the term hack is disallowed. In order for us to use "hack" in this article on a non-qualified basis, two conditions must be met, with the 1st condition having two elements which must be met.:

1. The term must be used by a person who is qualified to make that assessment - this requires that person must be A) knowledgeable about computer "hacks" and B) have specific knowledge about what transpired in this case.
2. The person quoted must be reported in a reliable source.

So far, what we have is media sources, ones which we typically do count as "reliable", bandying about the word "hack" without attribution to a qualified person. As a consequence of the deficiencies in the sources so far, because the conditions are not met, it matters not that the media is using the word "hack". If it's the media themselves using the word "hack" then the media becomes the primary source and is not a reliable source for that word. There is no requirement on us that the media use the word "alleged" in regards to "hack" in order for us to use it. Rather, the duty is on us - to not accept the word "hack" as offered by the media (except on a qualified basis of "alleged"), because the media sources offered do not support it's usage on an unqualified basis - owning to the fact that it's not properly attributed. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't jibe with Misplaced Pages's policy. The Verifiability policy, reliable sources subsection says nothing about splitting hairs in the way you've described. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read the rules. The media itself cannot be the source of the allegation, which in the usage of the term "hack" it is.216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. "Hack" conveys a perjorative that is unproven as yet and we should avoid it. "Controversy" is more accurate and better NPOV.Jarhed (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(As I wrote above)Police says, "This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. ... We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed.". This is reported by a local newspaper, so should be deemed RS. The correct wording therefore is alleged breach of security. Dimawik (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Sounds solid to me.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck it. This is such a trivial issue, I am happy to throw in the towel and support Dimawik's proposed language on this, in the interests in getting on with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll support it too if we can finally get some consensus going on this. Ignignot (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

LiveScience has named Climategate one of the most controversial stories of 2009

"Nothing spells controversy like climate change. And global warming skeptics got plenty of fodder this year when thousands of private (and seemingly incriminating) e-mails and files of prominent climate scientists were hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia in England, a leading climate research center. The e-mails, which were made public, appeared to show scientific misconduct with some addressing ways to combat skeptics, whether certain data should be released and some derisive comments about people known for their skeptical views, according to news accounts.

"Here's how LiveScience's Bad Science columnist summed up the debacle dubbed Climategate: "Personal e-mails between climate scientists may be ill-advised and embarrassing, but by themselves do not provide hard evidence of scientific fraud." He added, "The fact is that the evidence for climate change does not hinge upon data from the East Anglia University researchers whose e-mails were exposed."" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Another source that puts "Climategate" in scare quotes, verifies the words "theft", "stolen" and "hacked", and thoroughly debunks to nonsense of the controversy. Good find. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - Once again you are advancing media-initiated characterizations (this time from an opinion-piece) as fact. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't advance anything. A Quest For Knowledge found it, not me. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are advancing it in that you assert it supports your side of the argument to remove "alleged" but it does not. Why does it not? Because it's just another example of the media characterizing things without attribution. And it's a poor source at that - an opinion piece. So, for you to champion its posting means you are advancing it. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's "an opinion piece", Lex, I guess it's of no use to anyone and we may as well just delete the whole thread and forget it exists. You can't have it both ways. And BTW, don't edit any of my comments again. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then do not address me as "Lex" - you doing so is clearly an instigation intended to provoke trouble. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant "Rex", not "Lex". I'll get it right next time. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the overall science of AGW, this controversy is much ado about nothing. But we still have to fairly represent what the controversy is about which includes the potential misconduct of 3 or 4 scientists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not until misconduct is proven, otherwise it would be a BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey: It's not a WP:BLP violation if it's sourced to a WP:RS. The few exceptions (such as sexual orientation) don't currently apply to this article. This has already been discussed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I opened a new section on the BLP claim just because people keep saying this as if it is something that is agreed. I would appreciate it if we could get this hammered out one way or another.Jarhed (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Potential doesn't equal. Until these scientists have been convicted or sanctioned for misconduct, we can't say they committed it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly talk about the controversy, which seems considerable to me. I think it is foolish for WP to pretend as if it doesn't exist. I have looked at the LiveScience references, and I don't understand how anyone could consider these controversial or object to them being used as sources for this article.Jarhed (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If the LiveScience piece is to be accepted in support of "controversy", then it will have to be accepted in support of "theft", "stolen" and "hacked" as well. There will be no cherry-picking of sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And if it fails for the essential reason I state it does, that being: it contains media-generated characterizations which are not attributed to a primary source, hence it is not a valid secondary source and is therefore an unreliable source for this particular reason (quite apart from it also being a opinion column), THEN ALL similarly situated sources are also disqualified. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And if an editor objects to that characterization, he can find a reliable source to explain the objection, the inclusion of which will make the article NPOV. Am I missing something here?Jarhed (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got the premise wrong. It's the initial characterization which must have foundation to an actual primary source, as reported by a secondary source. The media keeps repeating that word of it's own initiative - it's not sourced by them back to anything, so they are the primary source. Because of that, we can't use them without the term "alleged". Do you understand what I am saying? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The news article IS the source. You don't need to source sources. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• No - you are mistaken. Please read this Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. The rule is that the media can't simply confabulate a premise which requires an expert opinion without consulting one. If they do, like they have in this case, we can't cite them unless we say "alleged". See my other posts. I've explained this thoroughly elsewhere on this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I don't want to offend you, but you are fundamentally mistaken and Mr. Anonymous here is 100% correct in what is essentially an abstruse argument that will be misconstrued by POV pushers anyway. I said somewhere up there that we should try to agree on *stringently reliable* sources. Those sources will necessary conflict on this controversy, so let's just use them all and each push his or her own POV without trying to clobber each other and then maybe, just maybe, we can get a halfway NPOV article out of the effort. I doubt we can do this but hope springs eternally.Jarhed (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious question - is LiveScience a notable enough source for us to use? I don't know much about the source - yeah, I know, I've come across it often enough, but I don't know much about how serious a site it is. Anyone know? Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal but Yahoo (best online editors in the news business) links to LiveScience and I read it about ten times a week, as I am sure millions of other people do. I would consider its reliability to be about the same as USA Today, in other words, high.Jarhed (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Popularity != reliability. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal != factual. Sometimes I feel as if I am talking to brick walls.Jarhed (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ are you agreeing, or being snide? Please clarify. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that popularity does not equal reliability. Sorry - I thought everyone knew what != meant. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No big, but != approximates the logical symbol, "makes true" (e.g., see here). I was a bit thrown off as well. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Although |= would be the most likely approximation.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As something of a part-time programmer, my understanding of != is "not equal to". In the old days, we would use "<>" instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) see here. He's saying that just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable. Dreaded Walrus 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Official police statement completely undercuts presumptive conclusion of "theft"

Read this here

A Norfolk police spokesman said: “This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. An inquiry team has been established under the leadership of Det Supt Julian Gregory and the investigation is being supported by relevant experts from other organisations.

“We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed. It would be inappropriate at this early stage to comment on the exact nature of the investigation or speculate publicly on the person or persons involved.”

This should settle the dispute as the police statement is authoritative and trumps media characterizations. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering the wording "alleged breach" and "may have". Troed (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. We use what secondary reliable sources report. The "alleged breach" may be referring to the manner of the theft, rather than the theft itself. It is no more conclusive than any other source because it omits relevant information. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper quoted is a reliable source (it is a local Norwich newspaper, after all). Dimawik (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is, but we also have dozens of national and international news organs - also reliable sources - that say "theft" without any sort of qualifier. Here's where the word "preponderance" comes in. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This other newspaper also reports the same statement from the police.Echofloripa (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit: This was a reply to Scjessey above, clarified due to a later edit by Echofloripa) Yes, that would be what we would qualify with "MSM also refers to this as". However, the statement found here is a proper second source quoting a first - which completely voids all earlier discussions where the police investigation was considered by some, you for example, a proper source for simply referring to this incident as "theft", "stolen" etc without having to use a qualifier like "allegedly". Do note that when the MSM was found to also use "allegedly" and "leaked" some editors here tried to claim otherwise still. That is POV editing. Troed (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And feel free to adjust FAQ5 accordingly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were the case that all secondary reliable sources report the same thing, we might then be obligated to report exactly what all the sources are consistently saying. That isn't the case here. In light of an actual quote for the police, who unlike the CRU are not burdened with a COI, there's no question that the qualifications are, at this time, appropriate. Moreover, the police statement avoids the term "theft" so it isn't even clear that the phrase "alleged theft" is appropriate, at least without acknowledging that the term is used by some sources, but not by the police.--SPhilbrickT 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear SPhilbrick, police would never use word "theft" in this case, as the word is not applied to misappropriation of information in the British law (the details are actually laid out in layman's terms in the Theft article in Misplaced Pages). So, whenever in Climategate you hear "email theft", it just indicates sloppy reporting. This is what actually pushed me to go and search for the actual quote from the police. Dimawik (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "some tea leaves 'ad 'alf-'inched some data from them climate boffins." -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your peculiar brand of humor. But the British police will never apply the word "theft" in this case - so whenever you see it applied to Climategate, the police is definitely misquoted. Dimawik (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a completely false claim. "Data theft" is a standard and widely used term in computer security circles in the UK. See for some of the 37,000 references to "data theft", just from UK government websites alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think 216's point should be dismissed so quickly. The police are using the word "alleged". What harm is there to this article if we use the word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Slippery slope. What harm is there to this article if we switch from using "skeptical view" to "fringe view". We use what the preponderance of reliable sources use. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. And we don't simply use what a preponderance of sources say. A peer-reviewed study trumps what some idiot reporter says, and a quote from the police (in the absence of a rationale for thinking they may be lying) about the nature of a crime trumps what some lazy reporter concludes.--SPhilbrickT 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard use of "alleged breach" is "alleged breach of security". The term "theft" is not used by the police unless something was actually was stolen. If the original data was left intact on the CRU servers, then nothing was stolen. The offense would then be along the lines of unauthorized access, copying and release of information. If the data was destroyed it still would not be theft, it would be along the lines of unauthorized destruction of data, unlawful interference with a data processing system, something along those lines, depending on the laws in the court of jurisdiction.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this "standard use" claim? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it doesn't really matter. Whatever the wording of the police statement might imply, we still have to stick with what it says.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's completely false. The standard term for a breach of security in which information is taken without consent is "data theft". It's a widely documented issue, and a standard term, on UK government websites dealing with information security. See for many examples. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of the British law is irrelevant (and wrong, see Oxford v Moss, information could not be deemed to be intangible property, so theft does not apply). Anyhow, police used very specific words, and we must follow. Dimawik (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. We follow reliable sources, not bent coppers on the take! Where's Gene Hunt when you need him? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not my "personal interpretation". It's the standard terminology and it's the law. Did you even click on the link I provided? Honestly, I am getting very tired of people simply making things up around here. Here's a suggestion: read about the Data Protection Act, which post-dates the case you linked to. A 30-year-old case does not represent the current state of play. There have been a variety of cases in recent years of people being convicted of data theft - see e.g. "Data theft conviction carries stiffest sentence yet" from 2006. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually read your own links? The sentence was not for theft, it was for unlawfully obtaining personal information. Data Protection Act, as far as I know, also does not use the word "theft". Dimawik (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what "data theft" is. The term refers to the unlawful acquisition of personal information, such as databases, e-mails, addresses etc. Did you notice the article title? Did you notice the 36,000+ references here on UK government websites, which explain what the term refers to? This is a really dumb argument. I have spent long enough with lawyers working on data protection issues to know about this first hand. Have you had any dealings with UK data protection law? Do you know what the terminology is? Are you even in the UK? Your comments indicate that you know absolutely nothing about data protection law here. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated before, your personal googling has no consequences here, unless you manage to come across a police statement on Climategate that will use the word "theft". I can assure you that this is extremely unlikely. Dimawik (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point: the source for the statement that there was a theft - that information was stolen - is the university, which has said so explicitly (and used the word "stolen" repeatedly). The university is the owner of the stolen data. We do not need the police to source the statement about "theft", since the university is the only party in a position to state that the data was stolen, since it is the undisputed owner of the data. It is, after all, a simple question - the data was either released with consent or taken without consent. The university says that it was taken without consent - stolen, in its own words. Its statements have not said "allegedly stolen" or used any qualifiers of that nature; they have been categorical. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is OK to say, "CRU reported theft", "CRU alleged theft". It is not OK to say "theft occurred", though. Dimawik (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be alleged breach of conduct or alleged breach of of the peace or alleged breach of copyrights. However, the context would be wrong. Given the context if you have a better conclusion for "alleged breach" by all means present it and we can work towards consensus.24.87.71.192 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not even matter what it could be; we should simply use the police wording verbatim and use alleged breach instead of theft. We can also say, "some newspapers prefer to call this alleged crime a theft". Anything else at this stage is simply OR. Dimawik (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the university calls it a theft - it says explicitly that the data was stolen. Why are you ignoring the university's statements? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Because whenever the crime is alleged, the law enforcement's statement is much more authoritative. When the Norwich police and CRU will be discussing the climate change, I will put more weight into CRU's wording. Dimawik (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. Law enforcement investigates crimes in response to complaints by the victims. The police are not in a position to determine by themselves whether the UEA's data (not CRU, please note) was stolen. Put it this way - if your house was burgled, who would determine that property had been stolen - you or the police? How would the police know without you reporting it to them and you telling them that your property had been taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a horrid analogy. The police look for signs of a robbery, like forced entry. If they find evidence that the alleged victim faked the robbery to file a false insurance claim they arrest them and conclude that no theft took place.Bigred58 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reporting" here is the key word. A victim reports the crime, police investigates an alleged crime. It is quite possible that police will reclassify the reported crime. So, if you propose to write, CRU is reporting a data theft, Norwich police is investigating an alleged breach of computer security, I am with you. Once you remove the "CRU reported" qualifier, we've sailed into the OR ocean. Dimawik (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The police, to answer your question. I'm only making an allegation, and I'm the only one who knows if it's true, true as far as I know or false (when you get into a debate with an insurance company this becomes quite visible). I.e, CRU claiming it's a theft is simply that, a claim by CRU. Media reporting on the issue are simply that, media reporting on the issue. The police has the authority to say which is which, when they're done investigating. Until then, all claims are "alleged". It would be to do anything but report who says what, with all the valid qualifiers. It would be POV-editing to claim that "it's obvious that theft has taken place". Troed (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim of theft does not make it so ChrisO. Many cases of insurance fraud begin with a claim of theft. That doesn't make the theft fact. At this point in time the police have not stated if a crime was committed or not. They are the primary reliable source on that fact not the press and not CRU. This need to go to arbitration because you will never going to yield your POV.Bigred58 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this very simply. The university has said unequivocally that the material was stolen. Numerous reliable sources report that the material was stolen. We do not have a single reliable source stating that the material was not stolen. We follow what the reliable sources say. That is all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are factually wrong and purposely misrepresenting cited facts in this discussion. Why? Troed (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So point out which facts I've got wrong. What are you disputing - that the university has said that the material was stolen or that numerous reliable sources have reported that it was stolen? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what the university has said, or that there are WS:RS reporting on the incident in various different ways ("stolen", "allegedly stolen", "leaked" - you seem to oppose some of those phrases though according to your earlier comments). However, none of it allows us to claim that there was a "theft" or words to that effect. We can only report that the university claims/alleges it, that sources report this and that (and then we should include all of this and that - not just the phrases you personally like). Troed (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Should I change the FAQ#5 to at least correctly quote the police? Dimawik (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not a single reliable source. This other newspaper also reports the same statement from the police.Echofloripa (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. That is the same article, written by the same author. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhh.... Support
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and I just did. Though ChrisO reverted it without giving an explanation...--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's wrong and because someone (you?) also deleted Q10 without any explanation. The statement from Norfolk Police quoted in the FAQ comes from this source: "A Norfolk Police spokeswoman said last night: ‘Norfolk Constabulary can confirm that it is investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia (UEA).’". Note that this statement is five days more recent than the one quoted at the top of this section. It's the most recent thing the police have said on the issue. Also note that there is no equivocation in this statement - evidently on 1st December the police were trying to establish whether criminal offences and a data breach had taken place, but by 6th December they were confident enough to say unequivocally that criminal offences were under investigation and a data breach had occurred. Incidentally, this also answers the rather tendentious question of what was meant by a "breach". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Q10 in a separate edit, with an explanation, which you (inappropriately) reverted in tandem with all of the edits I made to the FAQ over that ten-minute stretch. As for FAQ5, if you could include the citation you give here in the FAQ that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the citation to the FAQ. Q10 was deleted without explanation in a revert by someone editing from an IP - I presume that was you? I've found your explanation now. I don't think it really works. Q10 addresses three things: complaints against a specific named individual; accusations against Misplaced Pages; inclusion of self-referential material. It tackles those by pointing to the previous discussion on that issue and to Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-referential material. They which do address precisely this issue at Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid#Articles are about their subjects, and they set out the criteria under which self-referential material may be included. I've reworded Q10 slightly to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed – adding that source for the quote helped your case more than any of the other stuff that was already up there.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your deduction above about the police having come to a conclusion on the allegations in five days from these quotes alone is a clear example of WP:OR. There is no support in WP:RS for your personal conclusion, and if we really believe that the difference in the quotes describe the case having moved forward we either need a citation on that fact from the police or we should be cautious in our writing. Until the investigation has come to a conclusion (which will be reported) there is nothing but allegations and if the MSM reports differently it's still the MSM reporting and not statements of facts with regards to the investigation. Troed (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The police statement is clear enough and it is the most recent word from the police on the subject. There is no reason why we should use an old source if we have something more recent. Please knock off the "MSM" silliness - we report what reliable sources report, whether or not you agree with what those sources say. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, see all my comments at this page if you want. We should write "xxxxx claim", "yyyy allegedly" etc. We have no support in WP:RS to claim that the police investigation has come to any conclusion with regards to guilt or what has actually happened. The difference in quotes, which you are using to perform WP:OR in support of your POV, are easily attributed to the reporting media and not an actual difference in police communication. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to reporting guilt in a possible criminal investigation. I have no problems with quoting both papers as to what the police are saying. You seem to be very eager to only quote the one that suppports your POV. Why? Troed (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my POV". The police have not attributed "guilt" to anyone. They have issued a statement, which is quoted verbatim by the source, about what they are doing in relation to the incident. It's pure OR on your part to claim that "the reporting media" is a factor. Might I remind you that both statements, of the 1st and the 6th December, come via the media? I see absolutely no reason why the statement of the 1st should be used when we have a more recent statement from the 6th. What is the point of quoting out of date information? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You, and others, have used that statement from the police as a statement of fact that they've already come to a conclusion as to what has happened. That is WP:OR, as well as your claim above that the five days between the media reports holds significant meaning to that effect. It's even covered in the first phrases at WP:OR - "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". You have no support in claiming that there has been an advance in the investigation between the 1st and the 6th - thus we should report both (especially since one is more verbose than the other). To take one of them and claim that there's suddenly support for claiming that the investigation has concluded something (which, again, you did above) is not something we should do here. Troed (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, let's be reasonable. We finally have a statement by police that has length of more than one sentence. Can we at least fix the FAQ, as it clearly currently says something else? Police did not say "theft", and will never say for the reasons I have outlined earlier. Police will not drop qualifier "alleged" until at least the investigation is complete. To describe the alleged crime, we should use the words the police used. I honestly do not understand how this simple idea became a source of so much bickering. This item of the FAQ is no longer about right-wing vs left-wing battle, this is about just common decency, as we finally have a proper source - and should use it. Dimawik (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We quote what the police have said, not what you want them to have said. Enough of this. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The police don't say theft. EAU does, but that is their opinion and must be stated as such. Real Climate? Ha, why should they have a voice in this matter? Arzel (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I am really puzzled. I spent time and found an actual source, not some speculation. To casually dismiss the source, casually use word "theft" throughout the article, and fight against every instance of word "alleged" when the police is saying something completely different is simply wrong. Dimawik (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. We should quote both statements. Troed (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

