Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Macai (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 6 February 2010 (→No compelling counterargument). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 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) 23 December 2009 (Talk:Climatic_Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 14#Proposed page move

Readability and style change

I started re-reading the article from scratch and I note that someone finally followed my suggestion and added the sentence "Scientists, scientific organisations, and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change." to the lede. Not sure who wrote that, but thank you.  :)

When I got to the E-mails section, I noticed a similar sentence, "The Associated Press ... concluded that they ... did not support claims that global warming science had been faked."

The following paragraph then contains a similar sentence, "FactCheck stated that claims by climate sceptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming were unfounded, and emails were being misrepresented to support these claims."

The next paragraph opens with a similar sentence, "An editorial in the scientific journal Nature stated that the e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming"

By this time, (as a reader) I started noticing how redundant it was to keep stating basically the same thing: AGW is real. I wanted to read something new. So I removed that part of the sentence so it goes right into new information that the reader hasn't been told yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You have removed a significant piece of the article. Why have you not sought a consensus for this controversial removal of referenced material? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this material, since it seemed especially significant. Rather than being redundant, it reinforced the prevailing view that the science remained sound. Please seek a consensus for such controversial edits in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to assume good faith that fixing readability issues wouldn't be controversial. It's repetitive. Try the same exercise that I did. Read the article from the beginning and see if you get bored by the fourth time you read essentially the same information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest both of you read the new sources from the Guardian (above). Major revisions appear likely.91.153.115.15 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read the sources above and none of them change the scientific consensus regarding global warming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This (Heat Island) is one of the major criticism of the land based temp. measurements used by the temperatures that produced the Hockey stick if I remember correctly ... So this is possible another nail in the AGW coffin. Nsaa (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly another scientific question to be further investigated – as is continuing. See the sources above, for starters. What we need to reflect primarily is the mainstream view, not denialist spin, and the implications of removing all the research based on the east Chinese weather stations will be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The ironic thing is that when I suggested (twice!) that article should explicitly state that this controversy didn't change the scientific consensus, my suggestion was rejected both times. Now that it's finally in the article - at least 4 times - and want to drop it down to only 3 times for style reasons (it's redundant and the repetition bores the reader), my suggestion is again rejected. Where is the logic in that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is only a symptom of the real problem: the article is a jumbled mess because it's the product of warring factions. No one sane would volunteer to step in and make it coherent because they'd be caught in the crossfire. As a result things end up being repeated in different places because there's no effective organization. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The article looks like a cafeteria after a food fight because that's what it is. I think the paragraph-by-paragraph approach was showing promise (the first paragraph is much improved). I tried to keep the ball rolling with my rewrite of the second paragraph above but that discussion never really got started before it was sidetracked into the weeds on some minor point. We need to drop the us vs them mentality and concentrate on composition and coherency. JPatterson (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that virtually any change to this article will be controversial. I was tempted to except spelling corrections, but then I remembered the skeptic/sceptic wars, so even spelling isn't exempt. I agree that four statements of the same point is redundancy to the point of idiocy, but that said, there are probably fierce supporters for each and every one of the entries, so the best course is to itemize each of the entries, and propose which two or three would be best to remove. Then we can debate it, and possibly even reach a consensus.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think that it might be worth the effort to remove most of the references to the AGW hypothesis. If we look at this event as being comprised of three phases - the theft, the scandal, the consequences - the *only* section where the valididty of AGW needs to be touched upon is the "consequences" section, in which it can be asserted that the basic hypothesis remains valid, with a wikilink to the appropriate global warming article. We could cut down on the redundancy, reduce the number of contentious statements, and pass the whole AGW issue back to the appropriate article. *If* this scandal causes a re-think of the AGW hypothesis, the story would be continued in that article. Nightmote (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, "scandal" is a gross exaggeration. It's not like one of the CRU was caught fiddling the data while dressed as a Nazi and secretly dating Tiger Woods. The "controversy" arose because people specifically opposed to the theory of AGW seized upon the material (which was apparently cherry-picked for this particular cause) and tried to use it to suggest the theory was wrong. It is important that it is made completely clear that the anti-AGW people were wrong, and that the science remains rock solid. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, at least the talk page produces comments like this gem... Ignignot (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

..... and so we start round 12 of this knock-down, drag-out, smash-fest. Nightmote (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as rock solid as it appeared in respect of one specific 1990 publication, the articles confirm that the consensus remains essentially the same. There's a lot of pointing at flaws found in old research as though newer research can be ignored. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try and put it another way. To the best of my knowledge, nobody at this stage is saying that Climategate is a game-changer. The general contention is that one or more CRU scientists engaged in unprofessional behaviour (yes, they bloody well did fiddle the data; there's an article today about the Chinese stations that ought to raise eyebrows), but that Global Warming is real. There is some real-world sentiment that the "A" in "AGW" ought to be "a" or even "-", and the infighting on this talk page reflects that. I believe that we can describe what happened at UEA/CRU and the fallout without needing to pass judgement on whether that "A" belongs there. A statement in the summary paragraph stating that Global Warming remains a scientific fact, a statement in the consequences part of the article stating the same thing, and a wikilink to the Global Warming article where the "Anthropogenic" part of AGW can be debated all day. We don't need to compromise our beliefs, but we can best reach consensus by not forcing others to compromise theirs. Nightmote (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right about what we should be doing, unfortunately some editors seem to think that it's not just a game-changer, but "another nail in the AGW coffin". Presumably not thinking of the deaths likely if worst case projections are correct. Per making necessary assumptions policy, we accept that mainstream scientific opinion is that AGW is significant, and present that as the majority view while also noting significant minority views raised by reliable sources relating to this article subject. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether or not AGW is accepted "rock solid" science, does the valididty of AGW need to be debated in this article? This article is about Climategate - the theft of computer files and people's perception that the files suggested unprofessional behaviour on the part of CRU scientists. Maybe we can skip the "consequences" part altogether, since they are part of a much, much, larger sphere of debate. Really. If this scandal changes the ladscape of the Global Warming Controversy, then *that* article should be changed. Perhaps we can limit this article to saying (in about 10,000 more words) "These files were stolen (link). These guys looked really bad (link). The newspapers and governments reacted like this (link). This guy was fired (link). The scientific community changed these things (link). The police arrested this other guy (clink)." Nightmote (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of rewriting this article to present just the bare facts. If someone were to draft a bare-facts version in their userspace that they thought the other "side" of the fence could get on board with, that would be quite helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(grin) I'll get right on it! "Section 1: The Scheming Bastards ...." Nightmote (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Scjessey: Can you please rejoin this discussion to see if we can get some sort of consensus to remove some repetitiveness and improve the article's readability? Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already made my opinion clear; however, if a new version is properly proposed here I'll take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did and I asked that you try the same exercise that I did. Read the article from the beginning and see if you get bored by the fourth time you read essentially the same information. Did you get a chance to do so? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed. I came to the conclusion that I'd like to see the point rammed home even further, with additional elaboration. Right now, much of the article seems to suffer from an anti-AGW point-of-view that unfairly maligns individuals and gives the skeptical hordes too much time on the podium. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should the point be "rammed home even further"? We're not supposed to engage in disputes, only cover them. If this is your reason for repeating the same things over and over again, then I suggest it's not a reason at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. So much for any semblance of NPOV. The article as it stands reeks of pro-AGW goaltending. Honestly, this article would be much clearer and more accurate if it simple read something like this:

"Data from CRU was posted on the Internet without the permission of CRU. CRU believes the data was stolen from their servers. The local police are looking into the matter to discern if a crime took place. The data in question consists of files and emails, of which a portion details questionable behavior on the part of a group of climatologists with regards to treatment of climate data. In other emails the authors discuss their preference for blocking publication of opinions and studies conducted by other climatologists that do not agree with their conclusions. People who believe that global warming is anthropogenic in nature, and most climatologists and scientists, state that the data and emails do not change the science, and should be considered as an unfortunate display of normal human nature. People who don't believe global warming is anthropogenic in nature, and some climatologists and scientists, state that the data and emails reveal flaws in the published works promoting the idea of anthropogenic global warming and expose an unscientific attempt to squelch studies and scientific work in opposition to the prevailing scientific thought."

There. You can all go get some rest. Textmatters (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has asked me to say a bit more about this section. My feeling is that that we give coverage to three separate organs (AP, FactCheck and Nature) that are valid and worthwhile. AQFK says that there is redundancy there, but I disagree because I think that having the three separate sources is indicative of how expansive the agreement is that the science hasn't really been impacted by this incident. Therefore, I am not in favor of these being cut down. If someone can show me a better way to do it (proposed here, not shoved into the article without prior discussion) then I'm willing to give it consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that someone else has already deleted the repetitive phrase (along with the rest of these paragraphs), I let's table this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, although my fellow Britons will be confused by your use of the word "table" instead of "shelve" ("table" has the exact opposite meaning in the world outside of North America). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Investigation into Michael Mann at Penn State

The University of Pennsylvania has entered into an investigation of the behavior of Michael Mann. Michael Mann was one of the principle researchers in the email exchanges in the hacked emails.

"...e-mails reveal that Mr. Mann might have committed a variety of acts that constitute significant and intentional scientific misconduct, including data manipulation, inappropriately shielding research methods and results from peers, and retaliating against those who publicly challenged his conclusions and political agenda."

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/23/commentary/op-eds/doc4b5a2e41299e5579065379.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This article conforms to the BLP criteria. Only referenced information is used, with the citation. You may suggest that the entire article be transcribed. May I suggest the article title and reference? ie 'Mann-Made' Global Warming?

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/23/commentary/op-eds/doc4b5a2e41299e5579065379.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a copy-paste comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DUDE! Seriously, learn to sign your comments! Click on the (talk) on the signature of your IP to find out how.130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010(UTC)

Inquiry into climate scientist moves to next phase: From Penn State Feb 3, 2010

RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E, Mann, Department of Meteorology, Department of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University

"In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted."

http://live.psu.edu/story/44327

Worth noting that the stuff above is cherry-picked to hell and back. Consider this quote from ars technica:

"After having examined the relevant e-mails, other e-mail provided by Mann, and interviewing Mann himself, the committee determined that there was no evidence that Mann destroyed, suppressed, or falsified data, or misused any confidential or privileged information obtained during peer review or from embargoed papers."

A different kettle of fish indeed. While additional investigation continues, it is apparently based on the volume of complaints rather than their veracity - imagine that! (source) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate Analysis

Climategate Analylis by John P. Costella This should also be linked to this article. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are. You'd better explain that one. You mean "I disagree with what they publish so therefore it is not reliable" right. Or is there a legitimate reason why you label them as not reliable. Explain "reliable".142.68.92.131 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RS they are not a reliable source as they do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, not RS, in fact they specifically oppose peer-review. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fringe advocacy organisation with a pretty poor reputation for factual accuracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't true. Please provide proof that they have publish false information. This what Jone or Mann might do. Just find an excuse for not including someone's work because they don't necessarily agree 100% with your POV. John Costella is a reputable researcher with credentials that exceed most editors in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not. John Costella is the owner of , which states that 9/11 was done by the US government, not by terrorists, among other lunatic fringe ideas. It's time for you to go. Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just provide a citation for this liable. Here are his credentials: John P. Costella, B.E.((Hons.), B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. I'd say he has earned the right to have an opinion about science. Would you please post your credentials? and a link to his 9/11 claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I did a "whois" on the domain name: Domain ID: D148170851-LROR, Domain Name: scienceandpublicpolicy.org, owner unknown. How do you know who owns it?

You are looking at the wrong web page. This is his home page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article to which I was referring was carried on scienceandpublicpolicy.org. His work is also already referenced in wiki wrt image processing, the bulk of his academic work.(better purge those too.) http://en.wikipedia.org/James_H._Fetzer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.214.226 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) So since John P Costello, is already a cited reference in wikipedia, then why not include this addition excellent work carried on scienceandpublicpolicy.org? Other wiki editors have acknowledged his work. those wor don't have an axe to grind.142.177.214.226 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Costello may or may not be a reliable source on certain topics. That does not make him a reliable source on all topics. In particular, competence in image processing does not imply any competence in climate science or scientific processes. And SPPI is a known advocacy group with no credibility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Costello is well published and frequently cited in scientific papers and in wiki as I have shown. To dismiss his work based on accusations of incredulity demands a citation about either his work or the site. I have asked for, and the critics here have yet to produce, a justifiable disqualification for his work or that of SPP. Disagreeing with his conclusion is not sufficient justification for his exclusion unless of course he is aka Galileo.

I'm well published and frequently cited in scientific papers. So is WMC. So are several other editors here. Will you accept our report? Or are we also Galileos? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have written on the subject at hand and it is carried in a publication and can be referenced then of course you can submit a report. Fill your boots. Disagreeing with Costella, does not elevate to justification to disallow inclusion. You, as an academic, ought to know that. It is particularly because you disagree with him that you have to scrupulously inhibit your compunction to silence his work. Please provide justifications for his exclusion. I have provided, the work, the reference and its relevance to the subject.142.68.165.13 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excerpts from this report should be included in the Reactions to Climategate section. Right now the reactions are like a kangaroo-court where only people favorable to AGW theory are allowed to be heard. John P Costello has impeccable credentials. JettaMann (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann, are those IP addresses you? Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann, I am inclined to agree with you, they ought to be included.. someone erased my affirmation, someone who doesn't agree with you and me I presume.142.177.62.236 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Before everyone yells at me ....

I swear that I made this huge edit on good faith. I didn't dicsuss it here first because it's so huge, but the text that's left is stuff we all agreed on. I just really pared it back. Nightmote (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say "we" because I wanted Hipocrite to be able to disavow all knowledge. Nightmote (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Nightmote's edit, but accept that if someone reverts it we should progress to discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's better than some of the versions I have seen! Perhaps small is beautiful. But I don't understand the section on the identity of the hackers: this sticks out like a sore thumb as much weaker than the rest IMHO. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and boldly removed it also. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

However this ends up, my thanks to Hipocrite for fixing the refs, and to all of the editors who provided weeks and weeks of effort to create the article. All I did - I swear - was to remove everything extraneous to the core story. I expect a revert, but I hope we can talk about this. Nightmote (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I also deleted all the emails! But yes, I think NM and I are eagerly awaiting someone to ask us to justify some or all of our removals. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG, don't let the Information Commissioner hear you saying that! (;-P . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is very little reason we would all be looking at this event/article right now, were it not for the unusual content and character of the emails which were hacked/distributed. To reduce the description of the content of those emails to 2 very small and general paragraphs will leave the honest reader wondering what all the fuss was about. I urge the restoration of the more specific email information. Moogwrench (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added them back for the reasons you state, though I only read this just now. Open to argument.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only just realized what has happened here after being out for a big chunk of the day. Holy shit, dudes! You must have testicles the size of bowling balls. I'm going to need to cogitate over this for a bit, and maybe have some booze and a bit of a lie down. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited this article, but it's been on my watchlist from day one. Anyways: I think the massive cut and trim by Nightmole is a HUGE step in the right direction. The article had become way too bloated with interesting but overly detailed info. And for the record if the choice is between this "Content of the documents section and this one, my preference is the short one. The ideal length is probably in between, but I suspect it'll be easier to find that happy medium starting from the pared down version and building up rather than starting with the detailed version and pulling stuff out. Yilloslime _C 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Emails

Do we really need to go into the minute and extreme detail on every single one of the emails? It's such a waste of the reader's time. Can't we summarize it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, is it really fair to include the gory details of each and every one of the emails but not allow the gory details of each and every one of the responders (5 Reactions to the incident, 5.1 Climatologists, 5.2 Scientific organizations). Is anyone willing to step across the barricades and work to fix the article? Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with restoration of detail about emails, I put a lot of work into that :-/ However, are we now at the stage where we can go for topic headings rather that dates and authors of specific emails? For example, the jolly hockey stick bit fits a descriptive title, the various letters about deleting data/emails can be grouped in relation to the FOI requests. That could allow more concise treatment of the emails. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything to shrink that section down so that the article isn't a gory rehash of the emails. It's just excessive - especially now that they are actually 1/2 of the text of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't, though what would be nice would be the text of the e-mails at the heart of the controversy, as is and was present in the article (cf. Moogwrench's comment above). It's not a waste of the reader's time. On the contrary, anyone coming across this page and not finding any e-mail text will undoubtedly look elsewhere. This saves a trip.

I generally like this use of WP:Bold, though, by the way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But you can't have the text of all the emails, because they're not published in a reliable source. So, given that what you can get is 6 or 7 emails and scads of paragraphs going over all of the gory boredom, do we really need it?Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. All of the e-mails included are sourced by RSs, and often by multiple RSs. You can refer to the article for them.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about including a database with all of the emails in them. Yes, the 6 or seven emails we go through word by tortuous word are fully sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is linking directly to eastangliaemails.com in their stories. I assume there was a good reason Misplaced Pages does not? Also I would like to keep the emails but not clumped together. Maybe they could merged into (new) topics as suggested? Appreciate the effort, this version of the article is better!85.76.70.109 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a policy against linking to copyviolations or stolen goods, as in many Youtube links, so best to play safe. Also, per synthesis policy we should find a secondary source to select which ones to discuss. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: And I'm sorry for using the phrase "On the contrary" twice in one conversation. That was annoying on my part.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am engaging in a rewrite of the gratituous parsing of the emails - see Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: To your first point, the e-mails need to be the article. In fact, that's the reason why I came to this article in the first place. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. I wanted to know what the e-mails said, if they were taken out of context and how. To your second point, I believe that balance is already in the article. At least it was the last time I checked. To your second point, reliable sources are cited, at least they were the last time I checked. BTW, it's a bit of exaggeration to say we're covering all the e-mails. AFAIK, there were hundreds if not thousands of these e-mail. We're only covering a handful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My rewriting of the execessive email section is open for comments- please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails. Comments welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Rearranging the article content based on issue rather than by e-mail is an excellent idea. I don't think anyone's really attempted to do this given the contentious nature of the article. But now that it appears as if the admins are finally starting to get fed up with both warring factions, maybe we can finally make some progress on improving the article's structure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure so much commentary from the e-mail authors should be included. As per WP:BLP "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." Can we find secondary sources to replace commentary by Phil Jones, and also perhaps the UEA stuff? Or just take them out flat.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably we've not tape recorded these statements, but are sourcing them to reliable secondary sources which establish their noteworthiness. In view of new analyses that are emerging, we should be able to incorporate all statements into more of a narrative structure. As for your NPOV quote, see also the undue weight section, particularly in relation to the scientific consensus, giving "equal validity", and the pseudoscience section when showing positions of antiscience denialists. . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use phrases like "antiscience denialists". It really doesn't help anyone. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was to emphasise the range of views – outside science, there are clearly views expressed that don't have any scientific backing, and there's been a long campaign against scientific findings. "Even McIntyre denounces the more vocal sceptics with their conspiracy theories.". . dave souza, talk 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing "understanding of climate science" with "understanding of research ethics," and mistaking "the scientific consensus" for "the consensus of CRU researchers." This article is only tangentially related to Global Warming, as people kept pointing out when the news was first broken. Even beyond these points I'm puzzled by your response: WP:BLP isn't invalidated by WP:Undue... --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I kept a *brief* summary of the emails in my original effort. But as I thought about it, Hipocrite's edit made really good sense. The emails may have caused the controversy, but they're not the controversy. A link to the emails text should be sufficient, and goes a long way towards removing contentious material from the article. The email text is indisputable, but then we start adding explanations and interpretations - all from reliable sources, all from respectable authorities, and all really just supporting our individual POVs - and we get bogged down. I propose either reverting to the summary *or* providing a bare-bones presentation and an external link to the emails. Maybe some enterprising souls could produce articles on each email and we could wikilink to 'em. (grin) I mean, they're either noteworthy or not, right? Nightmote (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

With care over balance and weight, the section as it was could be split as a detailed article about the emails, and treated as a main article for a concise summary style statement on this main page. We could note the main issues here, and use them as section titles on the sub-article which would remain usefully informative for readers wanting detailed background. . . 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it`s worth good job nightmote and hippocrite. There is wp:bold and then there is common sense :). Way better now, i`ll look over it a bit more later when i wake up properly, i was up half the night (kids ill) and am off out on a job in a bit, just want to say, well done guys :) mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better now. Congratulations. I changed the headings, see if you like it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that in the next few hours, baring comment, I'll be taking Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails live. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads well. Is there repetition in Trevor Davis' comments? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't explain what the controversy is about. It quotes the e-mails and provides an explanation, but fails to mention what critics have claimed. Please don't go live until explanations of what the controversy is about are included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that in there now? What content should be moved over? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now - some got commented out. I tried to reinclude it. What other critics complaints failed to make it over? Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Public Reaction

The incident took place during a time when public certainty in the United States about the cause of global warming was declining. Harris Interactive, in a Harris Poll conducted shortly before the CRU e-mails came to light, reported that those in the United States who answered yes to the question "Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures, or not?” had declined by 20% between 2007 and 2009 to 51%.. In December, Angus Reid Strategies conducted a tri-national poll which found that between November, 2009 and December, 2009 those who agreed with "global warming is a fact mostly caused by human activity", declined 11% in Canada (to 52%), 3% in the U.S. (to 46%), and 4% in Britain (to 43%). The same poll found that only about 1 in 5 Canadians had followed the CRU controversy closely, while 57% had not followed to story at all.

Request that this section be returned as no consensus was reached on its deletion. It is well sourced, multi-national and I'm working on additions. Thank you JPatterson (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a giant step back for just one section and consider if the article is really better with that section in it, even if it's well source and multi national. Does it help the article explain what happened, or is it just an avenue for warring factions to duke it out? I haven't looked closely at the section yet, but we should really consider if a section helps the reader understand, or is just a place for bickering. Let's look over it together? Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course such discussions are always welcome but should take place before entire sections are removed. I propose we put it back so we have something concrete to look at while we discuss it. Thanks JPatterson (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've pasted the section above, so we can talk about it. Having reviewed it, I actually think it's a violation of WP:OR by WP:SYNTH.

How dat? Everything in this section is contained in the cites. JPatterson (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a cannonical synth example - John Doe admitted to having sex with Jane Roe(source). Jane Roe has herpies(source). The above paragraph says a lot about public opinion on AGW, then says something about the CRU controversy. What does A have to do with B, and are we implying C? If we're not, why are A and B in the same paragraph? The only think in the source that has to do with this article (as opposed to an article about public perception of global warming) is the last sentence. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what synth is. The only statement that is not a direct report of poll findings in the whole section is "The incident took place during a time when public certainty in the United States about the cause of global warming was declining.", which is completely verifiable. The cite shows the historically trend is in fact declining. This is neither OR nor SYN. The rest of the section is verifiable fact. We draw no conclusions at all so there can not be SYN issues by definition. JPatterson (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, wait. Here's the problem - my herpies and john doe article dosen't draw any conclusions either - but it certainly implies that john doe has herpies. The poll section you have above doesn't drawn any conclusions either - but it certainly implies that the CRU caused people to lose confidence in global warming. Let me ask you - why is public opinion before the incident relevent? Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're reading something into the section that is not there. It does not infer cause and effect. Again, the introductory sentence states "The incident took place during a time when public certainty in the United States about the cause of global warming was declining.", a statement which the rest of the section goes on to support. It is not about cause and effect Remember, I wanted to add "even while consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming was growing among scientist" to that sentence but am prevented from doing so by my sanction. It is this juxtaposition between the science and public opinion and the impact of the scandal on widening that gulf that I think gives an interesting context to the incident JPatterson (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are two separate articles in one here (yes, I know we've had this discussion before). The para above is not really relevant to the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident," which was an incident whereby emails and other documents were obtained and then released by party(ies) unknown. It is relevant to the "Climategate Scandal" (or whatever name you might prefer) which was the public reaction to the release of those emails. "Hide the decline" and "redefine peer literature" and so on belong firmly in the second article. So does the background of Public Perception of Global Warming science, which is what the para above discusses. Thepm (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I oppose expanding the section to include this. Does anyone doubt my skeptic status? You shouldn't. But this section (however well-documented and sourced) deals with how people *feel* rather than with something that happened. The polls in question would be tangentially relevent if the decision of an authority figure were explicitly and directly impacted by the polling results. By way of example: "President Obama, citing recent polls (ref/ref/ref), indicated that the US Government would no longer be pursuing (legislation) ... " The polls themselves aren't pivotal. What's the Russian word for the masses? Narod, isn't it? The opinion of narod is changeable, and including this would include a committment to including *all* polling data. No thank you. Nightmote (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mann Results

So Mann was mostly cleared, with further inquiry planned for whether his conduct deviated from accepted practices for scientists in his field. Ignignot (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals? Huh? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's from Penn States pre-existing standards for "Research Misconduct," specifically. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Mann was not completely cleared. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. "The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is the following. The university followed standard practice and could not find any obvious wrongdoing or fraud. Quite as expected. However, they have left a HUGE opportunistic hole in case there is anything they might have missed. I am stating this because the university investigation will continue and what we put on this page will need to be amended and we need to be prepared for that as well. I think there are a lot of people in the scientific community that don't like Mann's "style" but that is not a crime. Possible bad science and incorrect findings do not translate to intentional fraud. We should not wait 120 days to update this page but that's when we get the final say.130.232.214.10 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As you say "Possible bad science and incorrect findings" are bad enough.142.177.62.236 (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a relevant source for discussion purposes only. 130.232.214.10 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999

I must admit, article looks better now after the big overhaul. I'd like the following inserted into the final comment on the "nature trick" email.

"Before the incident, other research in which Mann was a contributing author had found similar results with or without the tree ring records. "

The point here is that this statement should not give the false impression that Mann's Hockey Stick graph was independently validated by other researches. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're bringing in the hockey stick controversy which wasn't quoted in references used at the time that was put together – as this shows, the graph was validated by other researchers. That's a source which should be reflected in our article. No objection to clarifying that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author, but we must be clear that the scientific consensus supports a form of Mann's thesis.

This article gives a useful overview, concluding with the IPCC 2001 "claim that 'it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium'. Most researchers, including Briffa, now believe that statement was correct." It describes how other emails show that the dispute at that time was between Mann and the CRU research by Briffa. Interestingly, the detailed IPCC Chapter 2 report shows the downturn in the tree ring reconstruction in its graph. The Jones email was about the graph for a WMO Statement, which I've not checked out. McIntyre, who was on the scene later, brought in the IPCC 2007 report. Our section would be better retitled, perhaps "Tree ring proxy reconstructions", and there's getting on to be enough material for it to be a standalone article with a brief summary in the main CRU hacking incident article, summary style. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears there are no objections to my edit referenced above (that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author).Sirwells (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the above edit, just so you all know. (article page is unlocked now). Please discuss it here first, if you are thinking of reverting it.Sirwells (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reversion in error

I'm interested in this revert, which undos my moving some text to a more appropriate area and inserting a reference. Perhaps it was a mistake? Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. replacing a well sourced statement with a fact tag is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. You should be able to revert without penalty. One quibble, to avoid issues, I'd replace "most" with "nearly all" which is how the source phases it. JPatterson (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's got to be a mistake. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC) PS - agreed on most to nearly all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead not reflective of the article

Since the article rewrite, the current lead is not at all representative of the article or of the sources on this subject. Currently, the article goes into great detail about emails that have been reported upon all over the place, but in the lead the only hint of the controversy of those emails is "the material caused a controversy, dubbed 'Climategate', regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists", and the FOIA result. This needs more exposition, as several allegations have been made, both my skeptics and non-skeptics, regarding these emails. To have more discussion in the lead about scientist threats than about email controversy is a gross WP:NPOV violation, given the coverage in reliable sources. The lead reads as if the major story here is a hacking and oh, by the way, some random people may have implied that these emails indicate some problem. The reliable source coverage of this story is not to that effect at all and focuses most on the contents of the documents and the ensuing controversy (or asserted lack thereof). The lead needs to reflect the balance of sources and article and spend more time discussing the controversy of the documents. Oren0 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you are saying, I think this is actually part of a much larger problem. The massive rewrite, while admirable in intent, has been a mistake. I would prefer to see the entire article reverted back to the version immediately before the massive rewrite. This will also restore all the lost references that forced me to do this to your last edit. All that is happening now is that we are slowly adding back all that was lost, which is a waste of everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost refs will be fixed by the magic ref-fixing bot. Just leave them broken for a little bit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only part of the problem though. A lot of people did a lot of work that just got deleted, and now an awful lot of that work is getting added back in bits and pieces. The result is a bit of a mess, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The old article was worse, I think. What parts of the removed stuff do you think added substantial value? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this becomes moot if the rewrite is reverted as I propose below. Then individual changes could be discussed and agreed upon. I think trying to discuss the reversion of several sections at once will be a nightmare. Oren0 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like Hipocrite's restructuring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Code and documentation redux

This edit replaced a nice, simple, clear explanation with something more complex, designed by committee (including me) up above. I suggest that this wording is used, under the restored heading, rather than what's been restored there.

Suggested wording

The quality of some of the source code included in the documents has been criticised, and an associated README file has been interpreted as suggesting that some data was simply made up. Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at Oxford has said that the code under discussion is not that used in actual climate reconstructions, which is maintained elsewhere.

--Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where this version was discussed above, maybe I'm missing it in the collapse boxes? The shortest text I see above is under #Modified_Even_shorter_version, which is still much longer than your proposed text. I just restored the section as it was before its removal and I'm not necessarily attached to the current version. I don't oppose concise text for this, though I do believe it belongs in its own section. Oren0 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now as the edit was reverted. --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Need non-involved reactions

Since the rewrite, the current "reactions" section is really an "inquiries" section, as the only reaction from a person is Pachauri's. This article needs a proper "reactions" section where the reactions of experts on both sides of this issue can be discussed to some degree. The current article is missing discussion about why this whole incident has generated controversy, and numerous reliable individuals have been quoted on the issue. I don't believe that the laundry list approach previously used was the right one, the thing to do is to discuss in proportion the major reactions (ranging from "no big deal" through "problem with openness" and perhaps including "disproves AGW" if sourced enough) with a representative person/quote or two for each. I think a 2-3 paragraph section would do. Without this, I think the current article misses the point in some ways. Oren0 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Write a section here or on a sub page for people to review. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: revert article rewrite

Per User:Scjessey above. While I applaud the effort of User:Nightmote in this edit, a complete article rewrite without any consensus is almost assuredly a bad idea. There were several good ideas in this rewrite, but I think the right place for this article lies closer to the "before" than to the "after". If we leave this, we're going to have tons of discussions to get all of the things that shouldn't have been removed back in. Instead, let's revert the article back and work on implementing individual fixes from the rewrite with consensus. Even though the original edit didn't have consensus, it may be best to get opinions here on whether the change should be reverted before doing something drastic again. An edit war over the whole article would obviously be unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This was a great experiment, but it is forcing us to rehash old debates that didn't need to be dug up. A new WP:BATTLEGROUND has sprung up over what gets added back, and what doesn't. As soon as that started happening, I knew this was doomed to failure. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it. What do you want put back in, and where is this so called battle? Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I too applaud the effort and I think the re-write gives us a good sense of direction. But the change is too much to digest in one swallow.JPatterson (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This dosen't even present a reason, let alone one I could dispute. This is not a vote. What was removed that should stay? Why? Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason is it is far too great a change to make without consensus. I have objections to the re-write that are too numerous to list here, starting with the fact that it eliminated all of the specific allegations and lacks any cogent RS analysis from critics. The scandal, and it is now a scandal by any feasible definition, is growing in importance, (witness the guardian series, hardly a skeptical hotbed, and the effect it is having on public opinion in the UK). I think the re-write is much improved in terms of composition and flow but minimizes the incident, still puts to much emphasis on the hack, and lacks an adequate framework on which to cover the fall out. JPatterson (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What sections from the old article would you like put back? Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lead although I would prefer we resurrect to achieve consensus on a re-write, the code section over which hard fought consensus was achieved and the public reaction section per our discussion above. But as SCJ points out, everyone's going to have their own hobby horses and we'll be right back where we started with nothing to show but hard feelings. JPatterson (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you know that everyone is going to want their own pet section in, why not weigh the costs and benefits of fighting for your pet section vs the ability to keep all of the other crap out? If someone would like to propose a rewrite to the lead, go crazy. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The new 2nd para is much more apposite than the old hodge-podge. Times have moved on and so must the article's focus. When the inquiries and police investigations move on, a lot of what we had would have gone anyway. More of what we have now may well survive longer. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. HC asked what I would like to put back in, to which I responded . The new 2nd paragraph is not comparable to the old 2nd paragraph, which has been eliminated. JPatterson (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• weak oppose. At this point, all the rewrite did was remove the (previously named) "Response" section, which was really bad (issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Almost every single one of the removed sections made the article worse. I support the rewrite in full, and am willing to defend any specific problem that anyone has with it. If you have a problem with some of the information removed, please present that problem. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that eventually it will all be put back. It is inevitable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Examples on request. I've shrunk articles before. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The remaining text is consensus text - nothing was added. If we revert, we revert back to the edit war version, where everyone on both sides of the (a)isle kept adding "just one more" superfluous quote. I don't own this version. I'm not married to it. But I (humbly) submit that it goes a long way toward avoiding the "he-said-she-said" point-scoring mentality. I strongly support the re-removal of the in-depth email analysis in favor of giving the emails a separate article with a wikilink. If we focus on what happened and avoid the analysis, we'll make a better article and avoid the drama. Nightmote (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On that, I'm going to boldly insert Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails after AQFK's recent edits that I think provide the notations that were necessary. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Hipocrite. Go for it. That is a much more readable format. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're simplifying the lede...

How about we shorten the following sentence...

"The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to climate science research made by David Holland, a retired engineer, but as sanctions had to be imposed within six months of the offence it was too late to impose them."

...to...

"The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to climate science research made by David Holland, a retired engineer."

...or even...

"The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to climate science research." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend shelving (:D) this until after the discussion about reverting the massive rewrite. That being said, I prefer the first suggestion but I would also support the second. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out again that the version missing out who made the requests is misleading in suggesting that all requests were included in the ICO's opinion, not just those raised by Holland. An option would be "dealing properly with requests one individual made for information related to climate science research." Note that the crucial request was for emails, relating to private discussions about the research rather than to the research itself. . . dave souza, talk 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Indian government is backing Pachauri to the hilt. Let there be no doubt on that. There is no wavering in the support of the Indian government. The Prime Minister and others in the government are supporting him as chairmen of IPCC. Let there be no two opinions on that," Mr Ramesh said.

This is the first time that the government has come out in support of the IPCC chief after Glaciergate. IPCC has acknowledged its error over the rate of disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers. The Centre had supported the study by former deputy director-general of the Geological Survey of India, VK Raina, which had challenged IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035.

Mr Ramesh, who had been at the receiving end of scathing attack from the IPCC chief reiterated the government’s support. "The government backs Pachauri as the chief of the IPCC at the highest level. Past is past."

Rv: why

I took out the code section again. As I said before: it is broken. It has no RS's, and is laughably wrong to anyone with any familiarity with the area William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was for that to stay, it has a rs as well you know, please self revert --mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC's contention that the BBC News is not a reliable source is complete BS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's take another tack: the section in question is irrelevant. Code documentation is good practice, but it is nothing to write home about when code goes undocumented. More than that, the problems with error-handling are universal to all computer programming. What does this have to do with the subject of the article? I say that this section serves absolutely no purpose. Why do those who want to see it stay think it's relevant? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a lengthy section on the emails, but no real discussion of the additional documents. I think this section contributes to the article, by providing further detail on these additional documents. Overall the article suffers from trying to cover both the 'hacking incident' and the 'ensuing controversy' all in one article. This section is highly relevant to the ensuing controversy.00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thepm (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this section did not really discuss the additional documents at all. From what I understand, these "additional documents" were mostly "attachments" to the e-mails. Simply positing that they were relevant to the ensuing controversy doesn't make them so. I understand that Newsnight paid a commercial programmer to discuss the codes since they couldn't themselves provide any interpretation of them. That's not surprising. But the statements offered by the "expert" were essentially, "these codes had bugs and were poorly documented". How did that contribute to the controversy? What reliable sources indicate that these attachments were controversial in any way? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a notable part of the controversy. It goes to process and controls at the CRU which is quite relevant. WMCs contention that its "laughably wrong" is itself laughable. The opinion piece he finds so compelling addresses none of the issues raised by the BBC piece (non-existent documentation, no audit trail, buggy code) and simply knocks down a straw argument the BBC piece didn't make. All that aside, we've been through this, we've reached consensus on language. Non consensus edits like WMCs violate the terms of probation and should be self-reverted immediately. JPatterson (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that just by repeating "we have consensus" you can make it so. You are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We banged out a section that most editors agreed was a big improvement. This section has been in a long time. The burden for gaining consensus for removal is on your shoulders. Please self-revert. JPatterson (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, there are a lot of rationales from the people arguing to remove the text and not a lot of rationales from those wanting to keep it. If you care to engage in the discussion and explain why the text is at all relevant, that would go a long way toward explaining why he should revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for removal is "we have one opinion piece from a non-expert (in this case a non-computer science expert) who claims a real expert in the field quoted by a RS is wrong. If you accept this, you will have no choice but to accept it when the skeptics use the exact same rationale to lay waste in the global warming article space. Unless of course hypocrisy sits well with youJPatterson (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, the rationale I provided is that the section is irrelevant. As far as the tit-for-tat proposal you outline, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to be a much deprecated argument in these parts. Tell you what, you provide a reliable source that explains why this section discussing e-mail attachments is relevant to the controversy and we'll discuss how to include that in this article. Fair? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"It goes to process and controls" -- How? All the sources I've read about this simply indicate that the code was poorly documented (which is de rigeur) and had bugs (which is de rigeur). It's a lot like saying, "this text has spelling errors and lacks a table of contents". Controversial? More like not at all relevant. Anyway, I'd like to see a reliable source which indicates that these codes were somehow relevant to the controversy. That would be great. I'll remind you consensus can change and right now, I'm arguing that it should change in favor of WMC's approach. I challenge anyone to find a source that indicates that this subject is at all relevant beyond people who don't know what they're talking about getting excited (which, if that's the true rationale, could easily be included in a one-liner elsewhere in the article). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the spaghetti code?? Have you read the harry_readme which chronicles poor harry's failed attempt to untangle the mess that is "our flagship product". If that's what passes for de rigeur in those circles then that is relevant indeed. JPatterson (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you haven't yet offered a reliable source to back up your contentions, and I think you've strayed away from the purpose of talkpage as you are discussing your poor understanding of the details of the code architecture, which I can tell is a mystery to you. That's okay, but your befuddlement and amazement at how scientific coding happens in practice is hardly something on which to base editing an encyclopedia. If you want to verify that this stuff is unremarkable, go to your local university's physics department, knock on the door of one of the graduate students, and ask for a sample of their code. Then decide if it is spaghetti. It is not only de rigeur in those circles: it is de rigeur in all related circles as well. This includes those circles which, say, discovered exoplanets, decoded the human genome, and solved Fermat's last theorem. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, it's apparent to all that the code has no architecture, that's the point, or rather Dr Graham-Cumming's point, who BTW is an expert on how code should be written and was featured in a story by a reliable source. That's the standard for inclusion. And ss poor harry said, "this place needs a data architect, and now". JPatterson (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well, first, all code has architecture by definition. Your statement that "the code has no architecture" is like saying, "that building has no three-dimensional form". Sure, you may not like the form and may think that it is in terrible shape and dangerous, but it still exists. This is just illustrative of the problems we have with people who are not familiar with scientific coding trying to make any kind of points about the subject. You're simply embarrassing yourself. Secondly, just because you have a source that doesn't make your trivia relevant the standard of inclusion is much higher than that which again reminds me that you haven't posted any source that discusses the relevance of this section to this subject. Thirdly, cherrypicking quotes is not really making your case any stronger. My offer is still on the table when you're ready to do the actual work of writing a decent encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One can build a structure without an architect, I just wouldn't want my kids sleeping in it. I let the first one go by but I'll ask you now politely to please avoid personal attacks. I couldn't care less about your opinion of me but such attacks further degrade the editing environment and encourage similar behavior in others. They are also a violation of this articles terms of probation. As to your offer, I'll again point out the the burden for establishing consensus (also a probation requirement) on removal of a long standing section rests with those who favor removal. JPatterson (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you aren't familiar with the jargon of coding, and I apologize for any personal attack you interpreted in my response. Just FYI: code architecture is something that all code has. It's just the form of the code. Every code has one or more architects, those being the programmers who wrote the code. In any case, since you haven't provided any reliable sources to demonstrate relevance, we're done here. Let me know when you find one. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That would come as quite a shock to my employer as I am in fact the chief software/firmware architect for an API from which we derive a substantial portion of our revenue. And your naive contention notwithstanding, software architectures must be designed, they do not spontaneously materialize. It is not, as you seem to believe, a fancy word for structure but rather a specification for how the pieces interact and interrelate. I note here your focus on relevance which I shall take up below. JPatterson (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I'm confused over this entire discussion. A reliable source was cited which demonstrates its relevance. I don't understand why you keep asking for one. What exactly about this source does not address your concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You've linked to the RS guideline, please note that sources can be reliable for one subject and inadequate for another. The sources cited show that rather a poorly informed programme was broadcast in the early days of the affair. That might be suitable detail for a sub-article on the context, but in this article it gives undue weight to misinformation without getting to the real issues with the famous code, if any. A better source is needed. . .dave souza, talk 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I would point you here and note that Graham-Cumming's blog satisfies the top two criteria (note only one is required). The Times has named it one of its Top 30 Science Blogs, satisfying criteria 2 and criteria 1 is satisfied by being featured on the BBC, Times and in numerous other publications. Thus we could use his analysis directly, which I may take a crack at once I get editing privileges back. JPatterson (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear, the "reliable source" cited does not make any claims as to the relevance of this subject. What we have is a discussion by Newsnight analyzing some e-mail attachments. That's not any more a claim to relevance than any other shoddy analysis attempt. If Dr. Oz discusses his opinion of a particular aspect of some new medical issue, that's not necessarily fodder for writing an entire section in the article about that medical issue. Relevance demands much more than a singular source from the media. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of reliable sources and weight are separate. If you believe that BBC News is not a reliable source for this article, then I suggest that you take the matter up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you can achieve consensus with editors there that BBC News isn't reliable, then come back to us. Regarding the issue of weight, I would think that having an entire article devoted to this one aspect of the controversy is undue weight. Having one small section is not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all relative. See above, and note that the article talk page is more appropriate for this level of detail than forum shopping. . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@MN: no, there was no consensus for it to stay. Nor was there consensus to remove it. Please don't pretend. There was disagreement both ways. @SA: agree. @AQFK: not exactly civil of you, old fruit. But no: Newsnight is good enough within its own field, but quite out of its depth here, as was its "expert". For the latter, Cumming's blog is interesting : note the number of times he has to go back and say "oops I was wrong" William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind WMC on this. Newsnight was wrong, and we have a reliable source that said they were wrong. They may as well have pulled some random code out of the cloud and analyzed that for all the use it was. If these two sources were matter and antimatter, they would annihilate one another. And that is exactly what should happen here. The section has no value whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since John Graham-Cumming is such an admired expert, we can presumably quote his self-published opinion that "My take on global warming is... unless you can demonstrate to me that it's false I'm going to believe the scientists who've been working on it. Pretty much the same way I do about any other bit of science. That's how science works, unlike politics." . . . dave souza, talk 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC this is the third time you've removed this section without consensus and with the same rationale (in the face of WP:V). That's extremely disruptive.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that WMC was right in removing this irrelevant section. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated and unsupported contention of irrelevance falls on its face. The code comprises the bulk of the released data and it is mentioned in numerous press accounts describing the released documents. For the article to pretend otherwise and simply ignore the code aspect of the controversy just plays into the hands of wikipedia conspiracy theorist. You may of course argue that the code is not relevant to the scientific findings but to say ot is not relevant to the controversy (which as I recall is the subject of this article) is absurd. Here is a sampling of articles dealing with the code aspect.

• Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails, CBS News
• It's The Computer Code, Silly The Atlantic
• Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story PajamasMedia
• MPs probe ClimategateThe Register
• CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered American Thinker

And then there are the geek squad line-by-line analysis taking place on any number of blogs. Are these reliable sources? I would certainly argue that this one is. Dr. Graham-Cumming is an acknowledged expert who's been taken note of in reliable sources. You are certainly welcomed and encouraged to provide RS content that questions the significance of these analyses to the scientific conclusions. What you can not do is refute their relevance to the controversy. That contention fails prima facia. JPatterson (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At least we're getting somewhere now. Let's analyze each source. The CBS news blogs source is totally unreliable and all Declan McCullagh does is speculate wildly about things he seems to know nothing about. At the very least, we can garner about a sentence from that source along the lines of "A number of climate change denialists were interested in analyzing e-mail attachments that included source code and program documentation." The Andrew Sullivan blog actually links to one of the better sources on the subject: here that gives such short-shrift to this subject that it's almost laughable: "Here is Harry’s summary of the situation: Aarrggghhh!" Pajamasmedia is such a bad source of anything that we'll just let that sleeping dog lie. The Reg's description of the situation was even shorter at a single clause, "although dwarfed by the source code". And finally we have another right-wing media unreliable source in the American Thinker. Okay, so if that's your best then I say I'm even more convinced that WMC is on the ball here. Thanks for helping me understand that. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think it right that the code and documentation released be just ignored then? Noting to see here move along. This has a reliable source, it is a major part of this controversy and it should be reinserted. mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a major part of this controversy, other reliable sources should by now have given it more informed attention. Please look for such sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, it's not our choice, it's the lack of reliable sources. We have two, that really do annihilate each other: The BBC says it's crap code and the Guardian says, but you forgot to ask what it's for, it's certainly not for IPCC use. The two pieces analysed might be doodles, experiments, teaching aids, students' homeworks. The BBC forgot to ask. I only voted to keep the pair in as placeholders for now. If you have any other reliable analyses, bring them on. If not, I think we'll have to wait for the inquiries. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussing the state of the code. CBS News The Atlantic WSJ Mentions harrys readme and the state of the code The TelegraphHow the code was tortured to give the desired result, there are plenty more out there about the code and how bad it is. --mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blog, The Atlantic (which isn't noted as a scientific source) quoting the first blog for its "expertise", blog, and an early column in The Telegraph briefly giving the uninformative opinion of Christopher Booker. Did I miss something? . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)Let's analyze these sources, shall we? All you've given us here are the primary source blog documents of people who can only rightly be called NOT scientists and political anti-scientists. Well, there's also an editorial for the Telegraph by a similar such person. So, I can see this as primary source evidence for what these folks believe, but that's about it. Certainly the section in question was silly and didn't address the fracas from the perspective of the fact that there's a bunch of people who know nothing crowing about their own scientific illiteracy. So where does that leave us? Oh yeah, supporting the decision to remove the section. Thanks again! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say everything, CBS News, WSJ, Your opinions on booker are an irrelevance, The atlantic mentions the harryreadme.txt file and thus questions the code. The simple fact of the matter is this is well sourced, and belongs it this article. --mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We have rules about primary sources which you need to read. In this case, you've only relied on deprecated sources from people who don't know what they're talking about. This is relevant too. Read it, learn it, love it! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between two orthogonal concepts. You asked for proof of relevance which has been amply provided. One need not be correct on a matter to be relevant, witness any number of know-nothing yet powerful politicians. Correctness and relevance - two different things. Learn it, embrace it, love it. JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is now painfully obvious that this belongs in this article, the code released is 95% of the foi.zip, enough links have been given to prove not only the relevance but also wp:notability I fully intend to reinsert this section as it is both wp:rs and wp:notable anyone who says this does not belong in this article needs to step back and ask themselves, what is this article actually for? it does not just cover the e-mails, it is about the entire leak mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Refocus

Here's the edit that all of this is about: The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and an audit history, and included a bug in its error handling which, if it occurred, would ignore data without warning. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

Here's the part of the article that no one has disputed yet: The quality of some of the source code included in the documents has been criticised, and an associated README file has been interpreted as suggesting that some data was simply made up. Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at Oxford has said that the code under discussion is not that used in actual climate reconstructions, which is maintained elsewhere.

Can someone tell me why we're fighting about A vs B, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. The issue is covered in the article in as much detail as the sources can reasonably sustain, reliable sources giving at least one detailed account showing proper expert analysis is needed to explain this issue. . . dave souza, talk 19:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The weighting of the opinion of Graham-Cumming about the source code is not something that I think belongs in the article. I actually do dispute the phrase parts of B as well, especially because the criticisms are fairly flat: akin to someone making a big deal about misspelling a word or having to deal with the day-to-day frustrations of handling data and models. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the contention is as follows: A contains information that B does not, and that information should be presented in the article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reverts

This article is under active development, and recent efforts to focus on coverage of rather than participation in the incident and associated furor are commendable. Locking the article from editing interferes with this effort, but so does this incessant edit warring. Under the auspices of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I am placing this article under a content revert restriction for one month. No revert may be undone within 24 hours absent a strong consensus here that the first edit improved the article. Gaming the system by respecting only the letter of this restriction is disruptive. If you add text and someone else removes it, get consensus here that the article is better with the text; anyone re-adding substantially the same text without such consensus will be blocked for edit warring. If you remove text and someone else replaces it, get consensus here that the article is better without the text; anyone re-removing substantially the same text without such consensus will be blocked for edit warring. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this improves the situation. You have all but made it impossible to make any changes to the article that anyone else disagrees with. It doesn't seem much different than simply having the article be locked. Arzel (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rut Roh Scooby - title may need a change

Looks like they found the guy how may have done it which would mean it was a leak, like security experts and anyone with sense has been saying. The title should obviously be "Climategate" since nobody is going to search for "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" and, failing that, the title shouldn't assume "hacking" (a crime) is involved. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable title would be Climatic Research Unit leaked e-mails controversy. But we should wait until it's determined whether they really were leaked or not. Remember, we're not here to right great wrongs. The incident was widely reported as a "hacking" and if it is indeed shown to be a "leak", well, then, we'll deal with that then. Right now we've just got rumors and hunches. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was also reported as being leaked, and when experts in security were interviewed, they put it at a much higher probability that it was a leak not a hack. Your post reminded me of Quantum Leap :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If it turns out to be this guy, it changes nothing. He is not from the CRU, but from a separate department of the UEA. "Hacking" may be inaccurate, but we can always change it to "theft". Either way, it certainly isn't "Climategate" and never will be. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Scjessey. "Climategate" is simply sensationalism and not at all WP:NPOV. Birthgate anyone? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so climategate, which everyone uses to look up the incident, is "sensationalist" but "theft" and "hack" is more moderate than "leak?" I'd say that I'm having trouble understanding the reasoning, but unfortunately I think I do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, why do you keep jumping to conclusions that people are guilty, using sources that don't have such findings? We don't guess the future here. Abwarten und Tee trinken. . . dave souza, talk 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions? Like Scjessey was flat out advocating original research by calling it a "theft" even though the guardian article refers to it as a leak (because they were from the same university)? The point, which Scjessey made for me, is that the current title is biased (and quite likely inaccurate). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I don't see that that story is little more than a statement that someone who works in the same building as the CRU was interviewed by the police and talks with right-fringe bloggers. Is there more than that, somewhere in there? Hipocrite (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, not every skeptic is "right-wing." TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian page entitled "Hacked Climate Science Emails" is currently running three stories: one states that the emails were hacked by somebody at GMT+4, one implying they were leaked by Paul Dennis, and one suggesting they were left on an open ftp server. The editors appear to see no conflict in these different accounts. Amusing if nothing else. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)I'm open to a renaming of the article. The "hacking" aspect is only part of the story as far as I can tell anyway. The other part is, of course, that people who aren't very smart have invented all sorts of conspiracy theories about the "implications" of these e-mails. Would you prefer Climatic Research Unit e-mails? That seems pretty straightforward, unassuming, and NPOV to me.ScienceApologist (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is the best title for the obvious reason that it is the way pretty much the world refers to it. Sirwells (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but the proposed title it far better than the current title. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I prefer Climatic Research Unit e-mails controversy over just Climatic Research Unit e-mails. Does anyone really think there's no controversy?Sirwells (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The most commonly used name is 'Climategate' and that's what I think it should be called. Accepting that we wont get consensus on that, Climatic Research Unit e-mails controversy makes more sense. Thepm (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to apply the KISS principle, which would indicate Climategate should be the title, but failing that I think the Apologist's title is the next best thing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who wants what. At the end of the day, this is a single news story with a bunch of ifs and maybes, and nothing has changed yet. The title will stay as it is for the time being, unless or until something concrete gives us a reason to reconsider. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Unfortunately, everyone here, except you, has expressed desires to change the title. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That'll be because everyone else is asleep, bearing in mind that it's three in the morning in East Anglia. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Small matter like sleep shouldn't stop people from posting here. Actually you're right, many of the regulars here have not commented and it wouldn't be right to change it until they have had an opportunity to do so. Doesn't stop the rest of us from expressing an opinion in the meantime and at present that opinion seems to be that the title should change. Thepm (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that people from the University of East Anglia, who have a direct conflict of interest, are participating in the evolution of this article in order to whitewash it? If so then I demand you identify these accounts so they can be notified that their actions are breaking wikipedia policy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! You can safely assume that everyone who disagrees with you is from the UEA. I'm wearing my special UEA pajamas right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you stated it was 3 am in East Anglia, the assumption being that people in East Anglia weren't getting a proper input. The only question is who are these people from East Anglia that you were worried didn't have a say? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Scjessey, who seems to think we all have to run everything by him, It would seem the two choices (at the moment) are (a) Climatic Research Unit e-mails controversy or (b) Climatic Research Unit e-mails. I vote (a).Sirwells (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we have the excellent choice of leaving it alone until something changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I vote for option B (but without the hyphen in "emails"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Climategate should be reserved for an article discussing the perception of scientific scandal, its dimensions, and the denials of same. It will have the advantage of the ability to incorporate other events of similar nature such as the China UHI revelation, the pruning of world temperature stations from 6000 to 1500, the Darwin Australia homogenization, New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) data adjustments, NOAA's adjustments to Central Park data and others, and any further events that may transpire. I realize the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, but there should be provision to accommodate future events without unnecessary flurries of activity.

The other article (the residual of this current) should preserve the discussion of the origin and compilation of the file and of the release of the documents and any legal proceedings or ramifications which may ensure. It may not have the "legs" of the Climategate article, and with luck should not attract anywhere near as much partisanship and umbrage.Oiler99 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

*Strong Support Oiler99, I think your phrasing above is POV, but I agree with you in substance. I have elsewhere mentioned that I think we have two quite distinct articles in one here. The initial release of the files containing emails (and other documents) is one matter, together with questions related to the provenance of those files is one matter. The resulting controversy related to the various allegations and subsequent inquiries is a separate matter altogether. The first is probably Unauthorised release of CRU files or something like that. The second is clearly Climategate. That's what everybody calls it. Thepm (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any change in the title at this stage. The Guardian report is speculative (and note that the scientist they interviewed says: "The police left me very much with the impression that they were working on the theory that this was an outside hack and was done deliberately to disrupt Copenhagen.") Wait until the official report is published later this month, then decide. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to change the title at this time, as ChrisO said that article is purely speculative. So to continue speculating, we might be faced with the possibility that we will never know who did what. Ignignot (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to rename it to "Climategate scandal"

I just read the FAQ and the reason cited was basically that we can't use either "Climategate" or "scandal" let alone "Climategate scanal" because it implies wrongdoing. I mean, here's what it says right now verbatim:

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. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles.

Well, if this is the case, then we need to rename Lewinsky scandal to Oval Office fellatio incident, List of corporate scandals to List of corporate incidents, Watergate scandal to Watergate office complex incident, Bofors scandal to Bofors corruption incident, Enron scandal to Enron bankruptcy incident, Mark Foley scandal to Mark Foley instant messenger incident, Political scandals of the United States to Political incidents of the United States, and quite a few others that I'm not going to bother mentioning.

This standard of not using "-gate" or "scandal" doesn't apply anywhere but here.

So one of the following will take place:

1. Consensus will change as a result of my compelling argument against the previous consensus,
2. All articles that have the terms "-gate" or "scandal" in them will be renamed to a euphemism of what the article is about, or
3. There will be a massive de facto concession that there's a double standard here.

Thanks. Macai (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha beautifully argued. I'm in.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "compelling argument" is nothing of the sort, and this has been discussed to death already. Please see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pulling the "discussed to death card" is confused. Stuff happens. Rehashing a discussion is warranted after new information arises, new people show up, etc.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no new information and this is not the first time Macai has been involved with this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO goes with option number three. Macai (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:WTA makes it clear that "scandal" and "gate" are to be avoided except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources. This is not an historical case, it's a current event. As for other article titles which may not comply with WTA, the other stuff exists argument is invalid - if one or two articles don't comply, that doesn't mean that this one shouldn't as well. Plenty of articles do comply. Compare Killian documents controversy ("Rathergate") or Dismissal of US attorneys controversy ("Attorneygate"). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we consider this a motion for the counterproposal, "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy"?--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a way of telling Macai that his proposal is unacceptable, since it's irredeemably POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Prove that it's POV to say that a scandal is a scandal. Macai (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris is not the one going around in circles. You are. Wikispan (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I am going in circles; around Chris. The fact that he resorted to ad hominem attacks in place of an actual argument placed him in the objective wrong in this discussion. Sorry if that bothers you. Macai (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Chris. It's a current event. That means it's going on now. As in, more emails are coming out, and CRU is continually being hacked or leaked or whatever? Is that correct? Because if it's over, it happen an historical event. Period.

Also, notice how I didn't make the argument that we should necessarily change this article based on the fact that others don't comply with a mandate; see option #2.

Furthermore, your source is talking about the inclusion or exclusion of articles, not in the naming scheme of articles. Macai (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's the subject of current reporting, it is plainly a current event. You will not find it being referred to in "reputable historical sources" (such as academic books) because it's far too recent for that. As for "not in the naming scheme of articles", I can see you haven't read Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal properly. It says of "-gate" and "scandal": "They should not be used in article titles". Pretty clear, I'd say. You should also look at WP:NPOV#Article naming, which requires neutral article titles to be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Macai - love your work. Fully support. @ChrisO - I think that your argument was a fair one pre-christmas, but Climategate has become the standard term. Can you advise of any other terms that are used to label the event and the subsequent controversy? Thepm (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Macai's work appears to involve moronic Rush Limbaugh-influenced vandalism , you might want to rethink your praise for him. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO - I've admired your work here and elsewhere. I know you disagree with what I'm saying, but I really hate to see you posting this sort of message. Please go get a cup of tea and take a few deep breaths. Thepm (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO calling others work moronic is not they way we work on wikipedia. So please stop name calling other peoples work like this. Nsaa (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Your move. Macai (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you guys are not willing to read Misplaced Pages guidelines, why are you even here? Wikispan (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We have reached this "e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." from Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article_naming stage for Climategate scandal/Climategate controversy now . (Nearly) every source now uses som variant of this. Even

• 'climategate' scandal – The Guardian (How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies),
• "climategate" controversy – The Independent (Climategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics The "climategate" controversy) and
• "ClimateGate" affair –BBC ('Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means).

The second piece ChrisO is refereing to is a style guidline and should be "attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions". Nsaa (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful link to the statement that "Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs." A mainstream scientific point of view that should be incorporated into description of the "scandal" aspect of the article. . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Stop bringing it up and work on something that might actually get consensus. The arguments against Climategate as the name have been done to death - bringing it up again and again and again reeks of an unwillignness to work with others. Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again, "Climategate" is clearly a pov spin, a label being used by one side of the argument to obscure the case that there is a significant human caused contribution to global warming. . dave souza, talk 12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop bringing it up? If you care to read my links just given above from the Guardian and The Independent so will you see that even these publications has now (as of 2 February) start using Climategate in some way or another as an description on this scandal/controversy. It may be a pov spin in the start, but now it isn't anymore. Why else would Guardian/Independent now start using it? Nsaa (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

These are articles about the arguments being put by "skeptics", most obviously in the Guardian article. That's just a part of the incident. Note extensive use of inverted commas around "climategate". Framing in that way may be acceptable in some news media, but is inappropriate for an article title. . . dave souza, talk 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not forever. The fact that this issue has been raised in the past should not prevent us from raising it again. Especially now that it has become obvious that the usual lable applied to "the controversy following the unauthorised release of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit" is Climategate. The name Climategate appears to be the most commonly used name. Are there other names that are more widely used? The current title is clumsy and presumptive. It needs to change. Thepm (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal remains one-sided and not appropriately neutral for this article. Further proposals welcome, but effort would be better put into improving the article itself. . . dave souza, talk 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't anything to discuss here. Words like "scandal" and those ending in "-gate" are essentially prohibited on Misplaced Pages per WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. The fact that other articles make use of them is irrelevant, because in many cases they predate Misplaced Pages (and are thus "grandfathered in"), or are simply wrong and ought to be changed. I'm open to discussion on changing the title (and I've gone to extraordinary lengths to help reach an agreement on a new title in the past), but there is no way I would support any version that includes "Climategate" or "scandal". Furthermore, I think there is a clear majority of editors who will agree with me on this, particularly because investigations are still ongoing. Calls to get these non-neutral terms into the title will not be successful, so the efforts of those calling for them would be better spent on trying to work out a compromise that will satisfy everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to weigh in on the side of ChrisO and Scj. This said, I agree that "consensus is not forever". I think we should try to establish some test for when an article can be referred to as "gate" or "scandal". In my mind the test should be this - When a super majority (i.e. >66%) of randomly sampled news articles and RS covering the incident unequivically refer to the event by the term "gate" or "scandal", Misplaced Pages should do the same. I don't think "Climategate" has met that test yet (unlike events like Watergate, and the Mocia Lewinsky scandal probably do), though I acknowledge that that could change. NickCT (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with ChrisO, Scj and NickCT. We have a specific guideline which states that articles should not be named with the "-gate" suffix. See WP:AVOID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Dave you say "Climategate" is POV spin, but all the defenders of the Climategate scientists have pushed the "hacked" meme as a way to distract from the contents of the emails - the implication being that they were "victims" of a crime instead of whistleblowing (which is usually praised). If you are against POV titles then you should agree with ScienceApologist's proposed title of Climate Research Unit emails. Are you going to be consistent in this matter? Or are you going to insist that a crime was committed against these poor misunderstood scientists? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually think your above comment assists in creating a cooperative environment where editors with differeing perspectives work with eachother to improve the article? Why, or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the title and lead sentence need to be changed in light of the new evidence. The theory that CRU was hacked is unlikely at best, yet the title states this as a fact. Additionally, the idea that we can't use the word "scandal" to describe the even because it is current is marginal at best. The Foley Scandal was called a scandal from the beginning for example. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get things back on track. One side says "Climategate" is biased and the other side says the current title is biased. There has been a proposed middle ground and we should be working towards that which is what I was attempting to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"The theory that CRU was hacked is unlikely at best," ?!?? Really Arzel? Really? NickCT (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Security experts have stated that it was most likely an internal leak. The other option is that they left their server open - which is something they've accidentally done in the past. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No compelling counterargument

None of the arguments in this thread against changing it to "Climategate scandal" have addressed the fact that many other articles are referred to as "scandals". If no compelling argument is made within twenty four hours, consensus will be overridden as per WP:NPOV. Thank you. Macai (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sirwells supports option number 1 for the reasons Mr Macaii outlined in his inital post. The "this has aleady been argued to death" excuse does not hold water. (Sorry RC / AGW crowd, but you do not own wikipedia articles.)Sirwells (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:AVOID, "scandal" and "-gate" are words to avoid when naming articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you for option number two, then? Yes or no, please. Macai (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a false tricotomy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a false tricotomy at all. Either the "don't use -gate and scandal" rule applies, or it doesn't. Period. Macai (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The rule does apply. There are no article titles which violate WP:AVOID as far as I am aware. Of course, Misplaced Pages has lots of articles so there might be violations, but I am not aware of any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're in favor of option two, then? Here's a list of article names with "scandal" in them:

• Lewinsky scandal
• List of corporate scandals
• Watergate scandal
• Enron scandal
• Bofors scandal
• Mark Foley scandal
• Sponsorship scandal
• Teapot Dome scandal
• Political scandals of the United States
• Black Sox Scandal
• BALCO Scandal

And that's only going through the second page of a Google search for "site:wikipedia.org scandal". "Scandal" is found all over the place, including very recent events. (I wouldn't consider the Mark Foley scandal ancient history; it's not even been half a decade yet.) Macai (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, clearly I was wrong. I wasn't aware of most of those. (But some of those aren't violations such as the Teapot Dome scandal. According to WP:AVOID, it's OK if a history journal uses the term.) Anyway, if you want to make the case that those articles need to be changed, you need to bring this up to those talk pages. Mistakes made by editors in other articles can't be used to justify repeating those mistakes here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NP, bro. The case I'm trying to make, though, is that I think it's fair to call this a scandal, seeing as it is one, and that it's easily "historical". I mean, if Mark Foley is historical, why not this? I'm kind of under the impression that anything taking place in the past, but not ongoing, qualifies as "historical". Macai (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask QuestForKnowledge if he knows of any examples on wikipedia where WP:AVOID has caused an article about a widely known scandal or controversy to be renamed. Climate-gate is the only example I can think of. (of course wikipedia is a large place so there may be others, but I don't know of any.)Sirwells (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at but no, not that I know of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that perhaps WP:AVOID needs some work. I believe the intent is correct, we can't have conspiracy theorists running around calling everything a scandal. However, in the cases such as this, where nearly an entire population has labeled it xxx-gate, the appropriate name of the article should be xxx-gate. It seems to me you are using the "...except in historical cases..." bit as justification for other, somewhat olders scandals being excused from your WP:AVOID. This is splitting hairs and does not respect the intent of the rule. macai's arguement is a good one. If every other scandal is labeled simply for what it is, it's wrong to put never used but more "politically correct" label on climate-gate.Sirwells (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to follow them, that's all. We have a guideline that says not to use these words. That's good enough for me. I'm not here to think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me do the thinking for you then :D (that was a joke, I actually do respect your opinion). I think what we have here is a compelling case of WP:IAR.Sirwells (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems a little disruptive. Here's an argument: the vast majority of people who understand climate change don't think this is a scandal. Only one particular group (the denialists) think it is a scandal. Therefore the title should not include "scandal" any more than the Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories should be called "Proof that man never went to the moon". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From scandal:

"A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed."

This is clearly a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations, and in the public eye, it certainly damages the reputation of an institution, individual, or creed. Just because people who, in your words, "understand climate change" don't find it to be a scandal doesn't make it a non-scandal. It'd be comparable to say that since "people who understand" that Lewinsky's blowjob was ultimately unimportant don't find the Lewinsky scandal to be a scandal, that we should therefore call it the Oval Office fellatio incident. Macai (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed? At what point do the constant calls to violate Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines with "-gate"/"scandal" terminology be called tendentious to the point of outright disruption? That POV-pushers keen to misrepresent reality have been allowed to continue like this for weeks and weeks without sanction is, frankly, outrageous. To this day, there are only allegations. Despite comments from the toothless ICO, no wrongdoing has been properly asserted and no criminal charges have been filed. In fact, the only suggestion of criminal activity has been directed toward whoever stole the data from the CRU servers. Some ethical questions have been raised, but nothing that could be described as scandalous. The notion that this incident has attracted the sort of attention that was afforded Watergate, or Lewinsky, or any of the other real scandals cited above is patently ridiculous. The constant insistence that this article be renamed to accommodate these non-neutral terms is highly disruptive, and serious consideration should be given to handing out topic bans. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that conspiracy to corrupt scientific process ("Kevin and I will keep them out somehow") is scandalous. All the reliable sources agree me on this one. This is an immutable reality that you're trying to white wash. People like you are the POV-pushers, not those of us who want to call a spade a spade.

Furthermore, you have expressed in this message desire to exclude anybody from the discussion that does not agree with you. This constitutes intent to white wash the climategate issue, and your message will be used as evidence for this claim. If anybody else agrees with this perspective, it constitute conspiracy to white wash the climategate issue.

In the meantime, your input will be disregarded by me and any with two brain cells to rub together until you come up with some valid points to make. Macai (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Failure to produce compelling counterargument; name changed in compliance with NPOV

The name of the article has been changed to Climategate scandal in compliance with WP:NPOV. Macai (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Bold Proposal

I informally proposed this a few times, but I'm wondering what sort of a response this will garner. I'd like to take the existing email section - including the code and whatever else was removed from the UEA/CRU server - and chop it back to the brief summary put together by Hipocrite, with a wikilink to a brand-new separate email article. Here's my rationale:
1. The overall readability of the article will be improved.
2. As more and more emails become public, it will become necessary to evaluate each one.
3. With a separate article, it will be possible to selectively wikilink to it from Global warming or Scientific misconduct or from any other article without the need to drag along the debate on how the documents came into the public sphere or why. Nightmote (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I need to noodle on this, but I should note that I would have moved my summary live this morning if the article wasn't locked. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed other article on 'more and more' of the emails will be spectacularly dull. According to this recent analysis, the emails were heavily filtered for maximum Copenhagen impact, "But many are completely innocuous, or indeed show the climate researchers in a good light, holding rigorous internal debates". No interest there for sceptics, I think. Let's just get Hipocrite's e-mail rewrite in asap, and leave it at that. --Nigelj (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, Nigel, is unrealistic. The files removed from the server are significant. The emails section was restored because it was observed that curiosity about the emails and their content was one of the reasons readers came to this article. My point is that the lengthy analysis in this article makes the article a little harder to read, and more contentious. A separate article will allow those with a more in-depth interest the opportunity to read selected emails and analysis, allow other articles to wikilink, and keep *this* article focused on what is known to be true rather than on what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time. Nightmote (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that whether one is a skeptic or not is of no consequence regarding the value of the article. I'm quite certain that both skeptics and believers will be only too happy to parse every bit of those emails to bits-n-bytes. Nightmote (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CrapGhetto sounds like an interesting essay :). I'm (locally) warming to the idea. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support this idea, see summary style. Each article would have to fully meet neutral point of view standards, and the concise summary in this main article would outline the overall conclusions without going into all the "he said, she said" sort of build up. The sub-article could start as the full section incorporating the most recently added info but restoring any significant deletions, with an overview summarising the main background. It could expand from there. . .dave souza, talk 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by "keep *this* article focused on what is known to be true rather than on what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time" (NM above). Presumably the other (e-mail) article is not going to be the one for "what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time" either? Best to keep all articles based on what has happened, and does exist, isn't it? Just a worry, please clarify if poss --Nigelj (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. If we (as editors) are willing to acknowledge that there are varying honestly-held, reliably-sourced opinions on the significance of the content of the emails and codes, then it is reasonable to split the article. This article can deal primarily with the facts surrounding the theft and the consequences to the various involved individuals. The (theoretical) email article can focus on the more-difficult-to-define nature of the files that were stolen, their significance (if any), their impact on the AGW hypothesis (if any), and their impact on governmental policy (if any). As it stands, we have too many possible conflicts: the data were stolen/the data were leaked/the emails mean nothing/the emails are significant/AGW is fact/AGW is fiction. If we split this, the article becomes more readable to the casual reader, the opportunity to more closely examine the emails and their significance still exists, and we make consensus more likely. I really see it as win-win-win. Nightmote (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually - I'd like to retract and restate. The email and code article should (in theory) be limited to a description of the files and their content, with explanations (as necessary) for any computer code. *If* the files are significant, they will have impacts on the IPCC, the AGW hypothesis, and various international treaties. As impacts are identified, the files article would be updated, and the appropriate article wikilinked. Make more sense? Nightmote (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good article?

Aside from replacing the email section with my proposal, what else do people think needs to be done (aside from stability) to this article to get it to good article. Pictures would be nice - can anyone think of some pretty pictures to put in places? People's faces might be relevent, if we're careful about what context they are in. Any thoughts? Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the Graun, also running thin on image ideas, used a staged 'hacker' here. I didn't find much on commons; this is what a webserver hack may look like to the hacker, but it's not really much use. Do we have mugshots of Jones et al? I'll go and look. --Nigelj (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How bout I draw a picture with crayons of a group of malicious scientists plotting to push a liberal agenda on the righteous peoples of the world, thus restricting their rights to do awesome stuff like drive SUVs and run lawn mowers for no other reason than to hear it roar? removed by Hipocrite (talk) NickCT (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone one step further and now drive my lawnmower to work and run my SUVs for no other reason than to hear them roar. Of course, I had to remove the catalytic converter to enhance the effect. Ignignot (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature for pictures. You know what I'd like to see? Some sort of organizational chart might be nice. But I guess there really isn't one - we're talking about individual scientists for the most part. The one thing I noticed whan I hit "the real world" was how very small my professional community was. There were, like, 25 or 30 firms, and maybe 100 key players. We're forever hearing about the list of 2,000 skeptic scientists or the "overwhelming majority" of AGW proponents. But what sort of numbers are we talking about? Are the email scientists at CRU pivotal? What role have they played - historically - in shaping IPCC and GW policy? That has the potential to be original research, and a big no-no, but information like that would help me (the reader) to put this into context. Nightmote (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Nightmote on this. Until the admins do something to rein in the two warring factions, this seems premature. That said, I'd love to be proved wrong on this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good article condition 5: Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What ever happened to the workspace page that Guettarda and Tony Sideaway initiated to rewrite the article? I thought that their efforts were making progress. Cla68 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Both TS and G were driven away from the article. Hipocrite (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I left also. I don't feel like I was driven away, I was just nonplussed by the lack of progress. In spite of that, I thought that Guettarda and TS were genuinely attempting to improve the article. Does the article draft page still exist? Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem with this article

I'm really not very good at writing articles like this because all I see are a bunch of terrible sources. The closest thing to a reliable source I've seen is John Tierney's exposition in the New York Times, and that isn't even really very good.

Here's the issue: right now we've got an overabundance of primary sources none of which can tell us anything about their staying power and many of which are just simply wrong. Let's look at which primary sources can be deprecated immediately:

1. Any source that claims that this incident is somehow damaging to the case that global climate change is real and is the way scientists describe it is happening.
2. Any source that claims that the e-mails indicate a conspiracy to mislead the public
3. Any source that claims that the e-mails indicate illegal activity or unethical behavior on the part of those writing the e-mails
4. Any source that claims that the source code attached the e-mails indicates a major problem with the science of global warming

I submit that sources such as these can be used as sources which are making personal opinion claims, but these opinions must be couched as essentially without basis and fringe to maintain a reliable reference work.

What would be really great would be a secondary-source analysis of this situation, but we'll likely have to wait longer fo that to emerge.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Public polls would disagree with your assessment that this hasn't harmed the case of AGW.
2. Well, the emails did talk quite heavily about how they grafted temperature data onto proxy data in order to create a hockey stick graph - that could easily be interpretted as an attempt to mislead the public. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
3. The emails flat out talk about avoiding FOI requests, deleting their emails/files and other things that are considered unethical. Even Monbiot, a huge environmentalist, says they were unethical - as well as many of their colleagues. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
4. No comment really, I have little insight into this part of the topic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This. Very this. Macai (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Why do public polls matter for scientific arguments?
2. Do you have a degree in science? Because that interpretation of the e-mails looks to me like an ignorance of how proxies in science are used.
3. Illegal activity is only determined in a court of law. Ethics is entirely subjective.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Who said anything about scientific arguments? It is a plain fact that this incident has damaged public opinion regarding the subject.
2. Yes, I do have a degree in science. Why does that matter? Scientists shouldn't be grafting two sets of data together in order to get a graph looking the way they want.
3. Yes, ethics is subjective (and you brought up ethics - not me), and in the court of public and professional opinion their ethics have been found to be lacking. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. You used the word "somehow" in your original claim. Damaging in the eyes of public polls is an example of it being "damaging somehow".
2. Ad hominem. Just because someone does not have a science degree does not make their interpretations wrong. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
3. Ethics has been the basis of many scandals, especially the Mark Foley scandal and the Lewinsky scandal.

Macai (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Public opinion is irrelevant, and so are polls. Lots of people thought dinosaurs could be recreated with the help of frog DNA and some Cray supercomputers after Jurassic Park came out. The public are ignorant folks who believe in dumb stuff like "clean coal" and Jesus.
2. Different data sets are grafted together all the time. It is the combination of data from various sources that strengthens evidence. Putting together a clear picture of the last couple of thousand years is extremely difficult, requiring multiple data sources and even judgment calls over the validity of some of the data. These experiments and processes are repeated by other groups, which is why the prevailing consensus among scientists is that global warming is real, and humanity is increasingly involved in exacerbating the problem.
3. The blind statement that "in the court of public and professional opinion their ethics have been found to be lacking" has no basis in fact. A few people have come out to say that there have been lapses in judgment, but that's it. No big deal. Cannot compare in any reasonable way to massive lapses in judgment like invading Iraq without cause, or taking bungs from lobbyists. When Dick Cheney was told public opinion was against him, he famously replied "So?"
4. It is my understanding that the CRU scientists were subject to constant demands for data, much of which was being used by pseudoscientists to try to discredit their work. I can totally understand their reluctance.

-- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on civility: Is it appropriate, or even necessary, to insult as people who "believe in dumb stuff like ... Jesus" on this thread? I assume that anyone who said something like, "Atheists are complete morons" would be guilty of incivility, apart from the fact that a person's religiosity has nothing to do with improving this article, so why not the other way around? Please think about this, Scjessey. Moogwrench (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I deemed it to be a reasonable example. Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm one of those folks who sees religion as an impediment to science - and one of the significant motivators for the science-denier movement. If religious folk feel offended then perhaps they should pray for a thicker skin - atheists put up with worse shit all the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think it's acceptable, then, for religious people to lash out in kind, with comparable consequence (or lack thereof) to your comments? I mean, if you're a user advocating free speech, I totally agree, but I want to know if you think that "get a thicker skin" is a valid answer when the argument is directed toward over-sensitive atheists and AGW proponents. I kind of doubt you do, however, since you claimed that you want to exclude anybody that disagrees with you about climategate being a scandal in the discussion about the article's title. Macai (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm an atheist and I thought it was pretty rude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Your prejudices are quite irrelevant :).
2. Data can be combined, but not the way they did it, and rather dishonestly too. You don't make a graph using one set of data, stop using that data, and then use another set of data just so the graph tells the story you want it to tell.
3. Yes it has a strong basis in fact, they've been criticized by their fellow scientists from the IPCC (on the AGW side no less) and, obviously, by the public at large.
4. Yes the "demands" would be constant since they constantly refused to release their data in full. If they'd just release their publicly-funded data and methods instead of doing their best to hold onto their precious data then they wouldn't have been asked so many times.

And for heaven's sake, can you quit bringing up Republicans and/or religion in all of your posts? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

May the Holy Father forgive us our sins. May He save Scjessey from eternal damnation and show him the Light! :D Sirwells (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, forget about salvation or whatever, I'd be content with people staying on topic and avoiding gratuitously insulting people who believe differently than they do. Moogwrench (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fluffy kittens

I have been advised that there are many contributors to this page who are insisting that the other parties, those whose viewpoint is opposed to theirs, like or dislike fluffy kittens according to their stance or viewpoint relating to World Cuteness Liability. I would give notice from the posting of this section that any editor claiming another contributor has a pov relating to fluffy kittens unsustained by application of WP policy will be blocked for 12 hours. Just try it... That is all!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh here we go again.... Do you have a reliable source proving that fluffy kittens as so-called "cute"? Sirwells (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete the "e-mails" leader?

Hey all, what about deleting the leader to the "E-mails" subsection. It strikes me as redundant/uninformative. We could leave the header and go straight into the e-mails.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Hipocrite's edits

I disagree with Sirwells' assessment: "reverting hipocrites edits. sorry, you're changes were massive and you did not seek consensus in talk." Hipocrite did seek consensus in talk and no one objected. I'll leave it to someone else with more free-time to find diffs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? Point them out to me and I'll self-revert.Sirwells (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty well done trying to reach compromise and consensus on this article. My attempts to play fair have all failed miserably. Instead, I'm just going to join one of the warring factions. Hipocrite (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that's not the case. I for one have taken note of your collaborative efforts of late and commend you heartily for them. We need more people willing to put down the weapons (or at least put phasers on stun) and work together respectfully. I think you and NM may have hit upon a model that could work. Two editors, one on each side, pairing up to work together. I know I enjoyed that with dave on the emails awhile back. Their work product would have some sort of agreed to gravitas. It would be really helpful then if each involved editor defended the work product to those on his side. I.e. Once a proposal is up, the skeptic editor responds to skeptics and the proponent editor to proponents. Could go a long way to improving the editing environment. My only suggestion is that we take smaller bites. :>) JPatterson (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Take one side on odd numbered days and on the other on even numbered days. With any luck you can be topic banned for edit warring with yourself, thereby liberating you from further involvement in this madness. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Hipocrite (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

{EC}Please don't. Your efforts here are very much appreciated. Can the admins please rein-in both warring factions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My efforts are over unless I see someone from the warring faction I disagree with support serious sanction against Sirwells. Hipocrite (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gragagaaaaaa. I'm losing my mind. okay fine I reverted my revert. Now someone please ban me for 1RR violation. It's the only way... Must... break... free...Sirwells (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are any admins willing to take up my request, I will happily accept a topic ban of 6-12 months if only to extricate myself from this insanity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I asked first! you have to stay. Sirwells (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, all the editors here are acting in bad faith. There, I just violated LessHeard vanU's warning. Please topic ban me. I will voluntarily accept anything from 6-12 months. I'm serious about this. I don't want to deal with either of the warring factions anymore. As I've said before, this article is like a train wreck. I know I should look away but can't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for New Title

For the title of the new article, may I suggest ? It can be referred to as "The Article Not to be Known as Climategate"Oiler99 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scandal, but it is Climategate

I don't see how we can avoid calling it Climategate any longer. That's what it's known by everywhere else in the world and continuing to ignore this is POV in and of itself. I don't see how you can seriously argue that it's in any way POV to use the word Climategate. I notice that the latest issue of Scientific American calls it climategate, a recent report by the National Weather Service calls it Climategate (and funnily enough refers the reader to this page!). Even Penn State refers to it as Climategate when they need to be clear what it is they're talking about . I don't actually thin the term Climategate is positive or negative any more. It's just the name that's applied.

I've asked before and have not received an answer. If it is not commonly known as Climategate, what is it known as? What other name is commonly applied to the incident that occurred last November that resulted in the unauthorised release of around 1000 emails and a similar number of documents? Certainly it's not known as "Climatic Research Unit Hacking Incident". The only time I've seen that phrase away from wikipedia is when someone is poking fun at wikipedia's perceived bias.

Now, as for the word scandal, I think it is inappropriate. Whether or not the incident resulted in a scandal is highly contentious. It certainly resulted in a controversy, so I would suggest Climategate Controversy as an appropriate name, but I would be just as amenable to Climategate Incident. I would not support Climategate Scandal and I do not support the current title.Thepm (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hear him!!Oiler99 (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference BW 02 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference NaPo 06 Jan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference Angus 15 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference newsnight-code was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference computerworld was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Myles Allen, guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists