Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Alleged hack

If one takes the time to read all the direct quotes attributed to the CRU spokespersons/press releases, one finds out that the CRU itself has NOT alleged a means by which the emails were accessed. As an example: the "update 2" press release asserts a conjecture/conclusion of "illegally obtained", but has no information or contention regarding any actual computer break-in. In fact, to date, no information or statement has been released or made public by the CRU (or any authority) which actually asserts that a computer break-in occured. This, combined with the fact that the police had not released findings, is why "alleged hack" and "unauthorized release" (used in tandem as they currently are) is appropriate. When further details emerge, should the information released corroborate the CRU's assertions of "illegality", then "alleged hack" can be changed to "hack". Also, at that point, I would support the word "purloined" but still not the word "stolen" - not until there was a theft conviction. Misuse of electronic records falls into a legal gray area and in many ways does not meet the traditional definition of theft - and certainly not in a situation like this where the releasors have given no indication of any efforts to personally profit from the release. Comments? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Legal grey area" is an understatement. Some of the incident appears to have taken place in Russia: would anybody like to hazard a guess as to when any of the legalties of this issue will be settled, if ever? It is foolish for this article to flail around on such shaky terms. This incident is clearly controversial so let's just call it so.Jarhed (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the ambiguities regarding the law make using the the words "theft" and "stolen" problematic. But if it becomes clear in the public record, that there is actual proof of a computer break-in (a "hack") and that hack is indeed clearly connected to this data release, then the released copy of the records can honestly and neutrally be described as "purloined", which means "to appropriate wrongfully and often by a breach of trust". It would be the released copy which was "appropriated wrongfully", if indeed unlawful access to the records was the pathway to them. This entire dispute rests on the fact that the CRU is not an arbiter of law, so when they say "illegally" without releasing supplimentary information, because they are not legal experts, their conclusions are only alllegations. Everything here hinges on a public legal authority releasing findings (conclusions of the investigation and/or criminal charges) of illegality. Only such an authorized statement is determinative, not the conjectures of the CRU itself. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• When something is taken without permission, it's a theft. The CRU did not "release" the information. They did not give permission for the information to be released. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that a whistleblower "leaked" the information, it would still be without permission of the CRU and still be theft. There is no doubt that a theft occurred. What we don't yet know his how it occurred. Personally (and I've stated this repeatedly) I am uncomfortable with the use of "hack". If reliable sources supported it, I could support "alleged hack". But not "alleged theft". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SCJ - Your conclusionary contention discounts the very real possibilities that the servers were improperly secured and that the data was accessed with no violation of law. In this case, the release is possibly illegal, but the access not. Another scenario you overlook is that an authorized user accessed the data properly, but either alone or in concert with others, contrived a means of releasing the data. Again, the access would not be an issue, but perhaps the release was. In fact, the CRU's statement of "illegally obtained", which is their harshest language used, is sufficiently imprecise that one can't be sure if they are saying they initial access off the server was "illegal" or that those who access the released copies are obtaining it illegally. And in any case, the center is not a arbiter of what comprises an "illegal" obtainment. They are only authorities on their own policies and rules - and those policies and rules do not have the force of law. It simply does not automatically follow that any breach of CRU policy is a breach of law - this is the error of logic you are making. Suffice it to say, at this point, there simply has not been enough published details for any news reports to be grounded in fact regarding the means of data access or the illegaility or lack thereof of the data release. None of the reports from the souces you have pointed to have done anything other than make their own conjectures. Conjectures, even if published by reliable sources remain only that, conjecutures. That there was a "theft" is only alleged at this point. Strongly alleged. Forcefully alleged. But alleged nonetheless. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the keys in your car and someone takes it, the fact that you failed to secure your car doesn't make it "not a theft". Not to mention that you'd still need reliable sources to support this conjecture. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that taking the car would be "theft", but the CRU itself has not alleged theft, they have alleged "illegally obtained" which is sufficiently imprecise as to be uncertain what they are contending. And in any case, they are not authorities of law. A better illustration of law would be if your neighbor went away for the weekend and left his back door open, not merely unlocked, but actually open. Your teenage son enters the house, but because the door was open, there's no break-in. After entering the house, your son goes to the homeowner's hidden DVD porn stash that he knows of (because his buddy lives there) and he makes copies on his own personal laptop. Did he steal anything from the homeowner? Clearly not. Did he break in? Clearly not. Did he trespass? Possibly. This would depend on what he was previously told by the neighbor such as "you are always welcome here". Did he violate copyright law? Possibly. In any case, he didn't STEAL from the homeowner. Now do you see what we are talking about here. This issue is not so cut & dried as some are trying to make it. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A better analogy would be = you leave your car parked in public, and someone takes a picture of it. Is that theft? IANAL, but I bet not. Which doesn't definitively prove that the acquisition of the data was not theft, but those asserting it is, and stating there could be no other option haven't provided reliable sources in support of the contention.--SPhilbrickT 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Whatever. Not really interested in your opinion, as I have stated previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. We characterize the incident as it is reported in reliable sources. If you want to do your own analysis of of what happened that's fine -- but Wikipedia policy says it's not going into the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And thats the problem the moment a suspect is named or charges brought BLP and libel laws apply and it is going into the article. We need an RfC on this.Bigred58 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk about Wikilawyering... it looks like my decision to mostly stay away from this topic was the correct one, for my own sanity. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone needs to stop providing legal advice. What the reliable sources say should be sufficient for this article.Jarhed (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And this is precisely why we need an RfC on what the wiki rules are regarding unproven criminal accusations. Simply because a media source makes an unproven criminal accusation, does not mean we are to repeat it without qualification, hence the word "alleged". 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. This whole thing is heading for an ArbCom anyway, RfC may as well be the first step. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, although it is kind of pathetic that we interested editors can't agree on a way to go forward without supervision.Jarhed (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Media organization?

I noticed the template above saying that "This article has been mentioned by a media organisation". Is this really accurate or helpful? It was, in fact, discussed in an opinion piece, or rather a hate-filled attack screed against Wikipedia and WmC that seems to be crusading for "The Truth". I don't see how linking to attack pages, even if published by a real news source, is a good thing. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is controversial, I agree that we should be stringent to ensure that our sources are reliable. We should probably avoid editorials and include only hard news from accepted sources, no blogs. That said, once we have a source, if someone doesn't like it, they can include their objections about the source in the article. That way, the user can get the whole NPOV picture and make up his or her own mind.Jarhed (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed that before and there was no consensus to re-add it. It's inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think it's currently used in the article, it's just a template at the top of the talk page here that says this article was mentioned by a media organization. I think that template should be removed since the mention in question is just a one-sided attack screed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you pulled it out, thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Contentious for no good reason.Jarhed (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions on article naming

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

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

Can we make a decision on this?

It's clear from the above discussion that words like "Climategate", "hacking", "scandal" and "controversy" are deemed inappropriate (by policy, guideline and general consensus). "E-mail" is fine, but seems unnecessarily limiting. Can we therefore come to some sort of agreement over a new name? These seem to have the most support thus far:

• Climatic Research Unit documents incident
• Climatic Research Unit files incident
• Climatic Research Unit incident

I propose that we pick on of these (I personally favor "Climatic Research Unit documents incident", but I'd support any of the three), establish a consensus and do it already. Variations can have redirects. What say you, shipmates? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A concrete "Request for move" is in progress above. It's quite close to ending now. The discussion of the article title can continue, though. As you may see in the lists, though, opinions for and against the current proposal are quite evenly matched, so consensus on a widely acceptable alternative is probably going to be difficult to achieve. --TS 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the consensus, policy or guideline is against the word 'hacking'. If you read the 'oppose' comments above, many of them oppose that proposal because it doesn't include 'hacking'. Equally, many above agree that the main media focus has been on the e-mails, not the other documents, so this should be reflected here. Where do you get the idea that we have to get moving on renaming the article? Why can't we wait until there is some new evidence, for example an arrest, or a published investigation, or a statement from one of the parties, and discuss the name in the light of finding out some more facts about whatever actually happened? --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My primary desire for moving the article is the limiting "e-mail" qualifier, since other files are also involved. Also, "hacking" (while supported by reliable sources) is probably unnecessary. I realize that some editors specifically desire these words to remain in the article name to help control the scope of the article, but that shouldn't really be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to "control the scope" of the article, but this was a hacking incident and so the name fits. I see some pressure from some editors who are quite open about wanting to limit the scope to the ensuing controversy (arguing that, in their view, this is what the media are doing) and that explains to me why those particular editors support a name change, but since this is a hacking incident being investigated by the police that's a good enough reason for me to include the word in the title. --TS 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if, apart from the vocal minority who want 'Climategate' or something like it, the majority of other editors are happy with the present title, why just keep proposing that we have to discuss the same thing (removing the two descriptive words in the title other than 'CRU') over and over? --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - But surely having "hacking" in the title is a presumption that a hacking has actually taken place, without that having yet been proven? And I think everyone agrees that "e-mail" should either be changed to "documents", or "files", or simply omitted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest a "majority" of editors are happy with the present title. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On hacking, the speculation that it's something other has been done to death on blogs and even on Wikipedia, but strangely not in any reliable source. This is because there is no evidence that it was other than what has been reported both by the Climatic Research Unit and by RealClimate: hacking. Not unsurprisingly, the Norfolk Constabulary--a county-wide force that has experts of its own--has called in a specialist Metropolitan Police e-Crime unit and is calling it "criminal offences related to a data breach"--hacking to you and me. --TS 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but until that has actually been proven, it is still based on speculation and not cast-iron facts. I am utterly convinced it was hacking of some nature (certainly it was an unauthorized access of data), but Wikipedia must be absolutely certain before such a controversial term is used in the title of an article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been stated by all the significant people involved. --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So? Until the investigation has run its course, nobody can categorically state that hacking has occurred, which means it is inappropriate for use in the title of the article per WP:NAME. This spirited defense of the word now has me concerned. What compelling reason is there for "hacking" to be in the title? Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is special pleading. On Wikipedia we rely on what is verifiable, not what is provable beyond all doubt. When the police launch a kidnap investigation we describe the incident as a kidnapping, even if eventually the facts are found to be different. To make an exception for this case, we would need a reason, and the only reason I see here is that, in the face of all the evidence and without any countervailing evidence, some people want it to be something other than a hacking incident. --TS 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Things like, "The glorious liberation of the truth from evil scientists"? --Nigelj (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Special pleading" or otherwise, we are talking about the title of the article. When there is any doubt at all, we have to err on the side of caution when it comes to article naming (that's a policy, not a guideline). And I don't want to hear any of that "some people want it to be something other than hacking" crap, because I do think it was hacking. My argument is purely about a matter of policy, and some of you are responding as if I'm a "denier". Perhaps I should request a third opinion on this matter, because I'm starting to wonder if we don't have some ownership issues developing here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to doubt. No reliable source has suggested anything other than hacking. I call it special pleading becuase it's a classic "you cannot say the earth is not flat" argument. --TS 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

IIRC, we had a WP:RS at one point in the article, but it's since been removed. If I get a chance, I will try to find some more WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "hacking". That is not the issue here. The issue is that the word qualifies "incident" when it isn't yet certain that hacking was involved (although I personally believe that it was). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok read this "East Anglia University has gone out of its way to promote itself to students from the former Soviet Union. Its website says that 33 Russian students currently study there. It is not known if they have fallen under suspicion as part of the police investigation." Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails? from Daily Mail. As an student you're on the inside … Nsaa (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question mark at the end of the headline, and the extremely speculative nature of the quote from the article (classic Daily Mail style to invoke McCarthyist fears of the long gone Soviet Union) should provide you with a clue that this article in a tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source on anything except the obsessions of its proprietor and editorial staff. --TS 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So Daily Mail is known for simplifying and distort the truth? Here's yet another Source "On November 17th an anonymous whistleblower downloaded email and data files from computers at the Climatic Research Unit and," 'Climategate' Exposes the Global Warming Hoax in Pravda. Nsaa (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

If you listen to this Youtube Clip Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower, Not A "Hacker" you may wonder if he's right. Why did a "hacker" removed all personal information like e-mail-addresses, names etc.? Typically a Whistle-blower activity. But since we only have Daily Mail, Pravda etc. we should STATE in the article name that's a hacking incident? Get real! Nsaa (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You want to cite Monckton? No. Just no. If you want anyone to take you seriously, please try to find a higher calibre of sources than blogs and YouTube videos from fringe figures. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now there's typical AGW alarmist Watermelon argumentum ad hominem content-vacant suppressive authoritarian WikiNazi rottenness if ever it got posted online. Don't address Monckton's (or Nsaa's) position, but strive to fault the source as such. "Objectivity" and "consensus" and "impartiality" indeed. Just good old "Wiki-bloody-pedia" (to use Mr. Monckton's ever-so-apt characterization) as usual. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with two above Daily Mail and Pravda. Listen to a person don't hurt. Instead of attacking me you could try to dismiss his analysis and pointing where he went wrong. And no, I don't suggest adding primary sources videos like the above Video. Where do I propose that? I just say try to listen. And hacking is POV and should go out. Nsaa (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see that none of you are taking this seriously. Nobody has been able to answer my question (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?) despite me asking it twice. All I am getting in response is the Chewbacca defense. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's break this down a bit. The article title currently has four components: (1) Climatic Research Unit (2) e-mail (3) hacking (4) incident. (1) is uncontroversial - I don't think anyone has suggested altering or removing that. (2) is reasonable, since the focus is primarily on the e-mails. (3) is defensible, since the circumstances in which the e-mails were released is a major part of the controversy - the way that the CRU was targeted by criminals has been roundly condemned by scientists and politicians. (4) is an element on which I'm amenable to change. "Incident" is perhaps misleading, since it implies a single discrete event at a single point in time. That would be accurate if the article was solely about the hack. But since it's not just about that but also covers the subsequent controversy, I think it's an unsatisfactory term. "Controversy" would, I think, be a more suitable term. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! So Remove (3) hack and Change (4) and we get Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy which is a far better name and more neutral in tone. But since others strongly has rejected controversy we just stick to incident for the moment. I.e. Climatic Research Unit e-mail incident and goes for this now. Nsaa (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why controversy again is proposed? Just for distorting the question from Scjessey (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?)? Nsaa (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been researching this and "controversy" in the title is perfectly acceptable in this situation. I'm currently drafting an explanation which hopefully will be done soon. Unfortunately, I only have 2-3 hours a day to devote to Wikipdia so "soon" could be tonight or this weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been embroiled in titling discussions that involved the word "controversy" before. In most cases, the word was deemed inappropriate per WP:WTA. The facts of the incident are not in dispute, so there isn't anything "controversial" about it. I'm not a fan of "incident" either, but I cannot think of a suitable alternative. I don't know why anyone still insists on the "e-mail" qualifier - coverage of the emails has been more significant because they are easier to follow, but quality analysis of the other data is beginning to appear as more time passes. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage further discussion on this, but removal of the term "hacking" seems moot for now as a concrete proposal to do just that is on Requested moves and at the end of the seven day discussion period (subject to backlogs) an administrator will make a determination on whether consensus exists for that action. --TS 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the voting results so far, it appears that there is broad support for renaming the article, but consensus breaks down upon when deciding what the new name should be. Several editors have expressed reservations about the use of the word "controversy". However, it is perfectly acceptable given the situation. According to WP:AVOID, "controversy" is OK if reliable sources also use the word "controversy". I found dozens of reliable sources which use the term "controversy" so I believe that issue is addressed.[1][2]

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

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

AACS encryption key controversy

Essjay controversy

Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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

Old Court – New Court controversy

White House travel office controversy

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

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

John the bookmaker controversy

Given the fact that dozens of reliable sources use the term "controversy", I believe that the standards within WP:AVOID have been met. Given the fact that we have several precedents for using word "controversy", including an article in this very topic space, Global warming controversy, as well as 9 different articles which have passed peer-review to reach achieve Good Article or Feature Article status, I think it’s OK for us to use this for the article title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, per my comments above. What exactly is "controversial"? Why use the word when we don't have to? I would argue that other articles have resorted to the use of the word because of poor decision-making by those involved. How about "Climatic Research Unit mountain out of a molehill" for a title? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the controversy is legit or not is irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The great flaw in this theory is that most of the reliable sources out there refer to the incident as "Climategate", which we have already established is inappropriate. The great thing about Climatic Research Unit documents incident is that it is accurate and neutral, whereas anything with "controversy", "scandal", "hacking" or "Climategate" characterizes the incident unnecessarily. I should also point out that Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions makes little mention of reliable sources or verifiability. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We determine whether a source is reliable. If a source is wrong on the facts, it isn't reliable. --TS 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If our verifiability policy really did claim that the mainstream news media are intrinsically reliable, then that policy would be incorrect as written. It lists mainstream news media as among the more reliable sources. We must still use our judgement (which is one reason why we have reliable sources guidelines, for use in helping us to make a determination). Without breaking a sweat, any reasonably well educated adult could pick up today's edition of the mainstream newspapers and find factually incorrect statements--statements that contradict more reliable sources, for instance--in those newspapers. It follow that all sources, including newspapers, must be handled not blindly but with judgement. That's our job as editors. --TS 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously judgment has to be employed when using sources - some are "more reliable" than others, especially when being used in a particular context, and sometimes generally reliable sources make individual errors. However, one can make a broad statement that mainstream media sources generally speaking fall within WP:RS. Also that they are actually a pretty good guide to what something is currently called in mainstream, non-technical discourse.

As to the name itself, "incident" is simply inaccurate as a matter of English language. We are not dealing with an "incident" here, which suggests a single event, we are undoubtedly dealing with a running "controversy". To me that seems to be a fairly accurate - and neutral - description, not to mention one that is commonly used in the media. Acknowledging that doesn't mean acknowledging that the CRU documents reveal controversial or bad behaviour, it simply means acknowledging that the alleged hacking of the material, and, more importantly, its content, has generated a controversy. That seems rather undeniable, even if one thinks that the real controversy is how the material has been exploited by fringers and denialists. "CRU e-mail controversy" seems to cover the issue pretty accurately without being either too woolly or POV. And as noted, there is precedent. --Nickhh (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "incident" (the hacking seems to have been a one-off event). Controversy would be better, however, because the fall-out from the hacking has been fairly protracted. --TS 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After much consideration, I have been persuaded that using the word "controversy" would be acceptable (although still not ideal). With that in mind, I am hoping that we can form a consensus around the title "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". Such a title allows for the fact that only a small percentage of the stolen data were emails, and eliminates the troublesome "hacking". A possible alternative to consider would be "Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy", which implies hacking without actually saying it. Do either of these seem worthy of support? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking"? This removes the problematic implications of "incident". I don't accept that having the word "hacking" in the title stops us discussing the fall-out from the hacking. However having "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking controversy" makes it sound as if the sole controversy is over the hacking, and missing the word "hacking" out altogether would give too much emphasis to the controversy over the e-mails, which has been rather small beer in the scheme of things. Should anything ever come of the fuss over the emails (withdrawal of major climatology papers, etc), then at that point I would say we should probably call it the "Climategate scandal", but at this stage nobody can make such a prediction. --TS 03:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hacking has not been proven and should not been used because it is being used by political opponents of skeptics. Many the of the "reliable sources" have expressed support for AGW and are conflicted. A neutral word should be used until there is evidence to support hacking. And indeed we see many reliable sources now backing away from the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that hacking shouldn't be used, most security experts have said already that it was probably someone from inside. My opinion is that the article should be called "Climategate Scandal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "hacking" is inappropriate, but not for the reason you give. The "most security experts" claim is nonsense, quite frankly. There is no chance whatsoever of the article having either "Climategate" or "scandal" in the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climategate

I vote for using Climategate as the title because that is how it is reported. The Wikipedia guidelines against using "-gate" apply to phrases made up by Wikipedia editors, and to minor scandals. I don't think that this is a "minor" scandal. In fact, there are many Wikipedia articles about various -gates. Therefore, in my opinion, not using Climategate when that is the obvious choice is nothing more than very strong POV pushing.

By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email. Q Science (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Second the motion, particularly in light of recent evidence (and it's getting into the wonderful, "reliable" MSM[3][4] so beloved of Wikipedia apparatchiki, too!) on how AGW propagandists who had been infiltrating Wikipedia since 2003 in a concerted effort to suppress soundly skeptical science on the subject of the AGW fraud and to slander scientists critical of the CRU correspondents' mendacity have degraded the intellectual integrity of this online encyclopedia for their own nefarious purposes.
If "Climategate" flames these bastiches, all the better. It is the term by which this whistleblower revelation is known throughout the world in spite of MSM "spiking" and Watermelon censorship, and the continuation of this duplicitous denial is no longer tolerable. 71.125.130.14 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no scandal, unless you are referring to the scandalous press coverage full of misrepresentations, or the scandalous statements of lies made by energy-financed politicians? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support the title "Climategate" but respect the arguments against such a change, as well. I believe that it can be argued that the professor's actions created a scandal by failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that most readers will be more familiar with the term "Climategate" over the CRU or the IPCC or UEA. But, like I said, at this point I am easy. Nightmote (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy states that the most common name must be used for naming an article, and that name is "Climategate" as already has been used or recognized by such reliable sources as The Economist (here), Reuters (here), The New York Times (here), The Guardian (here), CNN (here) and most of the other language Wikipedia sites. The discussion above clearly reflects an effort to cleanse/sanitize this controversy, and most of the arguments presented to keep other titles are just flagrant original research as these titles have not been used by any RS but here, reaching the ridiculous point that now "controversy" is considered lack of NPOV. Please' let's call things by its name! There is no wondering Wiki's NPOV reputation is being tainted (see this and here) I proposed this matter to be settled once an for all by a group of real neutral admins/experience editors (anyone who has contributed in GW or climate change articles should be excluded, including admins). In the meantime I will add three of these RSs in the lead to support the use of Climategate.-Mariordo (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are few things uglier than a row of references in the middle of the first sentence of an article. These are totally unnecessary, and your edit is borderline pointy. Please self-revert, or someone will remove them on your behalf shortly. In future, please build a consensus on the talk page before making controversial edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did change the word "some" for "several" so given the contentious nature of the article, in this case several RS are required to support that edit. I do not think that adding RS requires consensus, did you read the content in these references? Instead of format reasons please provide a more solid argument for requesting the deletion.-Mariordo (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that the wording and format prior to your changes existed because of painstaking discussion and deliberation by many editors that led to a consensus. You came along and changed that without prior discussion, and made it ugly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please point me to such discussion? Do this discussion considered the same references I provided? News and points of view evolve through time, I had followed some of this discussion and waited until sufficient RS use the term. Furthermore, why the ref from Reuters in better than the Economist, or yet, the more recent from CNN. I will check the discussion you mentioned (please provide me the link), but clearly it used to be "some" and now is "several", are you sure this discussion is not out of date. Finally, I gave my opinion about the name change above, but the edit refers only to "several".-Mariordo (talk)

Please don't edit war, Mariordo. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You will find the discussions in the archives. I'm sure you are just as capable of using the search tool as I am. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an experienced Wiki editor with not a single 3RR sanction on record, so please refrain from patronizing me, one rv is not an edit war, and you can be certain I will not reverse more than once. Let's go back to what matters, please provide the solid arguments to reject those RSs other than "ugly" (to the best of my knowledge those refs have not been included before, or correct me if I am wrong), also I am waiting for the link to review the specific discussion you are mentioned above (the archive is very long and I am raising a very specific issue), justifying "some" and picking only Reuters as the RS.-Mariordo (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As an "experienced Wiki editor", you will doubtless be aware that any time you revert a revert, it is considered edit warring (whether or not you have broken WP:3RR). There is nothing wrong with your sources. They are simply not needed, and the long line of sources in an article lede (especially in the middle of a sentence) is ugly. And "an experienced Wiki editor" should not need help searching the archives. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the first line "...referred to by several sources as 'Climategate'..." This is as fallacious and absurd a statement as you will ever see. Might as well say, "referred to by virtually everyone except Wikipedia (and perhaps a few delusional fringe 'sources') as 'Climategate'" -- Newspeak is apparently alive and well in this transparently slanted approach. Indeed, not only is "Wiki's NPOV reputation ... being tainted," as Mariordo points out, Wikipedia's rep is fast becoming laughable. Also, per the FAQ citing the supposed "Wiki standards" you have this little bit of delicious hypocrisy: "Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of 'scandal' or '-gate' frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view." Well, then, how is the phrase "hacking incident" not guilty of this same "breach" of protocol? Particularly since, as noted throughout this discussion and elsewhere, the "hacking" aspect is debatable both from a practical and a legal perspective.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you had bothered to read this talk page, you would note that the current title of the article is under discussion (and has been for a couple of weeks). Personally, I don't like "e-mail hacking incident", and would prefer "document incident" (although I am starting to lean toward "document controversy"). It is not a good idea to introduce yourself to a Wikipedia discussion by making bad faith assumptions and accusing fellow editors of hypocrisy. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the "welcome" with the predictable dose of condescension. I have, in fact, been following the farcical "debate" here since day one, with growing disgust. The appalling and blatant propagandism and lack of authenticity in the deliberately synthesized "angle" that's being plied. Obnoxious levels of disingenuousness, sorry to burn you, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. So yeah, I am finally, after several weeks of observing, putting in my two cents. Problems with that? It's still a "free" Wiki, is it not? Welcome to Wikipedia!MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are unable to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for civility and good faith, then perhaps you should find something else to occupy you. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please specify my intolerable lapse of "civility and good faith," you who called out another editor's changes as "pointy" and "ugly" in most impolitic fashion. Further, do you have some jurisdiction here to cast aspersions on one's opinions while others on your side fling vitriol and innuendo wantonly and freely? If you do have jurisdiction of some sort, forgive my ignorance, but to be honest I really don't care much either way. Lastly, do you have a problem with myself and others expressing ourselves with strength of convictions, because you are awful quick to jump on the "format" and "protocol" high-horse, rather than discuss substance.MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"There is no scandal" US News & World Report has named Climate-gate one of the Top 10 Political Scandals of 2009.[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of some sub-editors sitting in an office seems like an odd criterion for determining whether an event is a political scandal. The inclusion on the list of clear non-scandals such as Sarah Palin's premature resignation as Governor of Alaska illustrates what a very unreliable criterion inclusion on that list would be if used for that purpose. --TS 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Uh-huh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we have repeatedly run up against instances where editors have advocated a naive, robotic approach to reporting. There's a serious issue here. We don't write articles from newspaper reports. We carefully assess all reliable sources. Somebody who says Sarah Palin's resignation was a political scandal doesn't know what the word "scandal" implies. --TS 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"We carefully assess all reliable sources" I believe that's an argument in my favor. Consider the WP:UNDUE weight given to a minor element in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You and the police and the FBI seem to have irreconcilable differences on the correct use of the word "minor". --TS 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The police have their policies, we have ours. If you want to write for the police, more power to you. But here on Wikipedia we're supposed to be following WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And you see a conflict between the two? Odd, I thought we were supposed to report significant facts, and the police investigations are significant facts. The word "minor" applies to neither, whether on Wikipedia or in a police station. But I fear we're drifting off the topic of this thread so I'll leave you with the last word if you want it. --TS 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Climategate is the name used for their versions of this article in the Spanish [6], Norwegian [7] and Swedish [8] wikipedias. I agree that the current English name is unacceptable. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Searching Google for "Climategate" yields 9,150,000 hits. Searching for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" yields only 30,900. In order to limit the search to reliable sources, I decided to try Goggle News instead. Checking news for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" yields 7 hits (that is seven). climategate yields 6,669. (Of the seven, 2 are by WMC, 1 is on the IPCC site, and 4 use the name "climategate" at some point in the article.) As stated by Mariordo (below), Wiki policy states that the most common name must be used for naming an article. As the searches show, the only sources using the current title are wikipedia and those references that specifically reference wikipedia. The rest of the reliable sources use climategate. Per our own style guide, there is only one possible choice. To ignore overwhelming common usage is to create the story, not report it. In fact, the current name supports Solomon's claim that a few people have made wikipedia their own private propaganda machine. Q Science (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this article still not referred to as Climategate? That is clearly the predominant moniker used in the press to refer to this incident. This should be changed forthwith. --GoRight (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. See Q1 of the FAQ in the header. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I put the consensus from the above discussion at 8 in favor of changing the title to Climategate to 2 opposed. That seems a pretty clear consensus to me. Did I count incorrectly? --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Please list the names in favor of such a change below. You are ignoring all of the archived discussions on this topic and I find that highly disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I commented somewhere in the archives, searching Google News for "Climatic Research Unit" with or without "climategate" shows about 60% of the stories about CRU currently use the term. 60% is a quite large fraction and supports the use of that name, but at the same time it is also misleading to suggest that the term is being universally used. Dragons flight (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

There is no consensus for a change, and related moves (such as those found in this discussion) have not found consensus at this time. I would like to refer you to Q1 of the FAQ for this article, GoRight, as well as this NPOV noticeboard discussion As Time magazine made clear, ""Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up."[9] That should tell you all you need to know about the problems with such an article name. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In this conversation there is. Might I remind you, consensus can change. You don't get to try and lock in an old view by putting up a FAQ, especially on an issue as volatile as this one. When the mainstream media continue to use climategate to refer to this incident over time it is only a matter of time before this article will have to follow suit. So, we need to keep testing the current state of consensus (as we are here) to determine when that time has come. --GoRight (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles that mention "climategate", do so by saying something along the lines of: or, as some have put it, “Climategate.” They usually put the word in scare quotes, do you suggest we include the scare quotes in the name as well? It's not like we don't acknowledge that some call it climategate, it's just we shouldn't make it the name of the article, but rather choose a neutral name.
—Apis (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC reports they had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked. Either the hacking report is false or the reported date of the hacking is false or the BBC report is false. This article is in error on that point.

Climategate is the name that will be recorded in history. Whether wiki chooses to make itself irrelevant through misplace application of rules about creating words through the use of "gate" is a choice for wiki. Already wiki has become part of the story on Climategate and this article is part of the cited evidence being reported. What has changed is that now the whole world is watching, and wiki needs to wake up to this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC story which is repeatedly trotted out by the less-informed blogs has long ago been debunked--the latest instance was on this very page yesterday. Perhaps we would be able to proceed with editing more quickly if people wouldn't repeatedly come here with ignorant nonsense they picked up from silly blog. --TS 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I added this point as question 9 on the FAQ. We probably need to put a lot more debunking of nonsense on the FAQ. --TS 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Discussion of conspiracy theory, collapsed per WP:SOAP. See FAQ Q9.

A BBC weatherman has said he was sent select emails 5 weeks ahead of the UEA report. The source of these emails has not been revealed. As such, it is unproven if the BBC's source differs from the source of the UEA documents. Given the timing, co-incidence argues for them being from the same source.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC) See FAQ Q9. It's a myth. --TS 00:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Paul Hudson says "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October". Nothing in his blog establishes that his source differs from the UEA documents. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Yup, and nothing in the history of Wikipedia establishes that you are not the King of Spain. Go figger. He actually states that those emails he received were complaints about an article he had written on his blog. If anything underlines the stupidity of the blogosphere's response to the incident, it is this kind of blatantly inadequat reasoning. --TS 00:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC) So, you are assuming that since Paul says it was a complaint the emails could not have come from the same source? And then resorting to name calling to try and solidfy your position? However, we have now established that you accept that the emails are the same, the only thing left to establish is the source the same.24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Let us now determine the source of PH's emails. There are 3 possible: the authors, the recipients, the UEA documents. If the source was the UEA documents, then the "hacking" report from UEA is false, the documents would have had to have been in circulation as early as Oct 12, 2009. Neither the BBC nor PH have identified the source. If we examine the emails in question, as per PH's blog, they do not support the claim that the science is settled on the questions of AGW. Indeed, the email from KT to TW are frequently quoted as evidence that the science is not settled. As such, it seems unlikely that the source of the emails either the authors or the receipients, unless one of them is also the source of the UEA documents. If that is the case, then the source is a whistleblower, not a hacker, which would make the release legal under British law.24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Read FAQ Q9. This nonsense is the result of conspiracy-minded thinking. --TS 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The emails in question show a pattern of co-ordinated activity involving individuals from different organizations at the head of climate science acting to suppress competing points of view in favor of their own, contrary to the scientific method. Dictionary.com defines conspiracy as 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.192 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for calling the article Climategate, as that is the most commonly used term, just as the article about Panthera leo is called Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Q Science said, "By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email." I think that statistic should be added to the section of the article called "Content of the documents." It also seems odd that the only subsection in that section is the one about the emails. Perhaps the info about the rest of the documents doesn't have any reliable sources - yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, what happened to: "He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article..?" -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<edit conflict, so added to this new section> Hi, Psb777/Paul Beardsell, I don't think you've quite got the hang of WP:NPOV, and the effect of your changes was to give undue weight to a political viewpoint which is clearly fringe in terms of established science. There are two aspects of this incident. Firstly, private documents including emails were illicitly obtained, through what is commonly described as hacking but as far as I know other techniques have not been definitively ruled out. Secondly, the material was distributed by "climate warming sceptics" to create a controversy which they choose to call "Climategate", implicitly claiming the same legitimacy as the revelation of Nixon's wrongdoing. That's blatantly a politically loaded label, and has to be shown in context to meet NPOV requirements. The "climate warming sceptics" have clearly misrepresented emails, and as this is a scientific subject the majority scientific view has to be shown as such. Similarly, pseudoscientific arguments against global warming have to be treated in accordance with policy. I made some changes before the page was locked, with the last minor edit adding a link to anthropogenic at the same time as page protection was applied.[10] Please take this revised version as a basis for discussion, taking care to comply fully with the policies I've linked above. You may find it useful to make proposals on this page to seek consensus on the best wording. Thsnks, dave souza, talk 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the original question, it is not entirely clear what the neologism "Climategate" refers to. The term was apparently invented by news hounds on or about November 23. James Delingpole claims that he coined the term, using it first in this November 23 blog piece for the London Daily Herald,[11] an assertion backed up by his colleague, Christopher Booker.[12] If so, the term was invented by an anti-AGW advocate to cast aspersions on climate scientists for their allegedly unethical conduct in the affair. However, Andrew Bolt (who is more of a general-purpose contrarian columnist) of Australia's Herald Sun wrote this blog post[13] the day before, in which he asked his readers to submit names for the emerging scandal, himself leading off with the suggestion, "climategate". That claim too is backed up by his own colleagues.[14] If that's true then it is definitely a climate change skeptic term, but intended in a more tongue-in-cheek self-mocking fashion. Additionally, the term has appeared sporadically in reference to unrelated incidents. People just like to add "-gate" to things. Whatever the term was originally intended to mean, a more pertinent question is how pervasive the term is now and just what it means. So far, answering that here is all speculation and WP:OR by us Wikipedia editors. I tend to think that in this postmodern world most snowclones are used at some level as self-parody. But asking what's going on in people's heads when they use or hear a word is a tricky business best left to professionals. I have not yet found a good source. Observationally, we can see that major UK and American media organizations (e.g. BBC, CNN) use it as an umbrella heading to describe the entire ruckus, including the scientists' email and surrounding behavior, the hacking and publication of the emails, the advocacy of the climate change skeptics (or whatever you call them), and the public debate that ensued. But again, making that claim in the context of article content would be WP:OR. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 unreliable source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except we have a primary source[15] which seems to corroborate the secondary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False premise is the start of dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under The Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 [16] if it was a whistleblower its legal. In both the US and the UK whistleblowing is a legally protected act its not considred theft. Bigred58 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [personal attacks removed by Guettarda (talk)] Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took offense at these (imo) rather innocouos remarks: [Repost of personal attacks removed by Guettarda (talk)].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought." [17]. It is an allegation of a crime and allegations of crimes are to be referred to as "alleged" unless we want to advance the presumption of guilt, which I am quite confident we do not want to do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppets on this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged Hack 2

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

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

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

This doesn't jibe with Wikipedia's policy. The Verifiability policy, reliable sources subsection says nothing about splitting hairs in the way you've described. [[18] <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Here's how LiveScience's Bad Science columnist summed up the debacle dubbed Climategate: "Personal e-mails between climate scientists may be ill-advised and embarrassing, but by themselves do not provide hard evidence of scientific fraud." He added, "The fact is that the evidence for climate change does not hinge upon data from the East Anglia University researchers whose e-mails were exposed."" [19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correction needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{editprotected}} Tom Wigley isn't head of NCAR, it's Eric Barron.[20] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still no FOIA section

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

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

"Destroying requested information outside of an organisation’s normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure. [36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

;

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

; standardised datasets.

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

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

; "all band" timeseries

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

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

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

; fudge factor

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

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

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

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