UEA is the owner of the stolen material. It is the only party in a position to say whether the material was taken without consent. There is no dispute in any reliable source that I'm aware of that the material was indeed taken without consent. When we say "theft", we are reflecting what reliable sources say. No reliable source that I know of disputes that a theft occurred. It's true that some bloggers do, which is what you're reflecting, but blogs are not reliable sources and their viewpoints cannot be taken into account. As for RealClimate, their server was hacked and the stolen e-mails were uploaded there - they are a reliable source for stating what happened to their own server, which is why their account of the hack of their server is quoted. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are, as you've done numerous times at this talk page, misrepresenting facts knowingly. I would like to know why you are this eager to make sure that this article will never reach consensus. You do not have any WP:RS whatsoever to support your claim about theft. Your paragraph above is, as many others you've written, WP:OR. You're also knowingly not recognizing quotes from the police and the university where they are qualifying statements with "alleged" etc. Please explain why your POV is the only POV that's allowed. Everyone else, as far as I can see, are willing to compromise. Troed (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reliable sources stating that the documents were stolen. "Alleged" is unsourced POV editorialising. It does not reflect what the sources say, it is a weasel word and it is a word to avoid - see WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, purported, alleged. As that page says, it can be used to "imply that a given statement or term is inaccurate, without being upfront about it. This has a similar effect to scare quotes, and such usage should be avoided. If doubt exists, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who is doing the doubting and why." But in this case there is no doubt expressed in reliable sources - they refer to the documents as being stolen. The "insider" meme is one that has been pushed by bloggers, but they are not reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ChrisO for making my point. This section begins with a verbose quote from the police investigating the case where they are using the word "alleged". I have also sourced the same from other WP:RS before (CNN, being one), yet you insist on your personal google-counts being more relevant just because they agree with your POV. Basically, and I don't know how to write this in other way, you are knowingly misrepresenting the actual state of WP:RS. I don't understand why though, since I really - really - want to WP:AGF Troed (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence misrepresents source (prematurely archived)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

See the first paragraph of this section of the article for the following fragment: "and discussions that some pundits and commentators believe advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature".

It cites this article from The Wall Street Journal, which in no way mentions pundits or commentators. The quotes relevant to the sentence in question that are included in the WSJ article are as follows:

"Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications."

"The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others."

"A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view."

Given this, can an administrator please change the fragment to, "and discussions of efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view," in keeping with (and keeping) the relevant citation from the WSJ?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "apparent" and "suggests" is a weasel by the writer so that he can give the appearance of saying something without making a substantive factual statement. You fell for it. --TS 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

a) The point being made is that the WSJ article is listed as a citation for a sentence that it does not support. Please respond to this point if you feel the need. b) Remember you're talking about a writer for the WSJ, not an editor on Misplaced Pages. If the author reports that these emails "suggest x" or indicate "apparent x", then we can say so in the article. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of a WSJ writer can be reported as fact. If you think our verifiability policy says so, you're wrong. I think the WSJ sourcing is poor for this statement and we can find better sources--I'll do so without delay. --TS 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ article is not an editorial, it is a report on the CRU e-mail incident. He was reporting the contents of the e-mails, not waxing poetical.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have consensus for this proposed edit, so I've demoted the "editprotected". The question of whether the Wall Street Journal piece is a news piece or not is neither here nor there. If it is used, as you seem to want to use it here, to represent the reporter's opinion--which he writes as opinion--as fact, then that's an unacceptable use. --TS 09:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point have we been discussing WSJ's reliability. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. As for the reporter's "opinion," again, the WSJ article is not an OP-ED, and its author was reporting, not musing. The only comments you're making are extraneous to the proposed edit, and none of them have been posed as objections. If an administrator could make the edit so as to keep from misrepresenting the WSJ that'd be great. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an OP-ED, it's a news article in the news section of a reliable source. Do you have another reliable source that disputes the findings in that article? Does the NYTimes report it differently? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The section as written does not factually represent the source. Arzel (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Sources should never be misrepresented, and the added language seems to be someones POV at that. Troed (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Request further clarification of intended edit in its final, proposed form, side by side with current edit. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Given. See opening post.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, then. TS is arguing for attribution. You can't state an allegation as fact. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified Support since that is what the source says (I would however, as an alternative, be ok with keeping the sentence and replacing the source -- which may be preferred as the WSJ article seems to draw a conclusion.)jhe_iv (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed fragment would be more informative than (even a cited version of) the current one. (Incidentally, I'm not quite sure why people have started voting. We're remedying an unequivocal misrepresentation of a source, not making a decision on the article's title/style.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems it was me who started "voting". I just saw TS claiming we had no consensus in correcting a wrongful citation, which I wanted to express dissatisfaction with. There's no need for "consensus" in making such a correction. Troed (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Keeping a misrepresentation in the article is improper. THe above wording is an accurate paraphrase of what the source says, and no alternative source or phrasing has been suggested. Let's make it happen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Prodego added {{POV}} to this article. There has been some concern raised (on his talk) that it may have been inappropriate for Prodego to do so. I've never edited this article but a review of the talk page supports the idea that there is a neutrality dispute, so I have made a null edit reaffirming the tagging. No one should remove the tag until consensus has been reached on what this page needs to say. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it but I'm happy to be convinced. Please provide specific problems that would need to be rectified and are not overwhelmingly rejected (like renaming the article to "Climategate." That would seem to be the minimum required to justify the tag. Hipocrite (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I started a list here, but it has been collapsed so you may have missed it.

I had a plan to start tackling items one at a time to see if they could be resolved. My first attempt is here, but I was away for the day, and the discussion got derailed.--SPhilbrickT 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask a somewhat rhetorical question? Doesn’t every human being have a neutral point of view? Take for example Hitler. I expect that if you could ask him, he would tell you he had a neutral point of view. That some to the right and some to the left of him had extreme points of view, but his point of view was neutral. I expect if you asked everyone from saint to sinner, they would give a similar answer. Otherwise, if they believed their point of view was extreme, they would change it until they felt it was neutral. As such, the general approach to WP, requiring a NPOV is fundamentally flawed.

Both Politics and the Law have a solution for this problem. They support the concept of majority view and minority view, which allows the widest possible presentation of information, and help lessen the potential for problems should more information ultimately prove the majority viewpoint is wrong. Otherwise there can be great harm in suppressing the facts on either side, simply because they don’t represent the middle ground.

Take for example Galileo Galilei. Under the rules of WP how would his support of Copernicanism have been reported in WP had it existed in 1610? I quote from WP “After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615”

I submit that under the rules of WP, in 1610 it is highly unlikely that Galileo’s support of a heliocentric view of the solar system would have been viewed in a neutral fashion. He would likely have been labeled a skeptic, or "vehemently suspect of heresy". There will be those that support this view, some that think it is too mild, and those that think I’ve gone too far. That will be proof that my point of view is in the middle, that it is neutral on this issue.

While I have written this somewhat tongue in cheek I did so to make a point. I would like to recommend that we consider a different approach to contentious issues such as this. Divide the article into a majority and minority viewpoint and label it as such. The heading for the article should make clear that the article is contentious and there is both a minority and majority view. Each author then should try and restrict themselves to one side of the argument or the other when editing and concerns over non NPV will be minimized.24.87.71.192 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the large number of editors - each with their own point of neutrality - combine to create "Misplaced Pages's point of neutrality", although even these large numbers can be somewhat influenced by systemic bias. Put simply, the "point of neutrality" is controlled by the mob. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but calling any view "majority" will upset the minority, and rightly so, because unless you can prove such a status, that in itself is POV.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." Rd232 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

These are all good points. My concern is that WP:NPOV appears to assume free speech and equal access to publication. In that case the "prevalence of source material" may be significant. However, many institutions and groups work to suppress free speech for political advantage. In the case of Galileo it was the Inquisition. In the case of climate change, both sides of the debate have complained about interference in free speech and equal access. I'm sure we can find plenty of references both sides to support this if required. The point is that free speech appears compromised, and as such we cannot trust that the WP rule about WP:NPOV, because we cannot trust that the source material is fairly presented on either side. As such, I assert that the rule WP:NPOV, to the degree that it relies of free speech, is fundamentally broken in the case of climate change.24.87.71.192 (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Weird phrasing?

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I happened to notice a weird phrasing in the lede that seems to confuse skeptics with scientists. The sentence currently reads:

The controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists...manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than skeptics claim it is.

It's the scientists who say the case is strong, not the skeptics. Skeptics claim the case is weak or made-up. I wrote the original sentence so that's why I noticed that the scientists and skeptics have been reversed. The new wording kind of works - I'm not sure - but it seems confusing to me. I don't have time to track down where exactly this sentence was changed, but a few weeks ago, it said:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists ...manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

I think the old version is clearer and reads better, too. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)]

Cool. Sounds reasonable. I'm adding the request.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you on this. Even with this uncontroversial change, however, it still reads a little strangely. There is something wrong with the first bit around the word "including". It feels like there should be some form of punctuation between "made" and "including", prior to the series. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can make this one for you once you sort the word order and punctuation out. It doesn't seem a very controversial change to return to wording that everyone seems to agree on. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Minor requested change doesn't solve the problem. Current wording is vague and unencyclopedic. We don't refer to questionable accusations as "various allegations" without attributing them to their claimants. Entire sentence needs to be rewritten with primary claimants represented by name. I believe that a previous version did just that, but it was removed by various editors unfamiliar with best practices. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the current version of the text, the phrase "stronger than skeptics claim it is" is indeed what you mean. The skeptics claim it is weak, but the scientists claim it is stronger – stronger than weak. Right? It makes sense to me the way it currently reads.
However, the fact that we're already talking about allegations here would seem to lessen the need for the words "skeptics claim", I would think, since the allegations are what the skeptics claim.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that I find myself having to repeat this so often, when I was under the belief it was the pillar of all good science: All scientists are supposed to be skeptics, we would all do well were more of the scientists in the spotlight rightly called skeptics. The burden of proof is always on the scientists making the claim, in this case the CRU/UN/IPCC. At every turn the CRU kept their data and models private, the rule of thumb is supposed to be peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results, have the rules for good science changed while I was out? Does anyone here deny that the CRU kept their data private and one of their workers even threatened to delete data rather than hand it over to a FOIA request in an e-mail? This should definitely be called Climategate. -Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the topic of this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Garrettw87, I wrote the original sentence so I think I am uniquely qualified to know what I was thinking at the time I wrote it. Climatologists say the case is strong. AGW skeptics say the case is weak or non-existant. The current wording is a juxtaposition of climatologists and AGW skeptics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

{{editprotected}} Reference 27 (here) is a dead link. A "live" one can be found here: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/78665162.html. If an administrator could make the exchange (or just unprotect the article) that'd be great. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to make this change if there are no objections after a few hours, a link fix shouldn't be controversial, right? It's still going to the same source, right? But I'm not sure unprotection is a good idea just yet. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Best to wait until there has been the usual eleventy-billion gigabytes of discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Non-controversial housekeeping to replace dead link. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Simple housekeeping - unless the new source cannot be considered "reliable". --T-dot ( /contribs ) 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I concur with the replacement link. In fact, it is a better choice, as the article was originally published in the Inquirer, and the current link goes to SanLuisObisbo.com, presumably because they picked it up.SPhilbrickT 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Link swapped. NW (Talk) 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

It might be wise to add |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5mOvPIAez |archivedate=2009-12-30 to the cite news template (ref 27 mentioned above), to prevent another possible dead link in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

The following discussion 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.

{{editprotected}} Tom Wigley isn't head of NCAR, it's Eric Barron. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To help out, I think Boris would like the first sentence of the third paragraph of this section adjusted to show his former status. Maybe change:
], a former director of the CRU and now head of the US ],
to:
], a former director of the CRU and former head of the US ],
--Rockfang (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Tom ever director of NCAR? He wasn't, to my knowledge, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have a source. (I could just ask him, though that wouldn't strictly qualify as a WP:RS.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters anyway. The source we use to support the claim doesn't say he was either. Perhaps someone misunderstood the source which says he was a former director of CRU and is now at the NCAR to mean he's now the director of the NCAR Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To Boris: My apologies. I misunderstood your request. I did a cursory search and couldn't find anything saying he was ever the head of that group. I'm stepping away now. :) Rockfang (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And he was not director. Fixed as requested. Also added that he left CRU in 1993 to make the time frame clear -let me know if anyone thinks this is inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased/unbiased Journalism

This editorial from the washington post talks about the biased coverage of climategate by the AP.

On the other hand, this program ( and transcription) by the government owned finnish TV shows what journalism should be. This can certainly be used as a reliable source to add some truth to this poor article in wikipedia.Echofloripa (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's from the Times, not the Post.--SPhilbrickT 14:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We almost never use TV shows as sources (excluding things like plot summaries). Also since by your own admission whatever the show says is not well covered in other sources and we already have way more sources then we can use (and in English too), it'll likely violate WP:UNDUE to mention whatever they say Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have way more pro-agw sources that you can use, that is the truth. The transcripts are in english, and it is on their own official website. Why would it violate neutral point of view? The program invited several of the involved scientists to comment of the subject, which they refused to do. The program is an excellent investigative journalism, and should be an example for the whole western corporate media. By the way, the transcription includes the graph that shows the Briffa un-cut series, which should be used to illustrate what the "trick" was all about.Echofloripa (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support use of the Finnish public TV program. I have a sample: quote here -- which also has a link to the documentary, with English subtitles. This is the Finnish equivalent of BBC/PBS, so should be a RS.

Also see, forex, this part:

VoiceOver: Many researchers have questioned whether the so called urban heat island phenomenon has been accounted for sufficiently in the CRU construction of mean world temperature.

Jarl Ahlbeck, Lecturer in environmental technology at the Abo Akademi University: ”I’ve asked Phil Jones many times by e-mail, what is the method used in adjusting for urban heat, and I’ve never received an answer.”

VO: Urban heat means the extra warmth measured in population centers compared to the surrounding countryside. Wasteful energy use is one reason behind the effect.

Ahlbeck (Pointing to temperature curves compiled by Nasa GISS): ”Here’s the temperature curve for Bratsk (Russia). The measurements show that it’s been quite flat, untill a large pulp factory was opened in the 1970’s – and here you can see the heat caused by the pulp mill. Temperature in Bratsk has increased dramatically because of it.”

Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

English sources are preferred because they are accessible to all English speakers which given this is the English wikipedia is preferred. In cases when we clearly lack sources or perhaps when there it's claimed there is widespread difference in coverage between English and non English sources it may be appropriate but in this case we only have one program and a large number of other sources. There may be a transcript in English and it appears to be an official translation, but it doesn't help those who wish to view the program. And as I've said, we rarely use TV sources anyway, be they BBC, PBS or whatever for many reasons including again accessibility issues. Transcripts help, but don't get around the fact whatever it is is clearly designed to be viewed. If the TV source is mentioned in other RS then there may be merit to mention that but I see no evidence of that here. To put it all a different way, if the vast majority of sources don't mention or support something, then it's highly questionable to include the single source that does. It doesn't matter whether it's 'excellent investigative journalism, and should be an example for the whole western corporate media'. As NPOV clearly says, NPOV isn't about using a single source to make claims which no one else has made when the vast majority of other sources don't support the claims, that's clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE and cherry picking Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the transcript can serve as one of sources for on specific points - like what was done when incorporating Briffa reconstruction. Absent specific allegations as to what is wrong with the specific article quoted, the newspaper like Daily Mail should not be rejected either, I believe. Doc15071969 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article title isn't accurate...

I've been following this discussion for a while now, and have noticed that the majority of the of topics revolve around the name, specifically wheather or not to use climategate, hacking, e-mail, incident, etc. These are all valid points, but I feel that those changes leave still some ambinguity to those who aren't up to speed. I propose a name change to something along the lines of "Unauthorized Electronic Information Release Incident At The Climatic Research Unit of The University of East Anglia". Comments? - Gunnanmon

Too wordy. How about "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy". It offers even more concessions to the "Climategate" crowd, but at least it gets away from the awful title we have now. If the investigation concludes that an actual "theft" took place, we can swap "release" for "theft". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not too sure who the "Climategate crowd" are, but I do consider Scjessey's suggestion an improvement over the current title. However, what I do know, and everyone seems to agree, including those sources considered acceptable by Scjessey, "Climategate" is not the theft/hack/leak/release of the data, but the controversy over the behaviour of scientists supposedly revealed in the e-mails, behaviour now being investigated by their universities. Anyway, better than the title we've got. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the file which was released contained not only e-mails, but electronic documents, modeling code, as well as other miscellaneous information, "Electronic Information" fits much better. Instead of hacking, we would say "Unauthorized (...) Release", as it's still not known wheather this was a hack or a whistleblow. As for Climatic Research Unit, there are numerous CRUs around the world, so... which one is this one? The CRU the article refers to is the one which resides at "The University of East Anglia". I would even go so far as to add "...of England" onto the end so as to be more specific. That being said, the article title should read "Unauthorized Electronic Information Release Incident At The Climatic Research Unit of The University of East Anglia of England". - Gunnanmon —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Still too wordy. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the current title doesn't reflect the story -- the lay person would never guess that this story is the same as what's in the media. A longer, more descriptive article title is needed. Gunnanmon —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Well, some say the story is the theft/hack/leak/release of the information only. Others say it is much much more. Seeems to me that the discussion over the title of the article is but a proxy for the discussion over what the article should be about. Err, obviously! Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Still no FOIA section

I note this article still has no such section -- it once did (see here), but same was promptly removed by the whitewash crew. Note that it included this statement from UK law enforcement:

The UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) oversees the FOI process there, and issued the following statement:

"Destroying requested information outside of an organisation’s normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure.

I think it's shocking and shameful that, after all this time, one of the central issues of the Climategate affair remains entirely unmentioned in our article. Media critics of the Misplaced Pages Climategate whitewash have identified a kernel of truth, I'm afraid. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and was thinking the same thing. I also question why there is nothing about the fact that the emails and information in question may have been compiled by EAU to comply with the FOI request. Arzel (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The FOIA section was entirely speculative, so it was quite rightly removed. There is no evidence proving that a violation of the Act took place, so it would be a BLP violation to have anything in the article that said such-and-such may have done something-or-other. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

e/c :::Well, since we have Phil Jones, in the leaked and acknowledged (by him) genuine emails, asking his colleagues to destroy their emails so they wouldn't have to release them under FOIA -- and many other discussions of how CRU could evade their FOIA obligations -- PLUS a statement from UK law enforcement saying that's illegal -- PLUS UEA & UK law enforcement investigating the CRU FOIA evasion scandal -- I'd say that goes a quite a bit beyond speculation, wouldn't you? Particularly since we have RS's for each of these items. I await your reply with interest, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is correct, until such a time as an inquiry has been undertaken to see if FOI was purposely avoided then any mention of it here is pointless as it can`t be reliably sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BS, all we need is an RS that states the information under question was part of an FOIA request. There is no speculation there. The information had been under a FOIA request for some time. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, even if there was FOI request untill the police have finished their investigation and bring charges then no-one ca nbe accused of avoiding FOI, all we currently have are the leaked e-mails were some guys say they won`t, just cos they say they won`t does not mean they would not have in the end. It is that which must be proved. And it still is not mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tillman and Arzel, it's time the 'Climategate' related articles reflect actual consensus, instead of the consensus of a small group of 'white washers'. I also find it laughable that RealClimate is referenced, when at least one of their members is a Misplaced Pages editor well known for abusing his authority and making the hope of Misplaced Pages NPOV laughable. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do wish this talk page hadn't become an echo chamber for folks who like to read skeptical/conservative/denier blog nonsense. Comments like that just switch people off from trying to make an effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To whom are you referring, Scjessey? And are you aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Climate_Change ? As I've said I've seen the emails/data first-hand, so I don't need 'skeptical/conservative/denier blog nonsense. BTW all scientists are supposed to be skeptics, if you're not a skeptic, then you're not a scientist. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the ArbCom request, and I'm unimpressed. The emails/data you have seen don't explain your comment about an editor supposedly from RealClimate. Furthermore, there is a world of difference between sensible skepticism and denying decades of analysis based on vast quantities of data. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the real data, or the doctored data, Scjessey? While I'm not completely ignorant of the science, I trust IPCC scientist John Christy is more informed than either of us. So I point you to the BBC article I referenced in the page below:

No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

And of course the RealClimate blog has at least one regular Wiki editor/admin in its ranks who butchers NPOV and has COI

Cheers Adam.T.Historian (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any "doctored" data. And I don't use blogs to get information to denigrate Wikipedians, personally. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrmm, where was the miscommunication? Let me try to be succinct: I wasn't implying you use blogs to get information to denigrate Wikipedians. John Christy's comments in that BBC article is also not a blog. I don't see where anyone mentioned a blog, except for me pointing out that RealClimate is a blog. The "doctored" data you are not aware of are contained within the CRU files this article is about. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidently there was a miscommunication. As far as I can tell, you disparaged another Wikipedian because he apparently is associated with RealClimate, and you also now claim that among the files stolen from the CRU was data that were "doctored". Is that correct? What do you mean by "doctored", exactly? My understanding is that the raw data are processed for consumption and use. This is consistent with all data collection for pretty much any science. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The RealClimate contributor would qualify under the constant misuse of BLP, so I obviously cannot name names. As for the data, I don't have all day to talk about it nor am I confident my contributions wouldn't be immediately redacted. Suffice it to say, there is ample evidence within the CRU data that doctoring was going on, not all of which was intentional, if you include the frustrations of one programmer working with flawed models and having to fill in the blanks, apparently with the best of intentions. I can't help but notice inflection of serious disapproval from you, I wasn't aware you were so committed to being 'pro-CRU'.. stolen data? Who was it stolen from? In the United States this type of data would be public domain. Despite a lot of false reports I haven't seen a single e-mail of a personal nature, they are all related to government/tax funded work. Hubble graphics, anyone? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Things aren't so rosy in the US either. Missing Bush emails, anyone? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know we have some common ground, things are definitely not rosy in the US, I hear the Bush e-mails are at an undisclosed location with former veep Cheney Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

At risk of being redacted, I provide this example. It's referred to as "doctored data" by skeptics when arbitrary adjustments like this can be found throughout the code which is used to generate the climate models (quoted verbatim from briffa_sep98_e.pro):

;

; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff

; standardised datasets.

; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion

; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the

; "all band" timeseries

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

;

yrloc=

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75

; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

These "adjustments" are made to the five-year temperature averages, decreasing the prominence of the 40's heat blip and increasing that of modern temperatures, according to a software engineer who took time off to analyze the code. Now, I'm not suggesting that the blogger who conducted this analysis is or should be considered a reliable source, but really, the documentation alone in the above code (ex: "fudge factor") does most of the talking (also, message, 'Oooops!' isn't a very professional method of error-handling, either). »S0CO 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources that discuss this, we can't use this in the article. Please stick to discussing the content of the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was providing an example in response to Scjessey's query; I've no immediate plans to incorporate this disputed content in the article. »S0CO 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Section: Reboot

Reboot: I want to make three points.

• It is NOT not a WP:BLP violation if we cite reliable sources. Yes, there are some exceptions (such as outing someone's sexual orientation) but they currently don't apply to this topic.
• No one is saying (at least I hope not) that the FOI allegations are true, and nor should our article say such a thing. We can, however, cover the allegations.
• There are plenty of reliable sources we can cite. Unfortunately, I do not have enough free time to do much research right now, but the New Zealand Herald and The Telegraph articles spring to mind. I'm pretty sure that the Associated Press and FactCheck.org articles cover this as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP is about far more than just citing reliable sources. Otherwise WP:BLP could have been as simple as "use reliable sources", rather than the 40K of text that's there now. I direct your attention in particular to WP:BLP#Writing and editing, especially the "Criticism and praise" subsection. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the alphabet soup, but if you're strictly following WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (which I always try to do anyway), WP:BLP is largely redundent. Sure, it adds a few extra conditions such as not outing someone's sexual orientation, but they don't apply to this situation. WP:BLP specifically says:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example

"John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe."

Example

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is :a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

The Criticism and praise section says:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

I propose we do exactly that. Now that we are on the same page, and we have the attention of ArbCom and the Admin noticeboard, will you be willing to work with me and our fellow editors in adding this section to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO: I await your response to why we shouldn't be following WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Title Suggestion V22.0 Alpha Release - Free discussion for ideas, not positions!

I've been trying to think of ways in which we might be able to break this frustrating deadlock over the article's title. With a piece of paper and a pencil, I did a Venn diagram to look for common elements that we could agree on for a title. Here were my two sets of data:

From these sets, possible titles can be created from common values. I have eliminated obvious problem results like "Climatic Research Unit controversy" because they lack enough specific information, and removed adjusted for singular/plural mismatches:

• Climatic Research Unit documents controversy
• Climatic Research Unit document release controversy
• Climatic Research Unit files controversy
• Climatic Research Unit file release controversy
• Climatic Research Unit data controversy
• Climatic Research Unit data release controversy

All of these would seem to have some merit, and I hope these examples can be used to generate new discussion or promote new thinking. I quite like Climatic Research Unit data release controversy because it encompasses e-mails, code and other data, keeps the manner of release ambiguous (neither "theft" nor "leak"), and acknowledges that a controversy exists; however, I would prefer to see this thread used as a means to promote discussion about common elements instead of using it to advocate a specific position. I hope this proves useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Any of these would be much better than the existing title. Unless anyone has any new points to make, I suggest that we simply declare consensus reached, let you pick one, and ask an admin to unprotect and carry out the move. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I as impressed with the ingenuity as I am tired of the topic (which is to say very). I think Scjessey's preferred title is spot-on. I also think consensus has been reached and agree with itsmejudith. jhe_iv (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I can agree that 'the more accurate the better', and Scjessey's proposed title is far better than the current, I specifically vote for Climategate, this is definitely a scandal and a coverup, even if you're too shy or afraid to read the CRU emails and munge through the data (I'm neither shy nor afraid), you can easily look at what people like IPCC scientist John Christy and people like him say:

No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

The consensus the aforementioned 'white washers' keep talking about in these talk pages is a complete fabrication on their part, there is evidence of a scandal, a cover-up, there is evidence data was manipulated to reflect fallacies. In short the scientists making the claim (CRU for example) have the burden of proof, and that proof in science comes in the form of peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results.

If the vote is down to the current title or Scjessey's proposal of Climatic Research Unit data release controversy then I definitely vote for the latter, though this is definitely '-gate'-worthy

Adam.T.Historian (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like either of your last two – the ones using the word "data", as that is less specific than "documents" or "files", since what was leaked was more than just documents. Well, now that I think about it, maybe "files" is the most broad of the three. Whatever. I vote for whichever term of those is the most broad.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I, too, like Climategate, but there are many problems with this (all previously enumerated but I'll rehighlight -gate as I think its instructive and demonstrates the power of the suffix). That being said, I am hereby begging editors who read this section to not oppose the move because you favor "climategate" but rather opine on whether the suggested titles are better than the current one. After the move, you are free to propose climategate again (I don't think climategate will be accepted for at least 6 months but who knows) but please don't derail this discussion as has been involuntarily done to previous move attempts. These titles are much better than the current one and we should take every inch improving this article that we can get. jhe_iv (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(After about 20 billion edit conflicts have triggered a rise in the sea level) ... All of these are improvements, and thanks for the diligent effort! There's a question implicit in the title, about what the focus of the article is. If it's about the "hacking incident", then we are covering the unauthorized access and disclosure of the files - who did it, how, why, etc. If it's about the emailes / files, then it is about the conduct of the climate scientists - what they were talking about, what they were doing, and how that differed from the normal actions of scientists studying a subject. If it's about the climategate controversy, it is about the people and groups who raised the alarm following release of the files and began advocating against AGW (is that the right acronym?), how that issue reached the mainstream, and what resulted. A comprehensive article that is about the entire incident would have to address all three and give due weight to each. So far this article is not comprehensive, and focuses almost entirely on the hacking of the emails, and what the emails contained. The scandal surrounding that is barely addressed at all, but depending on how it plays out is probably the main event here, unless the substance of the allegations against the scientists is born out, in which case the main focus would be on their behavior, or unless the perpetrators get caught and there is a lot of fall-out from that, in which case that would be the main event. It's all a little early. Having said all that, I prefer "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" if we're going to have one article cover both issues. First, most of what was released were documents, not data. Second, the salient thing is that they were documents, not that they happened to be in files - electronic or otherwise. Third, the word "documents" implicitly includes what happened to those documents, i.e. they were hacked and released. Adding the word "release" narrows the subject, and does not necessarily include the question of what was released. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I support all of the above proposals as an alternative to the current title, so the exact choice is not all that important. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy--SPhilbrickT 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - it's a good, lucid compromise. »S0CO 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy Troed (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (shrug) I respect the "anti-Climategate" position, but we are the only ones calling it something else. Nightmote (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but if this article is not named climategate, do you favor any or all of these over the current title, "CRU e-mail hacking incident"? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wikidemon. I believe that we are arguing over what this article is named because we cannot decide on what this article is describing (a data theft versus a question of scientific malfeasance), and until we have reached consensus on the scope of this article, the title will be under constant attack by one group or another. A fork has been proposed, and was attempted. I do not support the fork, but truly understand why it is proposed. Nightmote (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tongue firmly in cheek, I will immediately support "CRUTape Letters" if it is proposed. I read that and thought it was brilliant! Nightmote (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If truly pressed, I might go with "CRU Data Controversy". It avoids theft vs hack altogether and skips the "-gate" thing. Not going to fly, though. But if pressed, that's where I'd go. Nice and short and reasonably open-ended without being too vague. Nightmote (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed that in the UK (the locus of the incident), "Warmergate" seems to outstrip "Climategate" for popularity. I didn't have that in my Venn diagram, but it wouldn't have changed the list of common elements. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - with the intention of supporting Climategate at the next available opportunity Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It will never be called "Climategate" because Misplaced Pages does not use POV -gate names to title articles about current affairs. A -gate name is even cited in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions as a POV name disallowed by NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Never is a long time, ChrisO - I do see a Watergate article in Misplaced Pages, after all. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there's a Watergate article, but that's because the scandal was named after a place - the Watergate complex. The term "Watergate" had no inherent implication of scandal. By contrast, every other instance of -gate is derivative and POV, since the term is used to "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up", as one source puts it. That's why Misplaced Pages rejects the use of -gate in article names about current affairs, because it slants an article from the outset. Compare Killian documents controversy ("Rathergate") or Dismissal of US attorneys controversy ("Attorneygate"). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly here on these talk pages and to "insiders" it has become a "controversy". However, to the general public, like me, it is an "incident". And, as I stated in the voting section, I strongly oppose "Climategate". Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you support any of the above titles over the current one? What if they used the word "incident" instead of "controversy"? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This is referred to as a controversy at all possible levels in . I've linked to CNN and a Nobel Prize winners panel to that effect at this talk page. Troed (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose "data release". Far too vague and ambiguous. As others have pointed out, "data" has a specific meaning in this context, since it can refer to scientific data - which is of course not what was stolen from the CRU. "Release" is highly misleading, since it implies that the CRU released the stolen material, which of course it did not. I could live with "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy", however. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Have you even seen the CRU data released? There is a great deal of 'scientific data' in it, models, custom programs, etc. Also, there was no data of a personal nature, so who was it stolen from, the British people in order that the British people could access the data? It's an ongoing investigation, your strong support of CRU isn't really helping the naming conventions discussion IMHO. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The stolen material certainly included material of a personal nature, from what I've read about it - i.e. private correspondence - and it belonged to the UEA, not to the "British people". British universities are not run like American ones. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the American model of information ownership exists everywhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of reading about it, you'll go and get a copy of the CRU data, then you will see that the emails are all related specifically to the work the CRU was doing. I mean the collection is so precise as to imply the possibility that it may've even been compiled by the CRU in anticipation of a UK FOIA request, since it's an ongoing investigation we can only wonder about this point. But regardless it is obvious that there was a great effort to disallow inclusion of all e-mails of a purely personal nature. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Much as it pains me to add to the bike shed: "data": absolutely not, there has been controversy over "CRU not releasing their data" which would cause obvious confusion. "documents": no, neither emails nor code are usually referred to as "documents". Indeed, I keep my documents in a separate folder from both my emails and my code. Simonmar (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Simonmar, couldn't both of these things be contained in different sections of an article named Climatic Research Unit data release controversy? I mean they are definitely related are they not? The CRU consistently refused to release their data, then their data is released without apparent authorization, wouldn't these both be fitting topics under an article named 'data release controversy'? Seems like a natural evolution, at least in my mind, one being the result of the other? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What about "information"? Would that not cover everything we need it to?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

←Reminder: I started this thread in the hope of getting people to come up with ideas for how to find common ground. It was not intended to be yet another place for people to stake their position and vote on stuff. Please try to stick with the original plan if possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - I agree with Gandydancer that incident might be better, but I do think the proposed formulation is an improvement. --DGaw (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I prefer Climate Research Unit documents controversy but any of those are better than the current title. BTW, as a software developer, I would consider source code to be a type of document. While I don't have any experience with FORTRAN or IDL, I have worked with C, C++, C#, Visual Basic (classic and .NET), COBOL and RPG, and in every single case, the source code files have been plain old text files that can be opened in any text editor, word processor or IDE of choice. So I consider "documents" to be an inclusive term. But like I said, any of the above are better than the current title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• oppose wasting more time discussing the article title. But since I'm here, "data release" is obviously wrong - it was email hacking William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Reliable sources focus overwhelmingly on the emails, not on "data." And to call this a "release" is absurd -- there's been no serious proposal by any reliable source that the emails were "released" which implies a voluntary action. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Climatic Research Unit data release controversy has a majority consensus so far, and might I add seems to be the best proposed name yet, as the article can cover both the initial refusal of the CRU to follow the valid science rule of peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results, as well as the apparent unauthorized release of the CRU data as a result of their refusal. I don't see a better possible title, unless we're out to sweep under the rug any possible wrongdoing or bad science on the part of the CRU? I mean we are all after the facts here, aren't we? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• That is to say, both the refusal of the CRU to release their data or have peer oversight, as well as the apparent unauthorized release of the aforementioned data, are both controversies and both inseparably linked. I do believe we've struck gold with this title, it's succinct and can accurately cover the controversy from beginning to present day. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. You still don't understand. CRU haven't refused to release any of their data. Read up on the facts and come back when you've got a clue. That you find a consensus with yourself is hardly surprising William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"come back when you've got a clue." Spare us the personal attacks, Bill. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? "...I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !" - Phil Jones Email, 1109021312.txt - Gunnanmon (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The sources showing that the CRU refused to release data are too exhaustive to name here, you can feel free to google "CRU refused to release data" and cherry pick what you consider to be reliable sources, allow me to offer a few here:

Global Warming ate my data - We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

Britain's Climate Research Unit to release data in wake of Climategate - Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) announced it would make its data publically available, something which it had refused to do previously. The unit however has admitted that it did not have access to much of the raw data required to reconstruct climate records because it had been deleted.

From the examiner, no idea why it's triggered a spam filter, it's a valid news site.

I must point out this thread was initially opened to cement the naming of the article to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, for which we still have majority consensus. More sources can definitely follow, just let me know! Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I opened the thread with a fresh approach to trying to come up with a better title, and I hoped it would lead to a free debate about the words and concepts all sides agreed with. Perhaps I made a mistake in expressing a preference, but I went to great pains to insist I did not wish this thread to become something where people staked a position for advocacy. Everyone else turned it into the usual votefest, for which I am utterly dismayed. I wish I hadn't bothered, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, The Examiner is being filtered to discourage editors from linking to it due to its extreme unreliability. Blacklisting is an extreme measure but sometimes it has to be done to keep out the worst of the crap. (If you get your information from The Examiner, I'd suggest you try casting your net a bit more widely.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not a valid news source, it's a blog. Generally speaking, it is not a reliable source. It's already come up on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard several times: Examiner.com = paid blogging no editorial oversight, Request to reopen discussion on Examiner.com and Examiner.com.

In fact, I was one of the editors who led the effort to have it blacklisted, so you have me (in part) to thank/blame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (to "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy") 'data' would be incorrect, there is rather little data, lots of documents and lots of emails. As others have pointed out, the main issue (so far) have been the emails. Release indicates voluntary/legal which certainly isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we still have majority consensus for renaming the article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, and no one is talking about the naming specifically, I will indulge you, however I will have to take your word for it that the examiner is blacklisted for topics unrelated to 'Climategate', as I'm not a news hound and am not familiar with all of the news sites intimately.

While Gunnanmon's comment alone proves my original point, here's one of my favorites, Russians complaining about misuse of their data, cherry picking of data, it also mentions refusal of FOIA requests:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0

Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Da. Pravda being reliable organ of right thinking. People's newspaper resist bourgeois concepts of "factual accuracy" or "neutrality." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I personally find it hilarious that right-wing Americans are suddenly fans of Pravda - possibly the world's most infamous newspaper. What is the world coming to? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that anyone such as myself who takes a strong stand to see Misplaced Pages NPOV honored are 'right-wing'? I suspect this type of 'false-dichotomy think' is a big reason this article has disgraced WIkipedia NPOV policy for so long. There is more to the controversy of data being released from the Climatic Research Unit than the incredibly biased name Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident could ever cover in good faith. This is why a majority consensus rightly voted to change the name to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. In case you didn't know (which wouldn't surprise me at this point) misuse of Russian climate data is a valid component of this controversy. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's better than the one we've got. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support of Climatic Research Unit documents controversy --BernhardMeyer (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Title Suggestion V23.0 Sarcasm Edition 2010

My next experiment in trying to promote useful discussion will feature Post-it notes and some darts. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It really felt to me like we were getting somewhere, especially with my last comment to Simonmar, but I am a new Misplaced Pages contributor. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we name the article based on 10 individual letters which we all vote on from greatest to least. Here are the letters: H, G, F, R, T, O, S, A, P, L. I vote for 'T' - Gunnanmon 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnanmon (talk • contribs)

Might I suggest a moratorium on all naming proposals until at least the end of February, when the report into the incident is due to be published? There is no pressing need to change it now, particularly as the facts are so thin on the ground. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care anymore. Whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue to care. WP looks ridiculous on this issue. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't your moratorium step on the toes of the majority consensus already reached for renaming it to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy? There are ample facts that the CRU data was controversial in that repeated FOIA requests were denied, we can compile lists of those who were denied FOIA requests as well as similar denials for transparency, the need for peer-reviewed journal oversight, and the burden of new science to accommodate data for peer-reproducible results - this is the measure of real science. Additionally, there are ample facts about the resulting controversy of the CRU data being released anyway, without permission. These are both controversies about the Climatic Research Unit data being released, and that alone is the only proper scope of this article until more information presents itself. Both elements of this controversy are irrevocably linked, one with the other, and shows the natural evolution of the dispute and resulting release. I move to honor the majority consensus which has already been reached, to rename this article to the far more neutral name of Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(moved comment up to the proper tree Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

ChrisO, no. There is clearly no consensus on the current name of the article, and while you might possibly like the current one better than the brewing consensus over a new one, that in itself is no good reason for a moratorium. Troed (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we may have consensus. The problem is you set up a !vote with 7 or 8 proposals, none of which included a very popular one (Climategate) that is not going to get consensus, and without the option to keep the present "hacking" name, all without a ranked preference system. That's like juggling two chainsaws, three bowling balls, a teacup, and a rabbit. I think there is a consensus, and near unanimity, that all of the names you proposed are an improvement on the current one. So I would go with the dart approach. Maybe be bold and just do it. Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do concede that Misplaced Pages will not use -gate in a controversy's name even after it has become well established to refer to it as such. Considering there are two valid sides to this controversy which are both covered under the name Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, and considering this serves the Misplaced Pages guideline of NPOV, it seems by far the best option the article has ever reached consensus on. I don't see a reason to delay the renaming of the article any longer, yes? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. See my comments above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No to what, Boris? Yes there is an overwhelmingly majority consensus reached for renaming the article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, and yes this properly reflects the full controversy regarding the release of data from the Climatic Research Unit. If you're referring to anything else I've said, that is clearly a matter for when/if specific material is discussed for inclusion or omission, this is really only about renaming the article to reflect the Misplaced Pages policy on NPOV, this is why an overwhelming majority consensus was reached to rename the article. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've asserted "an overwhelming majority consensus." Being a data guy, I'd like to know the actual numbers for and against. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

11 users FOR Climatic Research Unit data release controversy and 4 users AGAINST, 5 if you count Nightmote.

For: Scjessey, Itsmejudith, Jheiv, Adam.T.Historian, Garrettw87, Wikidemon, Sphilbrick, Jc-S0CO, Troed, DGaw, A_Quest_For_Knowledge

Against: Nightmote(under the belief it will ever be allowed to be called Climategate), Gandydancer, ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris

Nightmote is still unaware that Misplaced Pages never names articles -gate, if you'd like to make it 12 v/s 4 then we can talk to Nightmote about this, but being from a democratic society I do consider 11:5 an overwhelming consensus. Our presidents and senators are often elected with near 1:1 results, heh. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Boris, your strong oppose still only counts as one vote. And I see no reason why we shouldn't now proceed to finally rename this article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy in order to respect the Misplaced Pages NPOV. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Five hours is much too short to declare a "consensus". Give it a week and then see where things are. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree ChrisO, unless you care to cite a Misplaced Pages policy stating a vote to gain consensus on renaming an article should last at least one week. You had your vote, and think that means your only recourse left is Misplaced Pages policy? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been an editor for 24 hours; I've been around for six years, so trust me, I do know how things work around here. Move requests are not actioned for seven days after they've been proposed - and you're so new as an editor that you're not even eligible yet to request a move. See Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Nothing is going to happen here for at least a week, probably longer given that we're in the middle of the holiday season. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as we all understand the derision, insults, bullying, and article-hijacking that have long plagued Misplaced Pages Climate-related articles is coming to an end, I'm happy. I've been following the ludicrousness for some time now, can we all say winds of change? Yes we can! Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

←Let me again reiterate that I started the V22 thread in the hope that we could have a discussion about words and elements that were common to both "sides" of the debate. It was not my intention to advocate any particular position, and I am unhappy that my initial comment was misconstrued. That is largely my own fault, as I made the mistake of choosing one of the generated list over the others because I believe it would be better than the existing name. Let me make it perfectly clear that my absolute preference would still be Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy (I believed all the objections to the use of "data" are invalid, because I see "data" as being anything existing on a computer/server). Since there has been an objection to "theft", I was willing to see "release" used until a "theft" had been positively confirmed - in which case I would've expect the name of the article to change again. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We had that discussion, so far 11 people have voted for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - am I to take this as you retracting your initial vote? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I read, Scjessey is in agreement with the name change to "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy"; it seems very reasonable. - Gunnanmon (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A theft has already been positively confirmed by the university. The sensible thing to do would be to wait until the official report has been issued in February and then decide where to go. There are unlikely to be any new developments between now and then, unless of course they arrest the perpetrator in the meantime. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The university has made various statements, the one featured prominently in the opening para of the article itself says there "äppears" to have been a theft. But, whatever, ordinarily the allegation of a crime by the victim is not taken as proof of the occurrence. This point has been made again and again. The birth of the baby does not prove rape. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True Psb777, and not only that, but even if it is proven a theft it doesn't make the lack of NPOV for this article go away, the majority consensus proposed Climatic Research Unit data release controversy can of course mention theft, but it is more important to show the full controversy if we hope to maintain NPOV, the controversy began with the repeated refusal to release data for peer-review worldwide. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Two MMs

At one point, it was defined in the article who the two MMs were, but looking now, it is not. This leads to some awkwardness as MM is used twice. Does anyone have a good cite for this? jhe_iv (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre and McKitrick. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boris but I'm suggesting a citation for the article -- it looks like there is no longer one there (I could be wrong). If not, how about:

• RealClimate I?
• RealClimate II?
• WSJ?

jhe_iv (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the WSJ one; using an opinion column to support a factual matter sets a bad precedent. It may not need a reference at all -- is it really controversial who "MM" are? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, there were several possibilities but nobody was able to establish it definitively; therefore the statement that "MM" referred to those two individuals was removed as original research, since there was nothing to back it up. I'd suggest looking in the talk page archives for the discussion, which would have been a few weeks ago now. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure its controversial at all, but its unclear (well unclear to someone who is reading the article without the background editors who have been involved have) -- could we come up with some phrasing, like:

The scientists have historically used MM to refer to ... --or--

As noted on RealClimate, MM refers to McIntyre and McKitrick.

Regardless of the phrasing, I think its a pretty innocuous change and would aid the average reader, IMHO. jhe_iv (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the change is not only innocuous but makes the overall scope of the data presented more comprehensive. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your source for that? I've not seen any source cited. Without a source, it's original research and unverifiable. That's why it was removed in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Well, there's no question this is what MM means but I'm not willing to take the time to look up something so trivial. Somebody else will have to go out there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you can't have it both ways, either RealClimate is a verifiable source or it isn't, if it isn't then we can remove it from the main article. Personally I believe RealClimate is one of the reasons there is COI and the Misplaced Pages NPOV has been compromised for many climate-related articles for so long... Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that MM could mean something else seems a little disingenuous, I'm hoping more people will chime in and be a little more reasonable about this so we can clear this up in the article. jhe_iv (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of arguing what it could mean, it's a question of whether you can reliably source it. Can you or can't you? The previous discussion on this issue was here: Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 9#Removed per BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This one is actually interesting. As it turns out, Jones referred to "MM" (M&M) meaning McKitrick and Michaels (Climate Research 2004) when many of the leaked email readers assumed he meant McIntyre and McKitrick. It's thus of interest to make sure we're referencing this correctly. Wrong M&M. (No, I'm not suggesting this as a reference for the article, I'm merely supporting the need for clarifying what MM means here). Troed (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Update on names used in other Misplaced Pages projects

I looked through all of the projects that use the Roman alphabet + Russian (from dim memories of HS Russian), from 12-29 through 12-30-09.

These Wikipedias currently use Climategate as the main article title:

• http://es.wikipedia.org/Climategate
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/Climategate
• http://no.wikipedia.org/Climategate
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/Climategate
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%82
• http://sk.wikipedia.org/Climategate
• http://sv.wikipedia.org/Climategate

These Wikipedias use some variant of "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident":

• http://de.wikipedia.org/Climategate
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/Climategate

The Czech Misplaced Pages, interestingly, uses both titles:

• http://cs.wikipedia.org/Climategate

-- we might profitably consider this solution, which might make everyone happy, or at least equally unhappy....

The rest of the Roman-alphabet projects don't seem to have an article on this topic yet. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And how is any of that in any conceivable way relevant? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Climategate is the WP:COMMONNAME, however "-gate" is a word to avoid per WP:AVOID. We have to pick something else. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any myself, but are there any articles that have two names with 'AKA' in the title? - Gunnanmon (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but Matiu/Somes Island comes fairly close. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion to FAQ change

I'm aware that WP:BOLD must be exercised with a little more caution when the issue is controverial. Similarly immediate reversion should be exercised with care. The FAQ list is a very useful addition to this discussion. But it can only include non-controversial answers and fairly minded questions. I am going to have another go at editing one of them and ask that I am not immediately reverted like last time. We all now seem to agree, whatever our individual positions on the use of the unqualified words "theft" and "stolen", such use is not consensual, is not without controversy, and that goes a part way to explaining the pressure on the need for an article name change, where a consensus seems to have been arrived at. My forthcoming change to the FAQ is in line with that. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had thought that some progress had been made and a consensus about the issue had started to develop, but ChrisO is acting like a gatekeeper on this:

• I placed the above notice, so to invite discussion.
• I made the change to the FAQ, including concise but comprehensive reasoning in the edit summary, referring readers to this Talk page.
• This was reverted immediately without reasoned explanation by ChrisO
• I reverted, saying please come chat in the edit summary.
• He did not do so, but reverted again.
• So I reverted. Once again inviting discussion here.
• I was reverted again, by someone else, who once again failed to make any relevant comment in the edit summary or here.

What now? RfC? Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was a clear violation of various Misplaced Pages policies, most notably WP:RS and WP:NOR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no I don't think so. I could have sprinkled WP:RS references in my change to the FAQ too. It is oh so easy to say WP:NOR but much more difficult to say what in my edit constitutes OR. Similarly, I think WP:RS supports me - an allegation is just that, and cannot be represented on WP as if it has really happened. Just as we are refusing to let people describe certain scientists as crooks (this is unproven) we must not label the unauthorised publication as theft. Birth of the baby does not prove rape. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can play the white-washer legalese game, and look for sources that merely confirm an investigation is ongoing and as of yet inconclusive, personally I believe requesting reliable sources for merely saying an ongoing investigation is an ongoing investigation, or referring to an ongoing investigation as an ongoing investigation as original research is a laughable abuse of Misplaced Pages policy, and a big part of the bag of tricks which has kept this article in contempt of NPOV for so long. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I feel it pertinent to point out the ongoing arbitration which involves so many of the regular faces in myriad NPOV-deficient Misplaced Pages climate articles, found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Climate_Change

Adam.T.Historian (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The big review is welcomed. I want to deal with this small issue. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Best thing to do, Paul, is to build consensus for your proposed change. Worst thing you can do is edit war. So lay off the edit-warring. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, really, but your good advice is hardly necessary. I believe I have behaved well. In the little skirmish I backed off well within the rules and from well before your advice arrived, and by which time I had already I had posted the above. I posted the first paragraph before making any change. I reverted well within the rules, repeatedly requesting discussion here, which did not happen. I note you have not suggested to the other skirmish participant, ChrisO, that he desist from edit-warring. This seems a little one-sided? Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit replies to the question "Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents?" with "Good point...." then explains why it should not refer to hacking and stolen documents. That is clearly unhelpful. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The problem is that the article asserts again and again there was a theft, that the docs were stolen. Why is that? That is not yet established. The problem isn't with the FAQ, it's with the article. At the moment the article is frozen and cannot be changed, but the FAQ can. See following section. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what reliable sources report. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not WP:RSs. Please let's not do this by contradiction. Advance an argument. Mine is laid out below. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have set out the argument on the RSN. As an aside, you're overlooking the fact that the police statement was published by third party sources and doesn't fall under the WP:SELFPUB rubric. You also haven't bothered to cite any source for your speculative opinions. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree my text could be improved. But you won't allow any change as you are the self-appointed gatekeeper. It is an answer to a FAQ. I would hope that all FAQs should be without controversy *or* they should reflect the controversy. With Q5 there are two distinct opinions. I recognise that yours is not yours alone, you in return ought to recognise that mine is not mine alone. Those who we expect to read the FAQ should not be swayed by one or the other. Lets go for a Q5a and Q5b. You write a and I'll write b or vice versa. I will make mine less conversational in style and sprinkle it with WP:ABCs just like you. OK? Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please post your suggestions here first, then we can discuss a text without fighting over it in the FAQ. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, thank you. I will post suggested text here but it's 2AM in NZ (Happy New Year everyone!) and I'll continue when completely sober and after some sleep. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unauthorised release / theft / hack / leak

An ongoing dispute has been the use of "theft" or "hack" to refer to the unauthorised release of the CRU info. Again and again we are told that "theft" is correct because we must reflect what reliable sources say. I agree, we must. The sources favoured by those who advocate the use of the unadorned word "theft" or "hack" are the UEA/CRU, the police, the newspapers and RealClimate, a blog.

Firstly, it is evident from the statements of the CRU/UEA, their spokespeople and others affiliated that none of them *know* it is a theft. They allege theft, they say the documents "appear" to have been stolen. Other spokespeople say stolen but they are not claiming any extra knowledge or insight. But the CRU/UEA can't be used as a WP:RS anyway, they are the victim. "Oh, yes they can!", says ChrisO and some others. I cornered ChrisO on this, the only support he would give me for his argument that they can be considered a reliable source on the theft/leak is WP:SELFPUB, a part of WP:RS. It is unclear that WP:SELFPUB caters for the current situation at all. If it does not ChrisO has provided no support for his argument. But let's consider it does apply. WP:SELFPUB reads (my emphasis):

        Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about
        themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that
        they be published experts in the field, so long as:
        1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
        2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
        3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
        4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
        5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

We see that condition 2 fails - they allege some third party committed theft. Condition 4: There is considerable doubt as to whether the unauthorised release was a theft and not just a leak. I say condition 5 also fails: The theft/hack/leak/release is the primary focus of the article so SELFPUB cannot be relied upon. There is no other WP:RS for the allegation of theft.

Unless the police are that WP:RS. No they are not, they are investigating a crime; that's all they say. The police do not (yet?) say the crime occurred. WP can say the police are investigating a crime, therefore, not that the crime happened. What about the newspapers and the blog? They too claim no extra information other than what the CRU and the police say. All we can say is that The Grauniad or The Torygraph say that the CRU says there ("appears" to have been) a theft, and that the police are investigating. The blog is in the same position. The national newspapers are reliable sources in some circumstances but WP would not repeat their headline "Rape!" if the person accused had not been convicted. Here, remember, no one is yet saying for sure that there was a theft.

So, the CRU says there was a theft, the police are investigating a theft, the newspapers report a theft. That's what we have. And that is all what WP can say.

SIMILARLY THERE IS NO HACK, yet.

What we do know is that the release of the information happened, and that it was unauthorised. (We can trust "unauthorised" from the CRU because it does not violate point 2 of SELFPUB.)

Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is completely nuts. Your comments are nothing but original research and your own personal opinion, completely unsourced. The FAQ provides a neutral summary of the statements that have been made by the university (NOT THE CRU), RealClimate and the police. Can you get your head around the fact that the UEA and the CRU are distinct entities? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal for you: let's take this to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask for uninvolved third parties to opine there. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, "completely nuts"! Why didn't you say that before? Now I'm persuaded :-) Why is it you interpret the rules liberally how you would like to see them and that is allowed. I interpret them literally, as they are written, and that isn't? I do however take very careful note of every sensible thing you say. The issue has been at WP:RSN since the last time you suggested it. The CRU is a part of the UEA, Chris. You're not redefining "distinct", are you? Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Sources for information on the theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Chris has written elsewhere that I wish to suppress entirely what the UEA/CRU has to say. This is completely false! I just want what they say to be attributed to them, like anybody else. "The UEA/CRU say the information was stolen..." would be fine. "The information was stolen..." is different. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Requested moves
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates