Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Troed (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 2 January 2010 (→Jones email 19th take two: sourcing issue only intention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

Template:Shell

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

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

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

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

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

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 28 November 2009 (archived) and 21 November 2009 (archived) and 31 December 2009 (archived) and 27 December 2009 (started) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) and on 23 December 2009 (active as of December 24, 2009)

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

Archives

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

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

Official police statement completely undercuts presumptive conclusion of "theft"

Read this here

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

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

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

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

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

And it may not have been. So what side do we reflect at WP? If we know the position is definitely unclear what do we do? We do NOT assume clarity when there is none. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

But when we can see the official police report, and that conflicts with the newspaper, and the newspaper claims no other sources, then we do NOT use the lazy reporter's text as WP:RS. I think you are WRONG WRONG WRONG on policy, here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentence misrepresents source (prematurely archived)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done I find consensus for this edit and have made it so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The source says that the e-mails suggest that it has been going on, but we now claim that it has. Seems to me that we are stating it stronger than the WSJ journalist has and there are people of the opinion that it suggests nothing of the sort. So at least change it to "suggests discussions of efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view" in line with the source. Although I would much prefer that something more in line with the previous version was restored, seeing as not everyone agrees whether it actually does something like that, but that would require a different source. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose, per Kim. Not data. Oppose "release" - seems like an endorsement of the POV that "we don't know if it was released with permission or not" when no source supports that POV, only some editors here. And less than fond of "controversy". Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I have not suggested the info was released by permission. That would be speculation and almost certainly untrue. I cannot remember seeing anyone else suggest this either. That I oppose the use of the word "hack" when the means whereby the unauthorised publication took place does not mean that I think PJ himself copied it onto a USB stick and posted to Russia and Turkey! But some other dastardly person else might have, without permission, obviously. We don't know. The police do not yet know. The UEA/CRU does not yet know. When they know I bet we hear of it pretty damn quick. I am saying NO speculation should appear in the article. Certainly none of my wild speculations of this para! But "hack" is speculation too and the "theft" is, for the moment, just alleged. BTW "taking without permission" is not "theft". Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only thing wrong with the present title is that it is neutral. Every attempt to change it seems to be an attempt to emphasise POVs. --Nigelj (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, in case it wasn't clear. See my earlier comment. Simonmar (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but I think a better title is "Climate Research Unit email controversy". Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. -- Benstrider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

New Title Suggestion V23.0 Sarcasm Edition 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As has been pointed out to you many times, the University does not yet know how the info was released. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

We seemingly have enough consensus. Personally I see no real difference between "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". Data/documents are interchangeable, the release of such is implied by the article about it and controversy being the important word (and please, stop with the silly claims by some editors that there's no controversy. I've properly sourced this enough, as have others as well. It probably needs to go into the FAQ even) Troed (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (Particularly to "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy"). In general, 'data' may include e-mail messages and source programs etc. But, in this case, the phrase 'CRU data' has a well known meaning to a population of people (mainly those who want to assess impacts of climate change). It means files containing numerical values of climatological variables such as temperature and precipitation which are products of climatological and statistical analysis of the CRU staff. Also, since the 'CRU data' have been officially released by CRU, the sequence of words 'CRU data release' sounds like something different from what this article intends to say. Masudako (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're factually wrong about the CRU data having been released though (and here I use what would be included in a FOI request as basis), although I understand and support your comment on what the phrase "CRU data" would mean to many people. Good call. Troed (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a constructive suggestion about the title. I think that everyone here can agree that an unauthorised release occurred. But this phrase sounds too long for the title. Could you move out of the dichotomy of hacking vs. leak and agree that the word leak can be used neutrally to whether or not there was a criminal intrusion to a computer system? That is, adopting the word leak does not imply no hacking. It does not imply that the incident must be whistle-blowing by an insider either. Then we can replace hacking in the title with leak. Actually I want to avoid the word hacking because of a different reason. I believe that there was a criminal intrusion at least to the RealClimate server (I trust Gavin Schmidt in this context), though the situation at UEA is less clear. But I belong to the crowd who want to say 'we are hackers, not crackers.' I do not propose changing e-mail, but I admit that it can be document. It should not be data because of the reason I mentioned before. I do not propose changing incident either. Whether it should be replaced with 'controversy' depends on points-of-view (though I do not mean WP:POV issue here). Maybe we can get rid of the term which categorize the affair and call it just Climate Research Unit e-mail leak or Climate Research Unit document leak. Masudako (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you in support of one or two articles? The leak of documents from CRU is what we're currently describing, mostly, but the fallout from that leak (or even beginning with the FOI requests) is a different matter. It has some bearing on what would be the most suitable title. As sourced above, there's no doubt in WP:RS that there is a well known controversy/scandal that goes beyond the "incident", affecting the scientific community. Troed (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to go back to two articles. The Climategate controversy (under whatever name found acceptable) must be documented at WP. This article can remain about the "hacking incident", as per the title. We'll remove all the info not about that directly to the new article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two MMs

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

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

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

• RealClimate I?
• RealClimate II?
• WSJ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm somewhat presenting the asked-for sources for M&M being McIntyre & McKitrick (esp. since that's how they refer to themselves) - but at the same time I must stress what I wrote above. There's already been confusion when reporting about the CRU emails since Jones DIDN'T refer to McIntyre and McKitrick in one of them even though he wrote "MM". Thus, we're possible going to create confusion if we just source "MM"/"M&M" and then be done with it. My own preferred solution would be to try to source a clarification of the Jones' MM-confusion itself. Asking for input. Troed (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on names used in other Misplaced Pages projects

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

These Wikipedias currently use Climategate as the main article title:

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

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

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

The Czech Misplaced Pages, interestingly, uses both titles:

• http://cs.wikipedia.org/Climategate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Personal reflection follows, I agree that this list is somewhat irrelevant) .. Being Swedish, but never actually using the Swedish Misplaced Pages, I must say that was a refreshing read (article as well as talk page). My my us Swedes must be very civil and NPOV from birth I guess. I especially liked the one question + one answer consensus on that it's premature to state "hacked" as a fact at the talk page. Troed (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I posted the list because:

a) It's interesting what the other WP projects have done.

b) This list rather refutes the argument that "Misplaced Pages can't use Climategate as a name" -- since 7 other WP's currently use it, and we all operate under similar ground rules.

c) The Czech example suggests a possible route out of our current deadlock re a name-change. Call it both names -- both sides then declare victory and move on. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

b) Other Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines. Most do not have the equivalent of the English Misplaced Pages's words to avoid list - the French and Spanish Wikipedias are the only European-language ones other than English to have WTAs. The English Misplaced Pages is bound by the standards of the English Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, not those of the non-English ones.

c) We don't use double or segmented article names. See WP:NPOV#Article naming. This has been tried before (e.g. "Gdansk/Danzig") but has been such a failure in practice that it is now specifically prohibited by the NPOV policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, WP:NPOV#Article naming says, "Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names..." So discouraged but not forbidden.

Worth thinking about, imo, since we seem to be at a dead-end otherwise. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorised release / theft / hack / leak

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIMILARLY THERE IS NO HACK, yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, let me try to understand this: What you're saying is that the CRU management intentionally published these e-mails, and now their rogue spokesperson has published this denial, by saying they were stolen, which in turn has misled the police. You want to make it clear that they were intentionally published by their legal owners, and that the statement they were stolen is dubious. Is that right? --Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, you make a logic error. Should I deny that A implies B this is not equivalent to me saying B implies A. If the information were deliberately or accidentally released by an insider this would not have been a hack. We don't know. The UEA and the CRU are investigating what happened. They make various statements, "appears" to have been stolen does not imply hack. In the interim "hack" is going one step too far. I am sure you and I could agree on "leak" or "unauthorised publication". I think the focus on "hack" is to make the possibly criminal nature of the leak the focus of this article, whereas we know the controversy is about the contents of the material leaked. Perhaps we should have a separate article about that. What say you? Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, moving the goalpost. Apart from you saying "SIMILARLY THERE IS NO HACK, yet" above, we were all discussing use of the words 'theft' and 'stolen' until now. --Nigelj (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Title, Hopefully Neutral Enough

Following the discussion initiated above by SCJessey, and keeping in mind the criticisms leveled against the word "release", I would like to propose "Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy". *I* like it because I proposed it and I'm enormously self-centered. Others may like it because it avoids any reference to "hack/theft/release". I am proposing this in no small part because Wikidemon asked whether there would be *any* title I would support over "Climategate", and I began to feel some small hint of shame that I may have been an impediment to progress. So.

If a supermajority (>66%) of editors agree to this title, it is my intention to request that an admin make the change. I would like to close this section on Tuesday the 5th of January. Nightmote (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea. A move discussion that lacks discussion is pretty much worthless. Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Without comment, "Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy", yea or nay, and my sincere apologies if I have seemed an ass as opposed to an honorable foe.

• yea Nightmote (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• nay - to begin with, abbreviations in articles titles are a bad idea. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Big yea for Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was being lazy and have changed CRU to Climatic Research Unit. I removed the 2009, as well. Nightmote (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• yea for Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (comment moved) Troed (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.  Cs32en  15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en please revert that silly attempt, false as it is, at discrediting me. Troed (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at your contributions before making such claims.  Cs32en  20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're purposely trying to create a revert war due to your obviously (for anyone clicking that link and bothering to go back to 2007) false accusation and from the discussion at your talk page. I have no intention in going down that path. Troed (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down (though I appreciate your thoughtfulness) Nightmote (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Full support. In fact, I proposed this very same title 11 days ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nyet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down.Nightmote (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Non --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• aye 98.220.51.203 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted. whoops, Textmatters (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• yea --BernhardMeyer (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• nein. Let's stop wasting time talking about the article name William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Yea. --DGaw (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• 無. In fact, double-plus 無. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Plus Good Arzel (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• No Cannot agree to any change without discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• No A furore by some bloggers does not a controversy make. Lumos3 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down. Nightmote (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes The current name is incredibly stupid, plus it was not an e-mail hack :) mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.  Cs32en  16:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down. Nightmote (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that at all in keeping with "voting is evil" principle? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed yet again when an earlier proposal to do exactly the same thing has just been closed for lack of consensus? (#Requested move, above.) This is a waste of everyone's time. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down.Nightmote (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yea Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted. New account with advanced editing skills.  Cs32en  12:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's an "e-mail incident", not a "documents controversy".  Cs32en  23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neigh. New accounts used for voting, noted. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• No Gandydancer (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• No Even if the contents of the documents may be controvertial, the focus of this article should be something that has been called an incident. Masudako (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Full Support: Lets get this over with.jhe_iv (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• NO Data is the CORRECT description - Gunnanmon (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• NO Bertport (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• YES That title makes much more sense due to the fact that most of the files released were actually documents unrelated to emails. Of course, Climategate makes more sense, but I guess that's already been shot down for some silly reason.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information released where emails, the rest were miscellaneous files; data is appropriate. - Gunnanmon (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I actually downloaded the files, I know what I'm talking about - there are far more documents (nearly 4 times) than email text files.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR? Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You do use google right? The # has been mentioned in many sources - also, WP:OR is specifically stated not to apply to simple things like "counting." TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes pretty pointless though since this obviously isn't going to achieve consensus or a super majority or whatever (which in itself is a recipe for disaster). I'm also not sure why we don't follow the WP:RM process even if it isn't required since this even if did achieve anything is a recipe for disaster. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) No Opposing on principle. I see a similar proposal following WP:RM just closed which I would have supported had I noticed but would have still failed I'm sure. I don't see why we're having this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• No . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• No Time to stop the naming nonsense and move on. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think it is fair to say that the overwhelmingly vast majority of contributors to this topic think the existing title is bad. This large group has, thus far, been unable to come up with an alternative that wins a majority of support. If a !vote were to be taken on the existing title, it would receive far less support than many of the other alternatives that have been put forward. It is for this reason that the discussion on the title must continue. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Answer (1): Yes! This article is not about just another "hacking incident", it is be about the ensuing controversy over the revealed material. We are going to fully document the Climatgate controversy here and the controversy is not the release of the material but what is revealed in the material. OR, if you don't like that, like this:
• Answer (2): No! There is a separate Climategate controversy under prep in user space. This article is only about the incident. This leak is but a little footnote in history. Climategate will be discussed fully elsewhere. You can't have it both ways. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, unless Climategate controversy is split out, in which case the current title is probably fine. Oren0 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll: How much support does the existing title have?

• Oppose -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - actually, the current title goes squarely against WP:NPOV and should thus be edited for neutrality without the need for votes/consensus, although it would be preferred if there could be consensus on the new neutral version. Troed (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Is this in an absolute sense, or a relative sense? If we want a straw poll, my suggestion would be to use one to find out which alternative wording has the most support, and then use that as the basis of a move request. That would allow us to investigate and a variety of possible wordings. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps we can create a table of all possible (reasonable) title examples and then have vote. How about something like that? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your continued effort to improve the title! I think this attempt to demonstrate there is consensus for some change is valuable. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy. As someone completely uninvolved coming here to look into this I find this to be the most neutral title proposed so far. I also want to say that the whole "Please no comments. Just an up or down" attitude is not going to make the discussion any more productive. We should not me just giving a thumbs up or down, but should be making cogent and convincing arguments. We don't vote on things here, we do poll to check the status of consensus, but those polls should include reasoning that attempts to convince others of your point of view. We are run by consensus, not majority. A "vote" that has no reason or justification behind it means pretty much nothing. Chillum 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Faulty question - even if no support is shown, all you will have demonstrated is that there is no general support for any title (which i suspect is true), it is time to leave this question, since continuing is futile. Once there is more development about this case (which there will be in February/beginning of this year), there will be plenty of opportunity to take this up again.. Imho most people are trying to "jump the gun" in this case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not follow that because there is no consensus that the current title is the best. Another will find more consensus, I am sure. In particular losing the word "hack" when even the victim's own spokespeople are unsure as to whether a hack is concerned, to the extent that they have set up their own enquiry to determine how the leak occurred. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support in preference to the alternatives that have been offered.  Cs32en  18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Title reflects the view that the controversy is the unauthorised release of the material. No, this type of leak happens every week: A bank's database is released, etc etc, and we rarely document that type of hack/leak here at WP. What is noteworthy is what is revealed in the material. That is the controversy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Be careful when going down the road of "let's dogpile on the current title", as when so much opposition piles up, it can lead to a change just for the sake of changing, because people get it in their heads that something simply must be done. This is exactly how Israeli apartheid got watered down to Allegations of Israeli apartheid which was further neutered into the current Israel and the apartheid analogy. If a change is to be made, then make it solely for the sake of the new term being acceptable, and not for any shortcomings of this one. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose current title as watered down and missing the point. Oren0 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• awful, a bunny died in heaven for that title - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Tarc and everything I have said on the matter during these almost daily polls for weeks now: Let's wait until we have some information upon which to base a meaningful (not simply POV) change in the title. --Nigelj (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully sourced suggested change to article introduction

I suggest that WP should consider this edit:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident came to light in November 2009 with the unauthorised release of documents, possibly obtained by the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich. According to a CRU press release of 11/24/09 "thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at UEA have been posted on various sites on the web". Subsequent reports have stated that Police are investigating this as a crime. This episode has variously been described in the media as a "leak" and as a "theft".

The title of the page, if changed, could also be modified from Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident to something else. My suggested post is intended to focus not on the name, but on the other parts of my suggestion. 7390r0g (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the neutral backgrounder on how it is described. However, inasmuch as the lede is normally an uncited summary of material from the body, maybe put it there, or even a footnote. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First thing that jumps out at me is "possibly obtained" - I think "reportedly obtained" would be more in keeping with what sources have (broadly speaking) said. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree "reportedly" would do fine. 7390r0g (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this change, hopefully with a different article name, but in any case with (most likely) adding "aka Climategate" after the Wikiname. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important enough to bother with editing through protection? Or are you discussing this for post-prot? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is important, that isn't proposed, yes that's it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Reportedly" seems fine and I think this is a good introduction. jhe_iv (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There are problems, I'm afraid. "Possibly obtained" is weasel wording when we've been told unequivocally that the server was hacked. Reliable sources do not express doubt on the issue. The only doubt is coming from climate-sceptic bloggers, but since they're not reliable sources we can't take their views into account. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that ChrisO is misrepresenting the state of WP:RS above and that his comment cannot be taken in good faith. This has been discussed extensively at this talk page, for those wishing to verify. Troed (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that some spokespeople of the victim have used the word hacked. Other spokepeople have said the material appears to have been stolen. The victim is not consistent about this and that should be good enough, but were they consistent the victim is not a WP:RS in this respect. The police investigate currently. There is an internal investigation also. One day we may know how the material was made available. All we know for sure is that the leak was unauthorised. Until then "hack" is pure speculation. "Possibly obtained" is correct. ChrisO is wrong. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and implement the change you suggest. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I support this change with the same caveat as expressed by Guettarda and jhe above, "reportedly" instead of "possibly". Troed (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pressmulti - removal of a piece with millions of readers? - Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages

Damian Thompson, Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group, states the following in Happy New Year from Telegraph Blogs… "James Delingpole (whose Climategate posts attracted millions of page views in one week alone)". One of James Delingpole's pieces has been about this article Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages. According to some of our editors this article should not be mentioned at the top of our discussion page

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) removes it by stating 1. "Like Solomon's piece on which it is based, this Delingpole opinion column presents severe BLP problems." (Revision as of 2009-12-23T21:35:25)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) 2. "Inappropriate press link (BLP issues" (Revision as of 2009-12-24T17:20:52)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "… rm iffy source per previous discussion" (Revision as of 2009-12-24T23:48:21)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Taking out the thrash. We don't spread lies per WP:BLP." (Revision as of 2009-12-26T09:20:07)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "trash removal again" (Revision as of 2009-12-26T11:39:36)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "rv per WP:BLP" (Revision as of 2009-12-28T08:46:21)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "there was no consensus to add this" (Revision as of 2009-12-29T18:31:14)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Undid revision 334813567 by Nsaa (talk) - under opinion hit piece by climate skeptic - not legitimate press coverage in any possible way" (Revision as of 2009-12-29T23:59:51)

It has been discussed here Archive_14#James_Delingpole:_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia and Archive_13#"Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages" and even an WP:BLPN has been raised by me at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. Still this piece is not mentioned by us. Last the claim was that under opinion hit piece by climate skeptic - not legitimate press coverage in any possible way. For how long shall this piece go unmentioned at this page under extremely dubious claims? Nsaa (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and should therefore go unmentioned unless multiple reliable sources report on it, as this would indicate sufficient notability of Delingpole's opinion. Such reports reliable sources, if they would occur, would very likely also be a basis for describing the various inaccuracies in Delingpole's text. Note that the Telegraph is an involved party here, and the complete quote is "our bloggers, who range from the mischievous and bloody-minded James Delingpole ".  Cs32en  14:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. As you have shown his has been discussed. Arguments have been made for excluding it. And it isn't like this is article space - that template is a bit less important than WikiProject tagging - it's basically a tool for boasting that we're significant, a pat on the back for editors. So why keep bringing it up? It's a smear piece. It's full of errors. And it's trivia. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognising and acknowledging criticism is a just a Good Idea. That WP is held in regrettably popular disrepute over this issue is something that we need to deal with in one way or another. I'm not sure what the best way is, but I do know that ignoring it will not serve the encyclopedia well in the end. My preference would be that we link to it, acknowledge it. Perhaps in the new suggested FAQ question which actually deals with the issue as to why we think the wordlwide, headline grabbing, TV documentary making, Nobel discussion provoking controversy is about the leak/hack, when we all know different. To the shame of WP. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Recognising and acknowledging criticism is a just a Good Idea". Perhaps. But that's not the purpose of article talk pages, and it's not the purpose of this template. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That Delingpole says things which are maybe/possibly/probably/definitely not true is not the point. Delingpole is a very widely read columnist at one of the UK most established and respectable newspapers. It is not for us to say whether what he says is untrue, but to report what is being said. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If that newspaper is going to continue to publish trash like the Delingpole piece, it isn't going to be respectable for much longer. The fact remains that there is a consensus that this opinion piece does not deserve a place at the head of this talk page because it isn't real journalism and it disparages Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians with error-laden speculation and smears. We are under no obligation to include it, and so we won't. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"It is not for us to say whether what he says is untrue" - On the contrary, it is. That's specifically our role. "Don't repeat gossip" is one of the principles of BLP. It's also our job to assess sources - pick the reliable ones. An article that gets its facts wrong isn't a reliable source. Regardless of who publishes it. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand I am told we must ignore the fact that a newspaper cannot know that the hack/theft/leak was hack and disregarding the fact we know they speak through their **** we must say there was a hack, on their authority. On the other hand we cannot repeat what is said elesewhere by the same newspaper, as per your argument, above. What is it? My solution is not to repeat what Delingpole says as fact, and not to report the hack as fact. Goose and gander. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, please refrain from going the WP:BLP way again. That's handled here WP:BLPN for this case. 1. there's not established anything that says that {{pressmulti}} should be handled otherwise than other content on talk pages. Some of the latest arguments say that we should handle it like it was in the Article mainspace ("not legitimate press coverage in any possible way" and "An article that gets its facts wrong isn't a reliable source." etc.). 2. It's claimed that James Delingpole's pieces Climategate: the corruption of Misplaced Pages is not a WP:RS. This is not relevant for the talk page discussion, but I can answer it altogether since these outrageous claims are made. Lest's read together then "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. " and WP:V (which superseeds WP:RS) ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#cite_ref-3. I.e. Mr. Delingpole can be used as a Reliable source as long as he is attributed as the writer. So please don't remove this piece again. It's even ok to add it in the main space ... Nsaa (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked a question. I answered it. You have already established that there is no consensus for inclusion. So please don't add material for which there is no consensus, especially when it is nothing more than trivia about the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Re-adding it will be viewed as disruptive. We are under no obligation to embrace opinion pieces that denigrate our project. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"We are under no obligation to embrace opinion pieces that denigrate our project." Yeah, lets control the world of WP even more so that no criticism of WP is allowed under any circumstances. Seriously, the levels being taken to keep information out of WP is simply amazing. This material should be included, if WP is to ever be taken seriously in the future then honest inclusion of notable material should be included. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging that disparagement exists is not the same as embracing it. This being the talk page, not the article page, you ought to show consensus for disallowing stuff in routine informational templates. There may be such a consensus, there are certainly multiple editors objecting to this mention, something I think is misguided and only serves to further encourage the perception mentioned by Arzel above that this article has spun out of control and over the top in its defense of accepted science on climate change. I think we do look foolish here, even if we are doing so by advocating the right side of a ridiculous scandal. I wouldn't re add it myself, though, because edit warring is always bad. But as far as edit warring one side of an issue constitutes disruption, it takes two to tango. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for FAQ entry

A recurring theme at this talk page is the question of whether this is a controversy outside of "a few bloggers" or not. In several places people who seldom participate actively at this talk page vote "no" to title change suggestions with this as their seemingly sole motivation. I recently took the time to clarify this using WP:RS and came up with two that I think we can rely on enough for talk page purposes. One is to CNN coverage of "climategate", where they describe this as a controversy, and the other one is to a BBC World Nobel Prize winner panel where they spend a large amount of their total time with the subject of how this controversy affects the scientific community. When the fallout from the incident this article is about is brought up with the top scientists of the world I think we can safely say that this is beyond "a few bloggers". We should thus clarify this in the FAQ in the hope of making it easier to achieve consensus onwards. My suggested FAQ text below (adding the two sources I think are appropriate, I know other editors have more):

• Q11: Why the repeated calls for describing this incident and its subsequent fallout as a "controversy"?

• A11: While the leak of Climatic Research Unit e-mails and other documents can be described as an incident, the issue of what they mean for the scientific community is referred to as a controversy by reliable sources such as the CNN in a panel on the subject as well as the BBC World in a panel together with the Nobel Prize winners of 2009.

Comments welcome. Troed (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of these uninvolved editors, as I have never edited the artice's page itself. I therefore don't have any particular stake in one version or the other, and I am expressing my assessment of the proposal, based on my reading of existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.  Cs32en  15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that one of the sources is a YouTube ref. Some editors have a kneejerk reaction to YouTube, because many of the entries run afoul of copyright. I don't know whether that is an issue with this one, and it probably should be settled before including it. Other than that, sounds fine.--SPhilbrickT 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that, however, since it's for talk page use and not the actual article, and we're only looking for clarification as to the importance of the controversy, I'd hope for it being enough. Troed (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The programme ("Nobel Minds") is available from the Swedish state television as well (audio in English, subtitled in Swedish) until 21st of January. It also seems as if the Nobel Prize website itself will host the video later, since they've done so all the previous years. When that happens, it can likely be used as in the actual article as well. Troed (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the "question" isn't really phrased as a question, and the answer is not clear. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, the question appears to be Why have there been so many calls to describe as a "controversy"? If I've read it correctly, that's not a FAQ question at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a frequently asked question. It is central to the scope of the article, and underlies almost all discussion here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-phrasing? That the problem exists is visible by just reading through the Oppose-votes at the various sections about renaming, this there seems to be a need for this in the FAQ. Troed (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what FAQ-worthy question you're trying to get at here. "Why have there been so many calls to describe this as a 'controversy'?" isn't a valid question. That's a question about the motivation of people wanting to use that word. It's not for us to speculate. The alternative question - "Why don't we call this a controversy" isn't a FAQ-worthy question either. It's an ongoing discussion. It's possible that you mean something else all together. But if that's the case, you'll need to explain what you mean. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be frank. Either this should go into the FAQ, since it's there to help editors quickly grasp something that is important but takes a long time to get into, or the FAQ should just go away completely. We have editors voting on the name of the article who seem to believe that there's no well known controversy - that does not help us in any way trying to get this article into better shape. There are good WP:RS clearly describing this as a controversy and thus it's not about speculation on people's motivation, as you described it. I will however have a go at re-phrasing it. Troed (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please adjust for grammar/clarity and go ahead. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for change - mostly copy editing

Statements from the IPCC itself, or from lead authors appear in five paragraphs in three separate sections. I do not propose to remove any of the substance of these paragraphs, simply reorganize to match the existing structure. I would leave the statements of the climatologists in the climatologists section, leave the statement of the IPCC itself in the scientific organizations section, and move the statements of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who is speaking on behalf of the IPCC, to the scientific organizations section. In addition to improving the flow, this would allow the poorly named "Other Responses" to be renamed as "Pennsylvania State University response", parallel construction to the prior sections.

Specific changes proposed:

1. Other responses -> Pennsylvania State University Response
2. First paragraph (starting with "Dr. Rajendra Pachauri") moved
3. In Climatologists section move sixth paragraph (starting with "The IPCC's head")
4. In Climatologists section leave seventh and eighth paragraphs (Raymond Pierrehumbert and David Karoly).
5. In Scientific organizations section, rewrite first paragraph to pick up the two moved paragraphs.

--SPhilbrickT 15:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment (As most know, the whole global warming editing brouhaha has been proposed for ArbCom actions here and/or discretionary sanctions here. Wouldn't it be nice if we were to show that we can make proposals for changes, debate the issues and reach a consensus without the need to modify the usual procedures?)--SPhilbrickT 15:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change task force

I have set up Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. Please consider joining up. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea that is long overdue. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out (again) that the main problem with this article is NOT the typical case of AGW skeptics attempting to push their POV. Sure, that's a problem, but there's another problem. This is an article about the controversy. In an article about a controversy, we have to at least explain what the controversy is about. There are edits which appear to be so overzealous that the edits remove what the controversy is about. So we have POV-pushing coming from two different directions. What's more, some of the criticism is coming not from AGW skeptics, but from AGW proponents such as George Monbiot and colleague Michael Mann. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Chris cannot be saying that those who disagree with him are thereby disruptive. This is not a partisan ruling, it applies to all. I'm sure ChrisO posted the above as much as a personal reminder to himself as much as he posted it for anyone else's benefit. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a general notification with standard wording used in previously applied general sanctions in other topic areas. Please don't read anything into it regarding my own views. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to FAQ Q5

I intend to replace the answer to Q5 with this

Despite widespread reporting of a "hack" and a "theft" neither has yet been established by the police. A Norfolk police spokesman said: "This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. An inquiry team has been established under the leadership of Det Supt Julian Gregory and the investigation is being supported by relevant experts from other organisations. We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed. It would be inappropriate at this early stage to comment on the exact nature of the investigation or speculate publicly on the person or persons involved."

Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is your own personal commentary. Please get rid of it. The FAQ is not the place for individual Wikipedians' commentaries. Also, deleting any reference to the statements by the parties reporting the hack and theft is unacceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will do as I previously suggested and add the above to the existing answer. My first sentence was written by me, but it does not follow that everything written by me is "personal commentary". You cannot just assert such a thing, you have to say why you so think. Much of the rest of the current FAQ is written in a style which suits answers to a FAQ, is all that personal commentary too? I'll hold off a few minutes for your reply, you're obviously lurking. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The "despite" bit is the personal commentary - you're casting doubt on the multiple reliable reports. That simply isn't neutral and therefore isn't appropriate for the FAQ. It's also an unsourced assumption on your part that the police have not yet established the facts. After six weeks of investigation I bloody well hope they have, otherwise they're wasting a lot of taxpayers' money! You have to state the basic facts without passing opinion on them or introducing your own personal assumptions. I would be happier if you changed that first sentence to: "Many reliable sources have reported a "hack" and a "theft" in relation to the incident." -- ChrisO (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't do that as they only know what you and I know, and you don't know there was a hack because the spendthrift police have not yet got around to confirming your prejudice. A secondary source which incorrectly reports the primary source is not a WP:RS. The UEA/CRU is a primary source, not a secondary, so not the best (as per policy), and even they do not yet claim to know - there are conflicting statements by them, yet the current Q5 answer seems to ignore that. I'll have another go. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just cannot see it! Why is "despite" wrong? I cannot replace it with "also". Maybe I'll try "But" - the police do contradict the ansder to Q5. How about something like: "But a Norfolk police spokeman did not confirm this: ..." ? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've re-read the other FAQs again. If you criticise me on style then the rest are wrong too. So I think by Occam's razor, it's you who's wrong. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Give me an example, please, and don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Catch 22! I am asked for an example which, if it is persuasive, you will disregard as per WP:ABC. Am I wasting my time, Chris? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm simply asking you for an example and to bear in mind that just because one FAQ is done one way that does not automatically mean that this FAQ has to be done exactly the same way. Not every article or FAQ is of equivalent quality, as I'm sure you've noticed. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, it's just a FAQ! It's meant to explain to editors why it is that something is so here at the article with the strange and factually questionable name. It is *not* article space. The same criteria do not apply. However, that doesn't mean it is a free for all, either, so don't think I am saying that. The answer to Q5 is not satisfactory. Are you suggesting that the FAQ hide the mini-controversy over whether we should be saying there was a theft or an alleged theft? That there was a hack when the police have not yet said? No and no, I believe you have conceded that already, thank you. Q5 could be better answered. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not conceded anything. Where are the reliable sources about the "mini-controversy" of which you speak? Bloggers are stirring controversy, as they usually do, but we don't take their views into account because they are not reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer to the on-going discussion here! And to the facts! That a blog agrees with you or with me does not destroy our argument! And if you did not concede improvement to Q5 was possible then you were not being quite straight with me when you said that two POVs could be reflected in the answer to Q5. An (a) and a (b), one written by you and the other by me. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources? No evading the question, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources for what!?!? You want to say there was a theft. And a hack. It is for you to find your sources. You say you have found them. No, I say that those you quote either (1) are not reliable as per WP:RS or (2) do not say what you say they say. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, why are you quoting the police statement of 1st December and not the more recent statement of 6th December? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me out. The best I can find from the 6 Dec statement is three words in quotes. Is there a link? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the current Q5. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You agree, just a few words in quotes? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant yes, there is a link. Here it is: The relevant paragraph states: "A Norfolk Police spokeswoman said last night: ‘Norfolk Constabulary can confirm that it is investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia (UEA)."

"It is investigating criminal offences" does not mean a crime occurred. And, while we're here, "data breach" does not mean "hack" and nor does it mean "theft", necessarily. So, the answer to Q5 has a POV, and not a neutral one. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it states that the UEA and RealClimate have both "reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair." The FAQ does not endorse or reject those reports. It describes what the parties have said. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of that description? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article saying that "X said A". But the article must not say "A" when "A" is not established. We report that the ruskies and the turks say they were hacked. Fine. We report the one UEA spokesman says "hack", anther says "stolen" and another says "appears there was a theft". Fine. We do not say so "A" until a WP:RS says so. A victim is not a RS. The police have not said there was a hack or a theft. They are investigating. Yet the title of this doc says hack. You know damned well that if you concede here, on the FAQ, you'll have to give ground on the title, and before long you'll have an article at WP which deals with the allegations being investigated by the Universities concerned that certain behaviour revealed in the docs was, err, unscientific! In the interim you (plural) make WP a laughing stock by pretending there is "nothing to see", while holding up the gatekeeping screen thus continuing WP being held in disrepute. I just want what we say to be the undisputed truth. I want the valid criticisms (there are a few) being levelled at us to no longer be true. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Last sentence amended Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

"A victim is not a RS" is not a statement that you will find anywhere in Misplaced Pages's policies. If you think it does, please show me where that's stated. The title of the article says "hack" because reliable sources say "hack". We follow reliable sources. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>WP:101 a victim is a primary source of its own allegation. A RS is not a reliable source always or never: When the Torygraph or the Grauniad say "hack" we know that is speculation. Both newspapers say lots of things which we do not report becuase they are crap. The police have not said it was a hack. The UEA is investigating the means by which the info was leaked, they don't know it was a hack. But we can say hack because others say so. No we cannot. We do not report speculation as fact. If you want to say "widely reported to have been a hack" then you have my support. If you want to say "it was a hack" then not. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the UEA doesn't know it was a hack, why has it referred to "the hacking and publication of emails from the "? I note that on his own web page one of the CRU's three academic staff refers to "illegal hacking of our webserver". One would think they would be competent to know what happened to their own server, no? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When an academic speaks (s)he is not held to be speaking for the University unless (s)he makes it clear they are doing so. It is plain that no statements on the web page you ref refer to "hack" confirming one occurred, the closest you get is speculation they may have been hacked like other bodies have been. AFAIK no official communication from the University (someone authorised to be speaking on its behalf and who is plainly doing so) says "hack". If you want to say "several staff members refer to leak of the info as a hack" that is fine by me. The term hack is poorly defined and variously used and ought to be on some list like ~gate IMO(!). What happened is subject to an ongoing investiagtion. When that says hack we say hack. Until then we, they and you have no idea worth putting into article space. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement I quoted that refers to "the hacking and publication of emails from the " is from a UEA press release, therefore an official statement. Are we reading the same sources here? -- ChrisO (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you make a good point and I can see why you are frustrated. But, the entire quote you refer to is a summary of a section of news and even with that, it's vague "ntil the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails..." and on top of it, notice that the word "allegations" is there. My one suggestion was to say "possible" and others suggested "reported". I think "reported hacking" makes good sense. It was reported, but has yet to be proved. It's not as objectionable as "alleged" might be, but also makes clear that as of now, it's not confirmed. What do you think? 7390r0g (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to Q5

Current FAQ 5

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 ?

Current answer

Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" . 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".

Proposal for new answer

The article has taken the point of view you describe. Possibly the material was released accidentally or possibly the material could have been deliberately leaked rather than hacked. This has been discussed at length here at this Talk page. Whether you believe WP should say "alleged theft" or "theft" before theft has been established, and whether the word "hack" should be used in the title of the article itself when the means by which the documents were taken is not yet known, is controversial here at WP. Whether the most recent statement by the Norfolk Constabulary that they are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" should be taken as confirmation that a crime has taken place seems to be a matter for debate. The University and some of its staff members have variously said the documents "appear to have been illegally taken" or that they were "stolen" .

Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm...no. That's not an answer to a "why" question. We should aspire to write professionally, at least for the FAQ. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do so aspire. Any copyedit you would care to suggest? The proposed new answer does answer the questioners question. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Because the article has been taken over by raving communists like this Boris fellow who has a picture of Lenin on his user page" would also answer the questioner's question, but it wouldn't be a very useful answer. I suspect that Guettarda's concern is that the response is wordy and rather pointed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris, that's an accurate description of me. Please say how I can improve it but still answer the questioners' FAQ. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedits can't solve muddled logic. If you're answering a "why" question with a non-why answer, it suggests that you haven't thought it out clearly. If you focus your answer, then I can figure out what I think of it. As it stands, I don't quite know what you're getting at. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do more than a copyedit. I just dispute what you say. The questioner asks why do we behave in a certain way. I say we have chosen a particular line but it remains controversial. I could say "because users X, Y & Z are crowding out other opinion". Indeed, that is what I am saying. You don't like my answer. Fair enough. It's not article space. I'll add it to the current answer. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've improved it, I think. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. The question says "why." The answer should either say or make sense with the word "because" in front of the key sentence. In the current answer, "Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources," can be fronted with "Because," and it's true. What sentence in your proposed answer can be fronted with "because?" Hipocrite (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me out, then. "Why is the moon made of cheese?" How do I answer that starting with "Because"? My answer to the FAQ could start, "Because it has been held by some that in so doing we are following WP policy, others disagree." And then I could continue from there? Or how about: "Because Misplaced Pages policy is to say things that are not known to be facts as if they were facts." Except I don't think that is WP policy. Another: "Because WP policy is being interpreted incorrectly at this article. The truth is that the suggestions you make in your question could well be true, the information could have been released accidentally, initially. The information could have been deliberately leaked by an insider. But we present as fact, here at WP, that the information was hacked and stolen. The justification given for this is is that we must uncritically accept the victim's own word, and that an investigation of a crime means that a crime must have occurred." There you go, that starts with "Because". Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to edit the FAQ to win the "war" over the content is backwards. First convince the editors, of which I don't intend to be one, that reliable sources say whatever you claim is true. You do that by finding a reliable source that says what you think is true, and pointing that out here. Then, having convinced the editors that a reliable source says whatever you think is true is true, you edit the article to reflect that. Having done those two, the FAQ would no longer be asked, and I suspect it would be easy to change. Hipocrite (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder that the onus is not the other way around. A number of things are possible. Prematurely we have excluded those possibilities taking as authority what some newspapers have said. BUT WE KNOW THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT CONCLUDED. In the interim we should say "the Telegraph reports X", we shouldn't say "X" when we really do know that X is not yet established. The point being WP should be cautious about saying things which might be false. Say them! Just don't state them as unadorned fact. Say who said them. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should present the story as represented in mainstream media (MSM). It may be that MSM has incorrectly reported the case, but it is not the role of WP to correct this. The same arguments have come up at articles about 911 truthers, birthers and other similar theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well those are not good examples. Here I am not suggesting some crank idea be presented as if true without substantiation. The MSM refers to "hack" discursively only. The MSM does not say it has been concluded that a hack occurred. Nobody says that yet *except* WP. We cannot allow ourselves to be ahead of the game. Similarly we could say the sun comes up rather than the earth rotates because, discursively, that's how the MSM handles the issue. NO SOURCE CONCLUDES THE HACK OCCURRED EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. Why don't you open up a new section to discuss your concerns with the article text. Hipocrite (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly I overstepped the mark a touch in tone, and I should have empasised only the word CONCLUDES. The investigation has not concluded. Therefore all reports as to how the information left the UEA is speculation. We should treat reports of the hack as speculation, for the time being. We do not have to parrot the newspapers uncritically. I am simply saying at WP we should reserve our position thus avoiding being wrong and not yet say the hack is a fact. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also my suggested edit is not to Article space but to a FAQ on a Talk page. I am not trying to settle the dispute, but to describe it so that it may be understood. The FAQs are meant as shortcut entry into how the article has become what it is. Q5 currently ignores an unresolved debate here as to the supposed hack and alleged theft and how we should report it. This change to the fAQ is meant to frame that debate. It is not a proposal to change the article, although it may contribute towards that indirectly. This is a FAQ on a Talk page. Not all WP policies apply, so please stop trying to apply them like you would to Article space. I am of course intent on being fair minded and accurate, and that's why we're all here? Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out where you see the debate ongoing? I'm specifically looking for more than just editors asking the FAQ and getting responded to with the FAA. Hipocrite (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It underpins the article renaming question and thereby the content dispute which is this: Should the article focus on the "hacking incudent" (two words in the title) or on what is popularly known as the Climategate controversy. Some here say the controversy is the hacking incident, making WP look ridiculous! A content fork was prevented by those who said it was a POV fork ("our" POV being that that the controversy is not just about the hacking, "theirs" being that there is no other controversy) but now we are here, at the only place allowed us, trying to document Climategate. The article needs renaming. "They" say the name is accurate. "We" say that no, what we are documenting here is not the hacking incident but the controversy over what the leaked material, going back for years, contained. First step is to change the name. The name is wrong - no one yet knows how the material left the CRU. That's still being investigated. "Hack" is not known! How can it be in the article's name? Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The material released was not classified, but all stuff that should have been released under Freedom of Information Act requests. Nor was there any personal e-mail. So it was probably released by an insider who understood FOIA, aka whistleblower, not by a hacker. Surely it is the content of the e-mail that makes this incident notable. To put the word "hacking" in the title makes it seem like CRU is the victim and misleads the reader as to what the issue is actually about. Kauffner (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another go

Proposed answer to this page's FAQ Q5 i.e.

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?

The article says "hack" and "theft" because at WP we must follow WP:POLICY. It is true that the initial release of information could have been accidental. Possibly the information could have been leaked by an insider. But here at WP we are not interested in truth but in verifiability. Policy tells us that the repeated use of the words "theft" and "hack" by the victim of the alleged crime means that the information was hacked, stolen. Policy tells us that, despite the fact that police have not concluded their investigation, the main stream media's use of the term "hack" and "theft" require us to parrot this uncritically at WP. It would be wrong to use the phrase "alleged theft" instead of "theft" and "reported hack" instead of "hack" because of WP policy. (Note that not all think that policy is being correctly interpreted in this instance, but that's where we are on the issue at the moment.)

Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this is all a huge waste of time, I removed FAQ #5. Please, lets talk about the actual article. Thanks. Prodego 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. We have only one person complaining about this question. Are we to remove questions every time someone objects to the answer? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Remain civil. Chris, please remove this comment and yours. Hipocrite (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactored. It's an important point. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"One"? That's a huge misrepresentation of the current state of discussion at this talk page. Troed (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have my own reservations about this item, I just haven't said much about them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that that's fine, but having now been through this a few times, the suggestion to add all this stuff to the FAQ is a frequent drumbeat. I am concerned that by removing FAA to FAQ's because some editors are looking at the process backwards (first convince people to change the article, then change the FAQ), or because some editors are looking at the FAQ as a "settle items" section, it's going to harm editors ability to get out of the circle of the same thing over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to argue this point, go ahead and put it back - I have no objection if someone actually wants to argue over it. Removing it is just symbolic of how little it matters. It being there or not has absolutely no impact on the article. So why argue? Prodego 06:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't. I want others to top arguing about it, and instead focus on the article. I've tried to incorporate Paul's concerns into A5 (which someone re-added - I had no intention to). Hipocrite (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's more to do with the fact that the same questions keep being asked over and over and over again. The purpose of adding the statements of the various parties to the FAQ was to say "this is what the parties have said, see #5". The FAQ is there to serve a purpose, not just to look pretty (or be fought over). Psb evidently disagrees with what the sources say. That's his business, but surely we can't let that stop us from reporting neutrally what they say in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not dispute what sources say. I dispute that some of them can be considered WP:RS for some of the things they say, things which are not known yet to be true. There may have been a leak, not a hack. An insider's leak is not theft necessarily. We cannot yet parrot some peoples "theft" and "hack". Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So lets stop beating the dead horse here. If its been discussed before (and I'm sure the use of 'theft' has), then what would be nice is to add links to these prior discussions in the FAQ. Then people can be directed to that, and we can stop beating the dead horse. What I'd really like to do is get this article unprotected so it can be improved. Prodego 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussions are extremely long and rambling. Anyone trying to get anything useful from them is going to end up very frustrated. Tony Sidaway wrote the Q5 reply to distil megabytes of discussions (I'm not exaggerating) into four sentences. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I find it a bit unusual - typically we always use alleged unless there is confirmation that something actually took place. However, it is vastly unlikely to be anything but a hacking + theft. Prodego 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now we are in the realms of speculation. That doesn't allow us to make things up. There is no conclusion yet of the investigation. Theft is alleged. Hacking is suspected. But FWIW I will give you good odds on real money it was an inside job, the server is reported to have been difficult to access from outside. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious. What confirmation would you look for? Bear in mind that the institution which owns the server in question has said explicitly that it was hacked. If a bank said that it had been robbed, would you not take it at its word? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to get upset at this repeated assertion of yours. The institution has not said it was hacked. Some people who work for it who were not speaking on behalf of the institution have used the word hack, but it is plain from context they have no idea how the info was released, the term is very loosely used by them. Chris says that again and again as though repetition will make it true. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you call this then? That's an official statement by the university on its official website. Are you suggesting that someone hacked the UEA's website too and posted that there? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And that argument is a pretty good answer to FAQ 5 isn't it :). Prodego 07:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If a bank is robbed it is robbed. If information is made available without permission is it is not necessarily theft. The police are investigating. If one of the insider scientists/programmers posted the info on a USB stick to Russia and to Turkey then that may not have been criminal and it certainly was not a hack. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how it wouldn't be criminal - even in your example it would be stealing data. But I think ChrisO's answer has pretty much summed this up. They say that they were hacked, there is no reason to doubt them. We won't say 'alleged bank robbery' until the thieves are caught just in case it is actually insurance fraud. Prodego 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But not all crimes are theft! Unauthorised access, copyright violation etc. Theft is a particular crime. But it may not be criminal as a public interest defence could be successful. Let's just be safe, and say "alleged theft". Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is with a misrepresentation of the available sources. The correct representation of this incident both from the police, the involved parties and the MSM reporting involve "alleged", "possibly stolen", "leaked" as well as "stolen" and "hacked". There's absolutely no reasion for us to only report half of everything because someone wants to go WP:OR and say that it's "obviously a hack". See this discussion (amongst others). Troed (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we say "alleged" when the university in question says definitively, on its official website, in an official statement, that the material was hacked and stolen? Why would we want to cast doubt on that? Why would we not take their word for it? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we are to report what WP:RS are saying about the incident. Not just some of it. We are not casting doubt, we are reporting. If we do NOT report what WP:RS are saying we are however in effect making an unsupported conclusion. Troed (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not really responsive to my question. Why do we want to cast doubt on what the university has said? Which reliable sources are doubting or disputing the university's account? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if the hacker is an insider or an outsider. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't change things. It is still hacking, and material was still stolen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not casting doubt on what the university has said. We should absolutely mention their claim, the claims in MSM as well as quotes from the police. There's no reason why we would want to select, ourselves, only a few of the available reliable sources. 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troed (talk • contribs)

(ec and unindent) I find FAQ #5 unconvincing in substance, tone, and as a process matter per its editing history. Just reading it without the background of edit warring, it is an argumentative claim about a speculative subject and it looks rather defensive. Asking for neutrality in the description of the data disclosure is not a matter of casting doubt on the university's veracity. Questioning the reliability of the university as a source does not require producing a reliable source in opposition to prove in the negative that the university is wrong. A press release by a party to an incident is simply not a reliable source as to the truth behind the incident. Here we have an institution embroiled in international controversy over an embarrassing disclosure, issuing statements without citing its basis that the disclosure in question was illegal. No doubt some press releases in defense of organizations accused of impropriety are in fact true, neutral presentations of the facts. But there are also plenty of cases where the target of a leak, whistleblowing incident, expose, investigation, what have you, makes allegations of illegality as a smokescreen to divert attention away from its own misdeeds, or to intimidate those who would come forward. It makes a big difference whether the accusations are true or not - is this an honest beleaguered institution dealing with a smear campaign, or is this an academic bully engaging in further bullying? An FAQ is a good way to deal with perennial proposals when there is firm, lasting consensus on an issue. It's not a proper way to stifle debate on a fresh issue where consensus is far from clear. A number of serious editors have questioned whether juxtaposing the presumptive and claimed, but unproven, illegality of the disclosure with the fact that secret files were disclosed without permission, is an appropriate thing to do in the lede and article title, or even in the body of the article. On the other side one editor in particular who has reverted changes to the FAQ perhaps 10 times in 3 days is pointing to the FAQ as a demonstration of consensus. The article is barely a month old. It would be good to have a resolution to this, sure, but we're not there yet. The simplest approach would be to keep things neutral for now, neither asserting nor denying the illegality of the data disclosure. Misplaced Pages has no deadline. As events unfold it should become clear who did it, and the legality issue will be decided. Or it will never be decided, in which case the long-term version of the article will simply state that. Meanwhile, no need to write the article from the side of one of the parties. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tabula rasa on the "theft" issue

Could someone concisely lay out exactly what change they would like made to the article, and what sources support that change with respect to the "theft" vs "alleged theft" vs "leaked" vs "insider," or whatever? I'm having a hard time following. I would really appreciate it if the format of the change include the current text and the prospective text, along with the sources that are used, and the sources that will be used, along with the specific part of the to-be-used sources that justify the changes. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jones email 19th take two

In the archives it was brought up that the current source for a statement in the article could be seen as unreliable. I believe sources have been found that we can agree on are more neutral and reliable. I'm thus proposing making a change to that effect.

The last paragraph here should be changed from it's current wording and link to McIntyre's own blog to the following:

• Stephen McIntyre claimed that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted of not showing that the tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century, and that since it's unknown whether this unreliability of the proxy compared to the temperature record also exists in earlier periods the most reasonable interpretation is that these particular records can't be used to estimate temperatures in the past.

There was a discussion as well in the archive on how to reference McIntyre here. If we feel we need to, I'd suggest using the same source and simply adding that he appeared in a panel on the subject at CNN since he's named in the emails in question. Troed (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people say lots of things. Why is this notable? Hipocrite (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, McIntyre is being asked to reflect upon this by the media in relation to this event, and is an involved party since he's named in the emails. Looking at the article, McIntyre is thus more notable than the Real Climate blog entry we're currently reporting from. Troed (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. What are we using the blog to say? Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest another section if you want to go into notability of Real Climate, which was not my intention. I answered your question about McIntyre's notability above. I'd also like to clarify that I'm simply trying to correct a source that was contested by someone else, in the spirit of making the article better. Troed (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> There's the question of the self published source of McIntyre's blog being used without any other source that his minority, and in scientific terms fringe view, is notable as an opinion on this specific issue. That he's notable in other areas of this controversy doesn't mean that we should cite his blog opinion on every email. There's also the question of giving undue weight to his minority view by presenting it as the last word on the topic: McIntyre should know that the unreliability of that specific proxy was already known at the time of the email, which was discussing how to avoid presentations being skewed by that unreliability, and that there has been subsequent research comparing its outcome with alternative proxies. However, as a published expert on fringe science notes, a common theme is the "zombie argument" which ignores further research. The research in question is referred to in the Real Climate quotation in the article on the "divergence problem" — "see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper" which refers to this 1997 paper on Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia which concludes that "Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats." Regardless of whether or not we quote McIntyre's opinion, we should either quote or summarise that 1997 research. Must pause now, will aim to produce suggestion for a suitable summary. . . dave souza, talk 13:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that my suggestion above solves the problem that we're currently linking to McIntyre's blog without creating other changes to the article as it stands? You were the one to originally bring it up after all, I just went looking for WP:RS to that effect. Troed (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't very clear from the above, but now looking at the link I see you're citing the CNN transcript of a broadcast from December 7, 2009, to cite McIntyre as one of those selected for the program. If we accept that appearance on a CNN "special investigation" as the story was developing has sufficient significance to appear in the brief summary in the article, then the timing and content of McIntyre's views would fit best as an expansion of the sentence that "Some critics cite this sentence as evidence that temperature statistics are being manipulated." The program also includes releveant points from Mann, the "fact that these data shouldn't be used after 1960 because of this divergence", and from Michael Oppenheimer that other research data and analyses showed the same conclusion. That's a fairer representation of that particular source, but it's not an ideal source for a scientific issue. So, simply changing the paragraph to your draft doesn't solve the problems. . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your points, but I must stress that I'm only trying to fix the sourcing issue here - not to make any larger changes to the article as it stands. Reading the archived discussion, and the fact that no other replies were made, had me believe there was indeed consensus as to both notability and the quality of the CNN panel source. When the article is un-protected I suggest we bring the section up for discussion again, with your points above in mind. Troed (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference IPCC WGI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference IPCC RKP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference BBC 4 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Age Dec 10 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