Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus, not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Support

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

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

• Support - The proposed title is not ideal, but is better than the current one. I would strongly support "climategate", as this is how all media has been calling the case.Echofloripa (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The document should be titled as neutrally as possible, so as to neither endorse nor condemn the release. Controversy is descriptive (and accurate, if this talk page is any indication.) The proposed move is therefore an improvement. --DGaw (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - it is in any case better than now.--Pevos (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding WP:AVOID, please see[1]. E-mails, source code and text files are all types of documents. In fact, source code files are text files. I'm a software developer and although I edit my source code files with Visual Studio 2008, I could just as well use Notepad, Microsoft Word and any word processor or text editor I want to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Use of the term "controversy" does not imply that the emails themselves are controversial, only that they have generated controversy, which is nearly impossible to deny [2]. By your same logic, should we remove/rename the global warming controversy article? Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• "'Oppose'" This incident has been named "Climategate" by the public and the press. There is a Wikipedia article on Watergate, Nannygate, and even Monicagate. There's even an article listing all the -gate scandals that Wikipedia writes about. This article should be called Climategate. The "redirect from climategate" to this page suggests to the reader that he or she should also "redirect their view" of the scandal. I would like to see Wikipedia become a repository of facts. The global warming believers want to stop pages like this from undermining their case for global action, which is precisely what Climategate is all about: scientists substituting data they don't like for data they do like. So rename it Climategate.--Kevan Hashemi 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevanhashemi (talk • contribs) — Kevanhashemi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus?

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

I think it's 15/15 if I counted correctly just now. The exact same title suggestion has re-appeared though and this is all getting to be very confusing. If the "Climategate"-supporters would get around to at least not oppose a more WP:NPOV title than the one we have we would at least be getting somewhere. I'm also more than slightly disturbed by some Oppose-voters claiming, in disregard of WP:RS and discussions here that "hack" is proven, that it's all about "emails" and that there's no widely known "controversy". POV POV POV. Troed (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

hack or leak?

There is an edit war going on:

• Original edit: [3]
• Reverts: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
• Editors: 216.153.214.89, Nigelj, RMHED, ChrisO, KimDabelsteinPetersen, 141.157.189.3, Scjessey, Psb777

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the hacking have been committed by an insider? Yes, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld[12], Reuters[13] and PC World[14] which which quotes an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News[15], CNET[16], MSNBC[17], eWeek[18], InfoWorld[19], USA Today[20] and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[21] Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. Previously, it has been established that the sentence "Robert Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said that "80 percent of the time it's an insider." meets reliable source guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing discussion. However, it's also amazingly POV-infected. Scjessey repeatedly states that all sources claim this to be a hack/theft and that there are no or not enough (?) reliable sources to support the language of "leaked". This is clearly wrong, many MSMs that copied the statements of "stolen" verbatim from the beginning how now changed their language to "leaked" instead or in addition to*. It's not up to us to decide which is correct, but we should report both viewpoints according to reliable sources - "making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". *) CBSNews [22] Washington Post [23] Wall Street Journal [24] Troed (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farsight, I'm not sure why you are refusing to post the quote. It would take far less time to post the quote than to play these games. I've seen this approach used in many online discussions. What often happens is that the other person does search for the quote, pulls together a coherent argument against the quote, only to be told, "that wasn't the right quote". You say it is the first citation. Let's examine it. The first citation is [25]. The first observation I'll make is that it does not contain the word "hack". This is game, set, match, but let's AGF and see if the citation supports the general contention. We could selectively quote and post the phrase "illegally taken from the university", as support for the contention that "illegal" is support by RS. However, note that a fuller quote says" appears to have been illegally taken from the university". The qualifying phrase is critical. The spokeperson is being careful, not definitely saying it is illegal, but appears to be illegal. On the basis of this alone, the wording should be changed, but if someone wants to do an exhaustive survey, and can show that this is an anomalous quote, we can debate changing it back.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since "alleged" can mean "declared or stated to be as described"[[26]], all actual thefts are also alleged thefts by definition (even though not all alleged thefts are actual thefts). So the use of "alleged" is actually supported by ALL of the sources that uses the phrase "thefts."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The files also included temperature reconstruction..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's sort of the point of this entire Wikipedia entry: to distract from the actual story and prevent the true meaning of the leaked documents from reaching the fore of the discussion. Wikipedia as a forum is incapable of presenting anything resembling the truth because it is dominated by scores of people with an agenda and too much time on their hands. 97.125.85.109 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tackling NPOV issues - "personal information"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just read the article from top to bottom and the two biggest issues IMO with regard to WP:NPOV are the article title which focuses on the initial hacking rather than the subsequent controversy surrounding the e-mails, and the undue weight given to the death threats in the lede. I think if we can address both of those issues, a lot of my concerns are alleviated. I also think that Wikidemon brought up an excellent point about the excessive use of "stolen" emails, "hacked" files, "illegal" actions, etc.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I see some progress, but then a sidetrip into other issues. More than one editors endorsed the view that the lede should summarize the body with appropriate weight, and agreed that the theft and the contents are the core issues. Troed suggested that the personal information could be important if covered by reliable sources. It is my view that while one sentence in one article expressed concern about the possible compromise of personal information, I've seen no follow up articles citing examples of substantive real problems (I suspect that some have received emails as a result of people learning their email address, but I've read of zero instances of passwords being used to commit financial fraud, for example.) It is my belief that we would need to cite substantially more than one article to justify inclusion in the lede. --SPhilbrickT 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird phrasing?

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

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

It's the scientists who say the case is strong, not the skeptics. Skeptics claim the case is weak or made-up. I wrote the original sentence so that's why I noticed that the scientists and skeptics have been reversed. The new wording kind of works - I'm not sure - but it seems confusing to me. I don't have time to track down where exactly this sentence was changed, but a few weeks ago[28], it said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not done: There does not seem to be consensus that this edit is required at the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Editprotected}}

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

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 31 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.

Biased/unbiased Journalism

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

On the other hand, this program ([film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKZhr3JMhA] and transcription) by the government owned finnish TV shows what journalism should be. This can certainly be used as a reliable source to add some truth to this poor article in wikipedia.Echofloripa (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Also see, forex, this part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article title isn't accurate...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of Information Section: Reboot

Reboot: I want to make three points.

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

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

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

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

Example

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

Example

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

The Criticism and praise section says:

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

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

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

Reversion to FAQ change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official police statement completely undercuts presumptive conclusion of "theft"

Read this here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but that's a completely false claim. "Data theft" is a standard and widely used term in computer security circles in the UK. See [29] for some of the 37,000 references to "data theft", just from UK government websites alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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