Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

'illegal' release

I believe that the wording 'illegal release' along with a cite to "prove" to the reader the Truth of the statement shows bias.

As far as I know, the hackers/leakers of the emails have not been identified. It is, thus, impossible to say whether the release was 'illegal' or not. Moreover, only a court or at least lawyers could establish whatever exactly happened as 'illegal' or not. Wikipedia certainly should not take a stand on an unresolved legal issue. Indeed, in the event that the hacker/leaker ever is identified and is actually tried in court, it would probably then be illegal for Wikipedia to prejudice the outcome of the case.

(Note, I am not saying there is any actual legal problem at the moment; but there could be in the future.)

Now it's true that there are 'reliable sources' claiming that the release was 'illegal', but there are plenty of other reliable sources (e.g. Scientific American preferring the more factual 'unauthorized release'.

So shouldn't we prefer a factual wording that doesn't need a cite over a contentious wording that does?

Alex Harvey (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any source that denies "illegal"? If not, there is no POV issue. And from a common sense point of view, illegal is not remotely questionable - no-one at CRU would be authorized to release Mann's emails, for example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We should prefer coverage of recent developments in the case and the investigation, i.e. your Scientific American link is now 10 months out-of-date. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. These emails are under copyright and the copyright owners have not given their consent to the publication. There is no reasonable doubt that the "release" (actually a slightly problematic word, I think) was illegal. (Politically motivated misinformation with no credibility does not count as reasonable doubt.) Hans Adler 12:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Illegal distribution" might work better, dunno if any source has used that exact phrase. . . dave souza, talk 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

'Illegal' anything isn't going to work very well unless you consult Wikipedia's legal department, right? Tarc, here's Legal News Online less than a fortnight ago preferring the wording I suggest [1]. I am sure I am not the first to point out the United Kingdom's whistleblower protection for workers who believe that they are acting in the public interest. You can think the guy that released the emails is the Son of Satan, but providing he believed he was acting for the public good he would presumably be protected. Common sense isn't a good predictor of legal outcomes. By taking a stand on illegal we are, everyone surely agrees, stepping into the domain of the courts. Media outlets such as Wikipedia aren't generally supposed to do that. I cannot see how there can be any good reason for us to prefer a wording that prejudges the outcome of a trial that hasn't happened over an uncontroversial wording that simply states the facts. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a media outlet, so there's one glaring flaw in the logic right there. This is an encyclopedia, which reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter. A government investigation that terms it "illegal" carries quite a bit of weight, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid "illegal" probably should stay, but with a caveat; we do have sources which stay "illegal", and a few which only use "unauthorized". I disagree with Hans; it is absolutely incorrect to refer to, say Wired as "politically motivated misinformation with no credibility", but I don't think there are any reliable sources which say it was "legal". There are some editorials which say it was "for the public good", but we cannot apply the "whistleblower law" ourselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood Alex Harvey as claiming it wasn't actually illegal, but maybe he just prefers a euphemism. If we agree it was illegal, then which word to use is an editorial decision. Given the fact that the documents were first published through hacking another site, anything weaker than "illegal" seems inappropriate. Hans Adler 18:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a simple solution. Just write "released". The next sentence says a server was hacked so illegal or whatever is really not needed at all.91.153.115.15 (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If we have government reports and other reliable sources that say it is illegal, why should we omit to mention it? --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Because sometimes its better to compromise. What's the point of wasting time on such a meaningless detail? This is a simple way to end it.91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Illegally released" is the compromise. We also have sources for "stolen" and "hacked". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Does everyone really not understand that only lawyers & courts can test the 'illegality' of something and that it's rather absurd to claim something is illegal before one even knows what happened? It looks and reads rather silly & schizophrenic to be saying it was 'illegal' in the opening sentence, and then admitting in the next sentence that we don't actually know what happened. The need to have a cite to justify two words also looks silly, and distracts the reader. Meanwhile, I am pretty certain that it would be illegal for Wikipedia to prejudge the outcome of a future trial if the hacker/leaker ever gets caught. Does anyone dispute that? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it up with the Government, and in particular with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who specifically describe it as "illegally released from a computer server". We report what official sources say, and they're in a better position than us to decide. . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not understand that Government merely passes laws, and only the courts can apply them? The opinion of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has as much relevance as the opinion of Oprah Winfrey on this matter. See also Separation of powers#United_Kingdom Alex Harvey (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We really don't need a lecture on civics here. An act does not become illegal only by virtue of a judicial decision. By your argument, the 1888 Jack the Ripper murders are not illegal - after all, nobody has been found guilty for them. Neither is a legal verdict necessary to determine that something is illegal, nor is it universally sufficient. Competent experts can and do evaluate the legality of an action all the time. And in this case we have several expert sources calling it illegal and, apparently, not one that denies this fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't have any expert sources calling it 'illegal'. If you can find published legal advice saying the release of emails was 'illegal', that would be a start, but of course you won't because no lawyer would stick his neck out without actually even knowing what happened or why. Your comparison with simplistic case of the Jack the Ripper murders being 'illegal' is not relevant, especially since the Jack the Ripper article doesn't say they were 'illegal' either. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'd be interested to know if anyone actually disagrees that it might be illegal for Wikipedia to prejudge the outcome of a future trial in the event that the hacker/leaker is ever caught. See Contempt of court, "A finding of contempt of court may result from ... publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial". I would certainly argue, given Wikipedia's wide reach, that in the event that the Climategate documents were leaked by an employee who believed he was acting in the public interest (which is not, Hans, what I believe, just a theoretical possibility), this article would certainly jeopardise his trial. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not in the US. We have this quaint thing called the First Amendment. However, even in the UK, if our article on contempt of court is accurate, there has to be an active court proceeding before there is the potential for a ruling to that effect. Finally, Wikipedia's legal counsel, Mike Godwin, should be contacted in regard any legal questions. I'm pretty sure, however, that "we" are not bound by the decisions of any courts outside the US with jurisdiction including Florida. (I recall a case in the last year where it was determined that we were not required to follow the order of a German court in regard publication of the names of criminals after their release from prison.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a complete red herring. Every claim we make is subject of a potential future lawsuit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Alex's statement is a red herring, for two different reasons. He was referring to criminal contempt, and lawsuits are civil matters. The Foundation doesn't seem worried about potential future criminal prosecution or lawsuits on this issue, however, and it's their decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, the problem remains that it is quite absurd that we are using a statement of a British energy minister as our legal advice, and then via the reference given advertising the same to our millions of readers. Again, it is quite silly and achieves nothing other than to advertise Wikipedia's bias and our fundamental lack of understanding of what 'illegal' actually means. But that's actually not enough. We then go on to emphasise that the police had to launch a 'criminal' investigation, as if we feel the reader might not have understood that we're talking, like, seriously super-illegal here, y'know man? It's just bad style, and looks really bad. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To ignore the way the a UK government minister has summarised the case in an official report, now that would be weird, as would be trying not to mention the police involvement as it's so well documented. I agree that all this stuff about contempt of court, and people trying to squeeze 'alleged' into every sentence as we had here in the past, is inappropriate. Those things only apply when you are in danger of ascribing a crime to a named individual, whether someone suspected, or awaiting trial, or during their trial. We have no mention at all here of who it might have been; if we ever start getting names, or even narrowing the field down to small groups, we will have to be very careful about introducing them, but for now, the known facts can be stated with ease. --Nigelj (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what is weird is you claiming that a statement by a relatively junior government minister in the UK is legal advice to be considered more reliable than Legal News Online, which shows a preference for the more factual 'unauthorised' wording. Given the high value we're placing UK government ministers, does that mean we should place an equally high value in the future on senior Republican government ministers? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The UK isn't a republic, and that's were this illegal action took place. When it comets to defining what is or isn't a crime in a jurisdiction, an official UK government report is more significant than an online news organisation. . . dave souza, talk 08:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, is there anyone here who can see how silly Wikipedia looks to have a footnote on the word illegal that doesn't lead to anything even vaguely looking like legal evidence? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In a trial, you need legal evidence to support legal innocence or guilt; here we are saying that an action is or was illegal. To find if something is or was illegal, you need an expert in the law, not evidence. The UK government is the highest body responsible for the law in UK - they create and write the laws, and they employ the people who enforce them. This is a non-argument where just one person keeps introducing the same category error of discussing an imaginary trial while this article relates to an illegal action. We need to move on. --Nigelj (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You write, To find if something is or was illegal, you need an expert in the law. Right. I know that; most readers where IQ>100 know that. The UK government is the highest body responsible for the law in UK. Wrong. You are confusing the UK government with the Supreme Court? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Note. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think to some extent this is a confusion about different legal jurisdictions. I note Alex that all the sources I've seen you rely on are not British ones. The US has strong freedom of speech laws (notably in the Constitution); the UK less so. And in response to the specific point "what is the highest body responsible for the law in UK", I am afraid that you are simply wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the power to overrule parliament. Judges only have the power to interpret laws made by parliament. Judges may rule that the government (i.e. executive) have interpreted previous Acts of parliament (or European law) incorrectly, but they do not have the power to overrule parliament (i.e. the legislative body). You may think this is splitting hairs, but the distinction is actually quite important; there is no formal Constitution. If the Supreme Court rules against the government on a point of law, the government retains the option to introduce a new law to parliament, and there is no question that if passed, the Supreme Court would be bound by that law. This can and does happen. If you are genuinely curious, I suggest you read British_Constitution#Parliamentary_supremacy_and_the_rule_of_law or similar. Anyway, this is all a digression; I've not seen anything in the arguments to say why the current source is either unreliable, given undue weight, or worse than the suggested alternatives. --Merlinme (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is educational, didn't know we had a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, but then it only took over from the Law Lords in October 2009. However, they have limited powers, they're not the same as The Supremes, and the various legal systems in the UK (note the plural) are offtopic anyway. . . dave souza, talk 13:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Merlin, there is no confusion about anything, at least not from this side. This is simply a 'black is white slide' by a cadre of POV pushing Wikipedians on a matter so basic that any undergraduate student of law, accounting, business etc. would know immediately what I am talking about. Of course it is true that the Supreme Court can't 'overrule' the parliament, as in it can't pass or repeal laws. Equally, the parliament can't interpret laws; it can only pass them. aside: if only Wikipedia understood the same need for a separation of powers in its own constitution it might actually stop being dysfunctional). So, Wikipedia's footnote on the word 'illegal' implies quite absurdly to the reader that the UK government's interpretation on a point of law is actually real legal advice (as opposed to merely partisan political opinion, which of course it really is). OK, plenty of uneducated readers will fall for this, if they even think about it; fine, but plenty won't, and the end result is a, frankly, very silly footnote. I mean, if you guys want to push a POV that the release of emails was 'illegal' for heaven's sake just do it without the silly footnote! Just assert it was 'illegal' like the UK department of climate change did. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that you may be forgetting that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability). The use of the term "illegal" is verifiable and not obviously wrong. You may think that it is not the WP:TRUTH, but so far you have not been able to persuade other editors that you are correct. Anyway I'm not sure I'm adding to this discussion so I'll leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not verifiable; that is the whole point. The source given in the footnote is not sufficiently reliable to establish the wording used. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is verifiable to a UK government report; first line, first sentence - not a finely judged finding, but a starting point. And where is the reliable source that there is going to be a constitutional challenge to this statement in the UK Supreme Court? In a handful of US blogs, or nowhere. We have to report on what we have, not on the dreams of a few bloggers. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Object lesson

No opinion one way or another, but here's another example of how the term illegal is used in Wikipedia in Iran-Contra affair#The affair:

Senior Reagan administration officials started what they came to call "the Enterprise," a project to raise money for their illegal funding of the Contras insurgency.

It's pretty clear that arguments have been made both ways as to whether the funding was "illegal" or not according to various interpretations of the Boland Amendment which, incidentally, in its lead contains the following gem:

Beyond restricting overt U.S. support of the Contras, the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the controversial Iran-Contra Affair, during which the Reagan Administration illegally circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress and the American public.

Now don't accuse me of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. I'm just using these as object lessons.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS indeed, and yup, that's appalling bias in the other article too. Maybe the problem really is that many Wikipedians just don't get this... Maybe if we can fix this issue up here we could look at the Reagan article and try to fix that too. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example from Al Capone:

Known as the "Capones", the group was dedicated to smuggling and bootlegging liquor, and other illegal activities, in Chicago from the early 1920s to 1931.

If I recall correctly, the group was not convicted of smuggling or bootlegging but rather not properly reporting income taxes.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And from Bonnie and Clyde:

On August 5, while Parker was visiting her mother in Dallas, Barrow, Hamilton and Ross Dyer[32] were drinking alcohol at a country dance in Stringtown, Oklahoma, an act then illegal under Prohibition.

These three were never tried nor convicted on the basis of this claim of malum prohibitum.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RS/N

Note that Fifelfoo from RS/N has said this. Do we need more people to say it or can we just obey the rules and respect British law? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with your discussion. For example, you posed a false question, stating, "there remains a question mark over whether a release of emails was illegal or whether it was hypothetically protected under UK whistleblower laws." There is no such question, and Legal Newsline does not in any way supplant the official UK report, nor can anyone argue that it does. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is not hypothetically protected under UK whistleblower laws Viriditas? Because you don't like the idea? Or because you're an expert on UK law? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that there is a question of whistleblowing. Who has raised this question? Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As you already know, plenty of commentators have raised the question of whistleblowing, e.g. Richard Lindzen. No legal expert has stated that it was NOT a case of whistleblowing. What I said was, therefore, and obviously, true. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The strange thing about those commentators, is that all of them were so-called climate "skeptics" claiming that there must have been a whistleblower because of the nefarious nature of the CRU and their evil plot for humanity (cue Monckton and the shaking teacup). In this little thing called reality, where tooth brushing and flossing is not a plot by wicked dentists, there is no evidence of any whistleblower, nor are we required to prove a negative. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The amazing thing about this alleged reasoning is the circularity. How strange it is, you say, that people who dare to disagree with you (=skeptics) are saying things you disagree with! Can you please instead return to the relevant issue of Wikipedia's rules. Do I need to find other Wikipedians from RS/N to restate the obviously correct view of Fifelfoo or will you just agree to follow the rules so as to avoid unnecessary time wasting? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresented this issue on the RS board. There is no "question" of whether or not there is a whistleblower, and the illegal release of data is just that. Are you here to build and improve encyclopedia articles or to push a singular, discredited conspiracy theory? Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you'd think that if I told Fifelfoo that Father Christmas lives at the North Pole he would have believed that too. You claim that the email release is, after all, obviously illegal. I mean, that is the beginning and the end of your argument. It is 'obvious' and anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. Is it not more likely that he simply understands Wikipedia's rules? Anyhow, I'll see if there's some way of getting further input from RS/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"You claimed that there is a question of whistleblowing. Who has raised this question?"

Michael D. Lemonick, in Scientific American. (Technically, the editors--it's a blog. Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American)

"There is no 'question' of whether or not there is a whistleblower..."

So here's the central question: Is Curry a heroic whistle-blower, speaking the truth when others can't or won't?

(Lemonick's question. Click the SciAm link above.)

Yes, there's a question. What we don't know is the answer. I happen to share the opinion that there was an illegal theft, but that's all it is--an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't report opinions, although we can certainly cite many RSs who report them as fact. We shouldn't be dogmatic about them on talk pages, though. Frankly, I haven't been able to figure out what this huge fuss is about. Who cares if it was a theft, a hack, a whistleblower, illegal? It was unauthorized, that's for sure. --Yopienso (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it was unauthorised; that is a fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to you, Alex, and I mean this in a friendly way, is that since a multitude of reliable sources report that the unauthorized release of the emails was a theft or was illegal, that you drop the issue. If the police ever get to the bottom of this thing, we'll know for sure. If it turns out there was indisputably a whistleblower, the article will swiftly be edited accordingly. Meanwhile, why should we get our panties in a knot? I've learned by hard experience this kind of thing isn't worth getting frustrated about. --Yopienso (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, Lemonick's article about Judith Curry as a whistle-blower is not related to Alex's claim about a whistle blower at CRU. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. So much for that. Thanks for your input; feel free to delete or hat or whatever my misguided comments. --Yopienso (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I always appreciate your input. I would even appreciate Alex's input if he would "flesh out" a viable scenario for a whistle blower and how we could consider it realistic based on the information that we already have. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, on Friday, November 20, 2009 BBC and other media outlets reported that the CRU had been attacked by hackers who had published their private data on the net. Where do whistle blowers come into this, and why are you distracting attention away from the illegal hacking and release? Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, I completely disagree. The bigger issue is we have rules and editors are supposed to obey them. Of course, it is a minor issue but if I can't get agreement on this very obvious issue what hope would there be in getting agreement on issues that are less clear cut? Wikileaks assumed this was a whistleblower, see Wikileaks Top Releases. And Wikileaks is run by a group of people pretty switched on as far as hacking is concerned. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Another red herring. It's completely irrelevant if the data has been released by a whistleblower or by a hacker, and if the release is somehow covered under whistleblowing laws. The UK Public Interest Disclosure Act only protects against reprisals by the employer. The crown may refrain from prosecution, but that does not change the obvious, unchallenged fact that e.g. distributing emails to third parties violates copyright law. We do have reliable sources who say the release was illegal - in addition to government reports, I saw it at least in New Scientist. And while other sources use a varied language, from "stolen", "theft", "hacked" to "unauthorized", we have no single reliable source that claims the release was legal. There simply is no foundation to the claim of legality.Let me repeat this. We have no single reliable source that claims the release was legal. Sorry for being bold, but this is about the crassest case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I've seen so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be carrying on a running discourse or argument with you, but I think you're mistaken about Wikileaks assuming this was a whistleblower. The page you linked to doesn't say a word about a whistleblower being involved in Climategate. Also, notice that the source by which the word "illegal" is supported in the lede, although not from a court, does carry the Queen's seal. It's presented to Parliament, not by Parliament. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change by Command of Her Majesty. That's good enough for me until something of equal or greater authority shows up. --Yopienso (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, your interpretation of UK law is no more relevant here than mine is or Yopienso's. And as you know, it is not my job to prove that it was legal. I am proposing to have the article be silent on the question of legality, in the same way that all actually reliable sources i.e. legal commentators have been similarly silent. The fact that no source says it was legal is another red herring. What is relevant is that not a single word of legal opinion has ever been published on this matter. Sorry for the bold, but you seem unwilling to accept both the blatantly obvious nature of this point and the advice of RS/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, the point about Wikileaks is that they evidently considered it a leak and not a hack. And the fact that a document has the Queen's seal is irrelevant. Maybe it would be relevant if we were living in the middle ages and King John had not signed the Magna Carta and agreed to be bound by the law along with his subjects. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, it's the government's position after about 10 months of investigations and three official inquiries in this country, as well as another three in the U.S.. The government would have had plenty of time to take legal advice in preparing this document, and would be expected to do that. It may be noted that there's been a change of government since the report this responds to, and far from being partisan, this is a report by a Conservative government.
The question of possible protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the "whistleblower act") relates to protection of employment rights under specified conditions, not whether or not the act was illegal. The specified conditions require ‘qualifying disclosure’ about malpractices, the examples listed being more serious than anything found in the emails. The disclosures have to be made by a worker to to the right person, and in the right way (making it a 'protected disclosure'). The worker is not protected if they "break the law when making a disclosure", hacking into someone else's server to plant unauthorised information is likely to be breaking the law. If the person or people who disclosed the documents suffer discrimination at work for making the disclosure, they can take their case to an Employment Tribunal. That doesn't make their actions legal. . dave souza, talk 09:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave, the government investigations have been investigations of the CRU, not the email leak/hack. The police investigation into the leak/hack has turned up basically nothing, and it looks increasingly doubtful that there was any actual hacking involved. This is another complete distraction. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is firmly against you in this matter, it appears. Time to move on? Tarc (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC. So far, all uninvolved editors at RS/N agreed that our wording is not reliably sourced. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You write, "The police investigation into the leak/hack has turned up basically nothing". If you don't mind me asking, how do you know this? Wikispan (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Three uninvolved editors from RS/N all agreed that my point is valid so far (and I believe that Yopienso also agreed as did some IP editors). How many do we need before watchers of this page would accept it? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That does not appear to be an accurate summary of the noticeboard discussion, and as with any discussion on Wikipedia, it is the quality of the argument that counts, not the quantity. You may want to seek out input from the law WikiProject, however your framing of the issue is still flawed and far from neutral. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alex appears to be raising valid points here, and he is a careful, thoughtful, and unusually well-informed editor on this topic. I don't have time (or inclination) to go through all this, but it appears other editors are attempting to brush him off without really considering his arguments. Maybe a law WP review would be helpful, as V. suggests? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso's suggestion was to drop these fine distinctions as too trivial until there is a court finding, which there probably never will be, or a police report, which there should eventually be. (Slowpokes!)

Meanwhile, it may be instructive to note "leak" does not imply legality or illegality, but unauthorized release:

3. Informal To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy: The news has leaked.

2. Informal To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.

3. Informal An unauthorized or a deliberate disclosure of confidential information: "Sometimes we can't respond to stories based on leaks" (Ronald Reagan). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/leak

Even "hack" doesn't necessarily imply illegality, although I think all of us assume it does:

2. Informal

a. To write or refine computer programs skillfully.

b. To use one's skill in computer programming to gain illegal or unauthorized access to a file or network: :::hacked into the company's intranet.

To reiterate what I said above, if a royal report calls it illegal, I'm fine with leaving it at that until and unless there is information from a higher source. Has a court or any reputable entity challenged the report? Abiding by the report and any official response to it is fully respectful of British law with its famously unwritten constitution. Over and out. --Yopienso (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Um. Haven't we been here before? I'm pretty sure I backed up someone (maybe Y.?) re this Royal Report, not too long ago? Can we move along now? There are some substantial problems with this article -- one of which is hanging fire at [2] (scroll down) .... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this at WikiProject law noticeboard, hopefully in a more 'neutral' manner, per Viriditas's concerns. Pete, I'll respond to your concern about Tierney above. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorized access to a computer system is by definition illegal under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 [3]. Therefore unauthorized and illegal have the same meaning in this context. Furthermore, the law in question [4] does not contain a whistleblower provision. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh get serious. If there was proof a server was actually hacked that would be a start. I am a sysadmin by profession and I find the hack story utterly implausible, for all the reasons that security experts have already said. As noted above, Wikileaks decision to publish the Climategate files is at least one expert organisation's vote against the plausibility of server hacking. Can we please leave the crime investigation to the police and the interpretation of the law to the courts? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on. These were essentially private emails. Are you arguing that someone who was authorised to access all of them published them? Seriously? Who would that be, other than perhaps a sysadmin, who in most jurisdictions is allowed to do all sorts of things with them, but not read them out of curiosity? And if you seriously think that it's not illegal for a sysadmin to read and 'leak' a huge number of emails from a server they are in charge of, then I must warn you to expect a visit from the police if you ever decide to follow up on your legal theory. Hans Adler 15:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the WikiLeaks-related link [5] that you are continuously talking about, here is what it says in full: "WikiLeaks was among the websites to publish controversial documents and email exchanges between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, one of the world's leading climate centers. The leak was seized upon by climate change sceptics who said the emails supported their cause, sparking a global row later dubbed 'climategate.' An inquiry later cleared the researchers of any wrongdoing." Nothing about "whistleblowers", and it's quite unambiguous about the researchers having been cleared. I can't find the emails on WikiLeaks, and if they had actually said explicitly that they thought the emails had been obtained legally, I am sure you would have told us. Hans Adler 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been clearly stated that the authority who can overturn the UK government's interpretation of its own law is the Supreme Court, not Wikileaks, so it wouldn't really matter if they did say the hack was legal (which they apparently don't). Why are we discussing this same point in so many locations (Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#'illegal' release, Wikipedia:RS/N#reliable sources for legal issues and here)? This is a dead horse, guys, move on and wait for the Supreme Court challenge to be made if you care so much. --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, no, what is clearly stated three times at RS/N is that the UK government's interpretation of UK law (and you need to remember that the laws in question were written by previous UK governments, perhaps decades ago, and not the present one) is nothing more than the present UK government's opinion on a matter of law. To be sure, the UK government should have avoided asserting 'illegal' for exactly the same reasons that you should. Your assertion that the Supreme Court can overturn the UK government's interpretation of (the) law shows confusion as there is nothing here to 'overturn'. The only thing the Supreme Court can 'overturn' is a ruling of an inferior court, and there is no ruling here to overturn. Sorry, this issue isn't going to go away no matter how many times you refuse to get the point. There is no grey area here. The present wording is wrong, and the only question is how many experts on Wiki policy you're going need to accept that this wording is wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the refs under FAQ Q5 above? Have you seen Teach the Controversy? Where is the RS that argues that that the release, and subsequent hack of the RealClimate server, was perfectly legal? Simply omitting the word illegal when mentioning the hack is not an cogent argument that no law was broken. --Nigelj (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have seen all the refs under FAQ Q5. The hacking of the RealClimate server and the release of the Climategate emails are two separate events. It is quite possible that the RealClimate server hack was the illegal work of a hacker who received files via email from an insider in the CRU. It is quite possible that a skeptic sysadmin with root access to the backup server believed he had a moral obligation to expose the CRU management who were refusing to comply with FOIA law. The absurdity of your position is claiming that the article MUST say SOMETHING was illegal without us evening knowing what the 'illegal' thing was. Was 'it' a hack from Russia that was 'illegal'? If so that would need to be tried in a Russian court, agreed? Or was it the Russian government? If so that would be tried in an international court? Was it a hack from America? That would need to be tried in a US court, agreed? Was it a hack from the UK? Ok, that would be subject to UK law. Or was it an insider? Was it a scientist who was given root access a sysadmin? If so, it wasn't a hack. Did the insider believe he was releasing the emails in the public interest? If so, it might have been protected under UK law. Your position here is absurd, and Wikipedia looks very biased as a result. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The ridiculous whistleblower conspiracy theory that you are promoting has no justifiable support in anything other than a few columns written by a handful of crank writers known for their crazy, fringe views on climate science. We go with what the best RS say and stick closely to the facts. What you believe is "quite possible" should probably be kept to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please stop that No true Scotsman nonsense. You are firmly in tendentious editing territory, and have been there for quite a while now. It's in your own best interest to stop before it ends in a block. I won't bother to respond to your incorrect and/or misleading claims in detail, because no doubt these things have been explained to you more than enough, and you are simply ignoring it. Hans Adler 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, can you show me a shred of actually published evidence, aside from what is linked in the FAQ, the suggests there is even a vague clue about what actually happened? This is the most up to date statement from Norfolk Police I've been able to find, which appears to indicate they were unable to find anything. I'm trying to understand how you can get from not a shred of evidence, to me being a 'ridiculous conspiracy theorist', simply because my mind remains open to all of the theoretical possibilities. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Christopher Monckton was one of the early, loud promoters of the whistleblower conspiracy theory. Occam's razor would lead us to discard it unless we have a good reason to consider that simply hacking the server and releasing the data isn't the simplest explanation. Considering the timing of the release prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference and the unprecedented media attack against climate scientists from the major media players as a result, it is highly unlikely that we are dealing with a whistleblower in the first place. All the evidence points to a professional, coordinated operation from the outside, not the inside as you would have us believe. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You twist and turn, but no evidence is forthcoming. I am, again, a sysadmin by profession, and my application of Occam's Razor says that an insider is the simplest explanation. My explanation simply requires an angry insider with root access to a backup server, and HARRY_READ_ME.txt proves beyond doubt that there was indeed such an angry insider. For a sysadmin or scientist with root access to pull this deed off, it would be trivial. But for a hacker to do this, a computer genius would be required. A year has passed, and security experts with the 'National Domestic Extremism Team' have found nothing.

Now we may agree to disagree, but I at least have some technical experience in this area. The bottom line is both of our theories are theoretically possible, however unlikely one or the other may actually be. Your decision in the text to go beyond the factual to an argument of your own based on your own application of Occam's Razor shows clearly you have all put original research into the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The only people pushing the whistleblower conspiracy theory are hardcore climate denialists, and they are doing it to justify their use of stolen data by criminals. If the climate denial movement were connected to this criminal activity, it would put them in a bad light, therefore, the usual suspects continue to try to reframe the data release and appeal to a lone whistleblower, which by all accounts does not exist. As Trevor Davies of the CRU said at the time of release, "experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost."[6] When one looks at the entire incident in context, one does not see the work of a whistleblower. Instead, one sees a coordinated, professional effort to undermine the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference and to attack climate scientists in the media, generating an incredible amount of noise which in turn, preempted all reasonable coverage of the climate conference. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that whistleblowing makes an action legal? The act clearly provides protection against discrimination by an employer provided certain conditions are met, but doesn't legalise otherwise illegal spreading of information. . . . dave souza, talk 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature

According to an article in Nature today, other research units have informed police investigators that their computers were also targeted by hackers during the same period.

"More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time." [7] 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature says it knows of evidence, but it doesn't say what it is? How does this help? If we could confidently assert there was a hack, which evidently the police still refuse to do, that would be a great start. I can't see how this changes anything about the appropriateness of Wikipedia making untested legal statements. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the investigation is ongoing and that the whistleblower/leak conpsiracy theory has been discredited. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza above, you are again soliciting my opinion on a legal matter. Why? Again, again, again, I AM NOT A LAWYER JUST AS NONE OF US ARE. Can you please admit that you really do understand this? If you understand it, THIS is what you need to address. Why YOU and others keep repeating their irrelevant opinions on legal matters? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

His question directly pertains to your comments and your reasoning. I think this discussion has run the necessary length and I move to close. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature is a reliable source (otherwise we may as well pack it in). Is there serious contention to the contrary? MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature is a reliable source, but "Nature understands that" is just reliably sourced rumour. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. So there shouldn't be a problem with an attributed statement: "An article in Nature suggested that evidence pointed to a hack rather than an internal CRU leak. For example, there were simultaneous, coordinated attacks against other climate-science institutions." Or whatever. The point is that speculation reported in Nature is different from speculation by an anonymous Wikipedian, in that it may warrant inclusion, albeit with appropriate caveats. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With appropriate caveats just possibly, but it's a pretty weak source. Do we really want to say "Nature reported rumours that..."? And the text contains nothing concrete about "simultaneous, coordinated attacks against other climate-science institutions". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

compromise

There appears to be wide agreement at RS/N that a change to the wording is required here. If we can change the wording to, 'According to X, the release of emails was illegal', or some variation, everyone should be happy. Support for the need for a changed wording includes Fifelfoo, Andrew Lancaster, Johnbod, Itsmejudith, Mastcell, Blueboar, and Fladrif, all of whom were previously uninvolved (I believe). Does anyone here still object to a compromise of the form proposed here? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How strange then, to find you making this edit, which does not reflect any such "compromise" by you in any way, but reverts back to your previous version from two weeks ago[8] replacing "illegal" with "unauthorized". Should I revert you or should I ask you to review the discussion you claimed to draw a compromise from in the frist place? It's quite clear to me that you are still POV pushing as well as misrepresenting the original RS discussion, its outcome, and your so-called "compromise", which was nothing of the sort. I would also like to remind you that as a single-purpose account devoted to this and only this issue (namely climate skepticism), unless you can actually show a good faith compromise with your edit, it will be difficult to assume good faith with you in the future. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant photo.

I don't see the relevance of the façade of the Hubert Lamb Building to the climategate scandal. The photo is actually a bit distracting and ought be removed per WP:REL.

Regarding the title, the medium used to record contoversial behavior is irrelevant. The Executive branch audiotape controversy (Watergate), had nothing to audiotape. Just as this page has nothing to do with email.

Also, a search for "Executive branch audiotape controversy" does not link to the watergate page. A redirect should be added so that spin-doctors and idealogues will be able find the information they are looking for. NOrbeck (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the photograph is relevant enough; it's the building that most of the emails were written inside, it is the Climate Research Unit itself. Don't see a problem myself. I don't have an opinion on the other points. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with NOrbeck that the image is out of place in the lead, and would best be represented by an image of one of the cover sheets from one of the final reports. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nature understands" that it was a hack, not a leak

I noticed that someone (Dave S.? added this). David Adam, Nature's reporter, comments on this at Bishop Hill, and both he & the Bishop expect the police to make some sort of announcement shortly. At which point we can delete the awkward "Nature understands" business.

I found it interesting that CRU is still worried about what else might turn up from the hack, though Jones "feels confident the worst is behind him". Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added it. I definitely look forward to getting some less vague reports in the near future. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented out text

I just found the following text commented out in the lead. I assume someone was trying to avoid the "citations removed" tag from appearing after their edit. If there is consensus that this is irrelevant, let's actually delete it; if not let's reinstate it (somewhere?).

“ Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA detected no evidence of deliberate malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones, though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices.

According to an in-house review by the university itself, the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

”

--Nigelj (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature's Climategate editorial

"Closing the Climategate", Nature (468) 345, 18 November 2010. Interesting reading, and some of it should should be of use here. Bits that caught my eye:

• "It would be naive for Jones and other scientists to assume that the fuss has passed into history. ..."

• On the name of the controversy: "... senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims of research skulduggery and corruption. That reaction alone helps to explain the sluggish response of the science establishment a year ago to the allegations made against their colleagues and their profession. ..."

This should have a certain, um, resonance here....

• "The UEA has taken some justified heavy fire for its handling of the crisis... "

Note: these are snippets, not specific proposals for adds. Maybe we should consider an "anniversary reactions" subsection??

Happy reading --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who noticed that they also changed referred to it as a "scandal"?

This week marks the first anniversary of the worldwide scandal over the release of e-mails stolen from a computer server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK.

Looks like it's time to rename the article to "Climategate scandal", as I originally proposed. There is no excuse not to at this point. Macai (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I appear to have posted this at exactly the same time as Pete. Weird. NW (Talk) 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Closing the Climategate [Editorial]". Nature. 468 (7322): 345. 2010. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..345.. doi:10.1038/468345a. I think this is the first major journal to post an editorial on the matter, and even if not, this is Nature, so it probably is worth adding. Also, based on that ref, it might be time to discuss renaming the page again. But that's another issue, I think. NW (Talk) 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

biased sentence in lede

I don't think the following sentence is neutral:

Allegations by climate change sceptics and other observers that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media.

Firstly, my own opinion is that, relative to magnitude of what happened, the media were extraordinarily slow & cautious to respond. So much for my opinion, but why does Wikipedia judge what is 'quick' and what isn't?

Secondly, I don't understand the 'theoretical' wording of the sentence, as if Wikipedians themselves would not dare to actually read the emails/documents. The documents are in the public domain and historical primary source documents so Wikipedia should simply state as a matter of fact what the emails reveal. Moreover, to the extent that even the CRU has admitted failings in the wake of Climategate, this should be presented up front, and not as a matter of controversy.

E.g. from CRU website, "In terms of handling FOIA requests, the University recognises that we should re-assess how we can support our academics, whose expertise in dealing with FOIA requests is limited, and our FOIA support team." So to the extent that even the university admits failings, this should be asserted as a matter of fact in the lede, then have a sentence following with the allegations which were refuted by investigations.

Any thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We should say how quickly the e-mails were publicized for specificity (within less than a day). I'm not sure there is a consensus as to what exactly the documents reveal. I think the level of consensus on this is that they reveal that scientists use e-mail -- and that's about it. The e-mails are independent of whether the CRU is asking for more help in handling legitimate or spurious FOIA requests. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A number of points, Alex. First, the e-mails are not 'in the public domain', they remain copyright to their owners. They may be 'available to the public' on certain websites, but that is a different thing. We are careful only to re-quote parts that have been quoted elsewhere. Secondly, that sentence, like the rest of the lead, summarises cited statements in the body of the article. I'm not going to re-read all the existing refs to find the ones that support that statement now as I have a present-day one already open that would suffice: The CRU e-mails "had been hacked into and leaked, and that scientists' personal emails were being quoted out of context to disingenuously imply impropriety on their part."[9] That the hack and the contents of some of the emails were in the main-stream media "quickly" is easy to verify, as SA mentions above. Regarding the 'controversy', people argued long and hard that the word had to appear in the title of the article, and be reflected throughout the text. Do you want it removed now? The University has made a change to its management of departmental FOIA requests, and the CRU were the subject of a sustained FOIA attack prior to the hack - over a hundred requests for the same information, coordinated by a blogger? - but I don't think there was much in the emails about FOIA, wasn't it mostly about 'hiding declines' and peer review? Anyway, the last five lines of the lead are devoted to FOIA, as covered by the third enquiry, but it's true that this sentence doesn't mention it - it can't be prominent in every sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

SA/Nigel, re "quickly". In the present age of the 24 hour news cycle, it would be extraordinary for any news outlet not to pick up a story of this size within minutes of information being publicly available. How exactly does the existence of media responses within a day prove that the media was "quick" to publicise the story? And on the proposal to change the wording to say "how quick" the media was, the question would then be relevance. Again, the media always responds to anything news worthy within a day. It would be better not to say anything suggesting that the media was quick to respond.

Re "what the emails reveal". Let's be clear, the emails without doubt revealed scientists discussing how to avoid complying with the UK FOIA law. There is no way around that; it's conceded in all reliable sources, and there should be no problem with us simply stating this as fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...whatever happend to "that is a legal judgement? Only the supreme court can really determine that"? Also, of course "all reliable sources" is simple hyperbole. Most reliable sources do not deal with the emails at all - see e.g. this list for examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What legal judgement? I didn't suggest we call anything illegal did I? And it is not illegal, as far as I know, to merely discuss avoiding compliance with the UK FOIA law; it is probably unethical, but it is only illegal to actually avoid compliance with UK FOIA law. The question of whether or not the CRU actually broke the UK FOIA law is, you are quite right, a matter for lawyers and the courts. What is a fact is that Phil Jones and (I think) others discussed avoiding compliance with UK FOIA law, and that is, indeed, what the scandal is all about (I doubt I need to tell you this). See, e.g. ref. It is fact that Phil Jones wrote the words, in an email with "Subject: IPCC & FOIA", "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise." There is no doubt that Phil Jones, at any rate, discussed how to avoid compliance with FOIA law. Wikipedia is not censored, so the article should just frankly state the fact that the controversy was largely about the scientists discussing how to avoid compliance with FOIA law and also about Phil Jones' instructions to delete emails. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And sorry for the hyperbole; you're quite right; I should have said "many reliable sources." Enough reliable sources that we shouldn't need to argue about it for weeks, at any rate. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a fact that the 'controversy was largely about the scientists discussing how to avoid compliance with FOIA law' - that's your interpretation, and IMO a wrong one. Much more attention was paid to the 'hide the decline' phrase and the people stoking the controversy were more interested in finding scientific malpractice than FOIA non-compliance.

For whether the media response was quick or not, compare with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where cartoons published in September didn't become a huge hoo-ha until the following January. A day or two is quick. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this scandal wasn't as interesting? Didn't have implications for all of humanity? This source here suggests that the media was very slow to react. Therefore, the assertion that it was "quick" to respond is OR. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For a daily newspaper, it's quick. For a weekly publication, it's extraordinarily quick. In the timescale of the year that has passed, it's the blink of an eye.

Agreed, the 'controversy' manufactured at the time was all about the science, because the political target was COP15: that wasn't going to be swayed on FOIA technicalities in some obscure UK University department, but on 'hidden declines' and 'peer review banditry'. All that fell through in the end for the attackers, but the University was told to, and decided to, put their legal people in charge of FOIA requests rather than scientists. This to prevent the DDOS attacks (and the scientists' home-made responses) from occurring again in the future. That's the bones of the story that is now the basis of this article. There's something to say about proposals for open-source approaches to scientific data and computer code, but that is muddied by data owners who won't have their data put out there, and long-standing conventions over scientific coding. --Nigelj (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may be true that 'hide the decline' was more exciting to climate change skeptics, but this article exists for mainstream consumption; it's not here for the purpose of refuting skeptics. Following the email release, there was condemnation from many quarters concerning CRU's efforts at evading FOIA law, including from Mike Hulme, Eduardo Zorita, Hans von Storch, Judith Curry, George Monbiot, and plenty of others. Indeed, even Mike Mann made a statement in the media condemning this much. For this article to be refuting skeptics ahead of conceding that some of the scandal was about actual wrongdoing shows a considerable bias. The article needs to say exactly what happened. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what happened is that the "release" of these materials was timed to deliberately poison the well on the subject of climate change and took away any and all media coverage COP15 would have received. Should the lead mention this? Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. And the discussion of the FOIA that was found in the e-mails, and was later crystallised into administrative changes in the University should be related to the blog-coordinated FOIA DDOS attack that was mounted against CRU earlier in the year. These are well documented in recent sources, like Nature's coverage this month. --Nigelj (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, obviously speculation that the email release was timed to derail COP15 is not relevant. Are you actually denying anything I said? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I suggest you take the time to read this article and review the sources, as it is relevant, and it is already in the article for a reason. Because it is important, it should also be covered in the lead, and it was until recently. At least one older version of the lead said:

The University of East Anglia and climate scientists have described these interpretations as incorrect and misleading, with the extracts being taken out of context in what has been described as a smear campaign. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri are among those who have suggested that the incident was intended to undermine the then imminent December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.

In the "Responses" section, sub-section "Climatologists", we have the following:

Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists."[4] He also said that climate change sceptics had selectively quoted words and phrases out of context, and that the timing suggested an attempt to undermine talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.

Furthermore, we have an important quote from the BBC in the footnotes illustrating the relevancy:

Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator has said the email row will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit in Copenhagen. [...] Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit – to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions. [...] "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News."

Now, what was that you were saying about this topic not being relevant, Alex? Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, suffice to say I agree with what was apparently a prior consensus that this COP15 business does not belong in the lede; none of this is relevant to this thread; and you have hijacked this thread to such a point that I'm not going to bother responding. It is clear that I need to raise this at NPOV/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"quickly publicised"

The following document proves that some had the opinion that much of the media was largely and unaccountably ignoring the Climategate scandal, Climategate Totally Ignored TV News Outlet Except Fox. It is, therefore, our opinion and our original research to assert that the media was "quick to publicise" anything.

One way forward would be to attribute the opinion "quickly publicised" to a reliable source. Another would be just not to say it. I'll leave the above thread for discussing the other problem I identified. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Newsbusters is more or less as reliable as Conservapedia, but thanks for sharing. I do love those illustrations of Jesus riding a dinosaur. If someone knows where I can get that on a t-shirt, drop me a line. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem. That piece is complaining that it hasn't had wide enough coverage quickly enough in the US. Of course it didn't happen in the US, so that's why Oprah Winfrey's scheduling decisions took priority there. But the whole point of the hack was to influence President Obama's actions at COP15, so that was why those in the know wanted something doing quickly in the US media. --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas/Nigel, OK, Fox News: "The private e-mails showed potentially unethical or illegal behavior and a possible conspiracy to distort science for political gain. That scary list includes plans to avoid freedom of information requests, efforts to delete data and discussions of ways to intimidate the peer review process of scientific publications. But the broadcast networks haven’t bothered with the story." It is sufficient to show that "quickly publicised" is opinion, and a matter of taste, and certainly not fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex, you really need to read the sources you cite. That particular source contradicts your argument in the fifth paragraph. Narrowly focusing on op/ed Dan Gainor's complaint that ABC, CBS and NBC are not engaging in anti-science bashing is almost laughable. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

V, I don't understand your point about contradiction. It is as simple as this: If I think the media was slow to respond, and hundreds of others think as I do, it follows that it is opinion that the media was quick to respond; it doesn't follow that I am wrong, and nor would it even matter if I was. It is not VERIFIABLE unless you provide a reliable source. Do I need to take this to NOR/N as well? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes it a question of WP:WEIGHT. If hundreds of conspiracy enthusiasts used to think something a year ago, and millions of others think another today, it's hard to see a reason to give the first much coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"What started as a drizzle of stories in The New York Times and Washington Post is growing into an Internet flood that is sweeping along traditional news outlets from CNN to NPR...But morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC have remained absolutely silent. Both ABC and CBS's Web sites have covered the issue -- standard practice when networks want to bury a story but pretend otherwise. The only mention of the scandal actually on those networks was on ABC’s Sunday morning talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”[10]

Your own source disagrees with you, Alex. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there is nothing in that quote which contradicts anything I have said. What you need, Viriditas, is a source which is not an op-ed that says, "The media quickly publicised allegations". The present sentence is far from neutral in its attempt to blame the media for creating the controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you are joking Mr. Harvey! It is your own source that you used to support the claim that "much of the media was largely and unaccountably ignoring the Climategate scandal." Using your own source against you, we now see that your claim has been refuted. You cannot continue to cherry pick what you like from a source and discard what you dislike. Intellectual honesty is required to edit Wikipedia. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, please stop playing 'Gotcha!' with quotes. Your quote, which is from a source you firstly claimed is not reliable, would establish nothing beyond the fact that the media responded. It says that the media responded with a "drizzle". To be sure, I can't say whether a "drizzle" is "quick" or otherwise, but I certainly don't associate the verb "to drizzle" with "quickness". Do you? Drizzle, n. A fine, gentle, misty rain.. Can you return to the point please so we don't have to waste the time of editors at NOR/N or NPOV/N. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's your source, and therefore, it's your quote. You claimed that "the media was largely and unaccountably ignoring the Climategate scandal", when in fact, the very source you used to make this claim says the complete opposite. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this isn't the time or the place, Alex, to mount a new campaign that "the climategate scandal and great undoing of the whole of climate science" didn't get enough publicity? All the enquiries have shown that it was a manufactured storm in a teacup and so got far too much publicity in its day, relative to its substance. It's time to move on and look at this article from the point of view of the present time, and to stop using Wikipedia to re-fight old battles. --Nigelj (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nigel/Viriditas, can you both see the thread title, "quickly publicised". Can I remind you both that this thread is about those two words. If you think I have an opinion about something that is wrong, please go to my talk page and tell me. If you think I am mounting some campaign, please also go to my talk page and tell me. If I overstated something, sorry, but can you please keep this thread focused on the issue we're discussing. I would like someone to show me the reliable source which says that the media "quickly publicised" something. This is a very basic point, and it should not be taking so many words to address it. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, the theft "was first discovered on 17 November 2009 after the server of the RealClimate website was hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded." Only the hackers and a few server guys at RealClimate knew about the emails on that Tuesday. "On 19 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia,[7] before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.[3]", so by Thursday, the emails became available to a very few of the hackers' inner circle who knew about the Russian server. On Friday, the next day, the news was published in the main stream media[11]. By the Monday it was global.[12] How quick do you want? That is just some of the timeline, copied from our article. The lead summarises the article. Interestingly, US Senator Imhof "declare[d] victory in speech on global warming", saying, "today, I have been vindicated",[13] on the Wednesday, while the hackers had the emails but were still fumbling as to what to do with them. He did not to mention the hack. --Nigelj (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In a spirit of compromise, instead of 'The media quickly publicised', we could say something like 'Within a few days the media had publicised', because we can show that from the dates of reports in the media. It's then up to the reader to judge whether that is quick (seemed quick to me at the time). Mikenorton (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "the next day", yes. --Nigelj (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above has convinced me that "Within a few days..." would be accurate and factual. Thanks Mikenorton for the suggestion. The next thing would be to present this whole sentence in a way that it is clear that some 'allegations' were more than allegations (i.e. CRU scientists discussing how to avoid FOIA law) and other allegations (e.g. the data manipulation) turned out to be allegations that haven't stood up. (Send me your angry replies in the thread above.) new thread below Alex Harvey (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(diff) How does "the next day" become "within a few days"? How does one person not explicitly disagreeing with Alex become a consensus for change? --Nigelj (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For heaven's sake Nigel... I read your own summary of the timeline. "First discovered 17th Nov." "Guardian article 20th Nov." If we say "within a day" that is misleading. The only thing true about "within a day" of The Air Vent post and others the Guardian responded; not 'the media generally'. "Within in a few days" also the phrase to be interpreted broadly and include the other news organisations that responded 21st, 22nd, 23rd Nov etc.If you want to say, "with in a day" then you'd have to explicitly name the specific Guardian. Now you're really splitting hairs. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FOIA not mentioned in lede

The fix to the wording to remove 'quickly' seems to have removed much of the appearance of bias, at least to me. I realise now that what is missing is mention of the Freedom of Information Act from the lede.

The hackers/leakers called the data file dump 'FOIA.zip' and wrote,

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

Thus, the scandal was always firstly and foremost about the FOIA, and it should not be allowed to disappear in the lede behind a euphemism of the UEA's 'culture of withholding information' which is further downplayed by scare quotes.

The Committee chair Phil Willis, in the same source that 'culture of withholding information' came from, apparently also described the scientists' refusals to comply with FOI requests as 'reprehensible'; thus this lede is not impartial with respect to the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See this response to last time you brought this up: the last five lines of the lede are solely devoted to FOIA, you can't have everything in the first sentence. Regarding what the hackers wrote, we are not here to give a platform to them, but to report on the controversy in reliable sources. And the controversy is over, there is no longer any justification for alleging doubt as to accusations of malpractice, every e-mailer was cleared of any malpractice, none of them were tried, convicted or even lost their jobs. The wording in the official reports is the most recent reliable information there is, so of course it gets prominence over the failed allegations. --Nigelj (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, way down at the very end of a long lede is not the right place to introduce what the scandal was primarily about. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

COP15 not mentioned in lede

Viriditas has made a valuable point here that our coverage of the relationship in the literature between this hack and the upcoming COP15 conference has been all but expunged from the article and especially the lede. I think that it is important that it is reinstated and covered properly. --Nigelj (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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: There is clearly no consensus for a move and I find the arguments for not moving stronger than any commonname arguments. There are many other "-gate" redirects and this is how "climategate" will stay. I also second the discretionary sanction suggested by User:NuclearWarfare and further discussion should be prohibited for 6 months as superfluous discussion in an area of conflict only leads to drama. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climategate — I'm opening this just so we can get the matter settled. After this move request, further discussion of the title of the article is forbidden for at least 6 months. NW (Talk) 17:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Eh? Under what authority do you assert that "further discussion of the title of the article is forbidden for at least 6 months."? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  Under what authority do you challenge it? It's the most sensible part of this section. --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  I can't answer for Tillman, but for me Wikipedia is governed by the three main principles Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view((SPV#Tutorial:_Summary_of_policies 2008-03-13) ). So iff there's new information about this issue by WP:RS-sources, it's appropriate to raise it again independent on any timeline suggested here. Nsaa (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  Discretionary sanctions, if you really want formal authorization—"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict...The sanctions imposed may include...any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." ArbCom has traditionally been fine with broadening that to page sanctions—blanket 1RR has been accepted as a valid sanction in the past. But I was hoping to do this on a manner consistent with one senior editor offering advice to others. 6 months is a decently long time, but as this topic is such a battleground, I hoped that it would be enough time so as to not have the same angry debate every month. NW (Talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Those sources which give it a name all call it "Climategate", although many sources don't give it a name nor think it's worthy of notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME, in part. Since many sources, including the most reliable ones, don't give it a name, it is up to Wikipedia to follow WP:NAME to give the least sensationalized name possible. Compare nipplegate. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You state "Since many sources, including the most relialbe ones, don't give it a name, it is up to Wikipedia to follow WP:NAME to give the least sensationalized name possible."[14]. Again I assume WP:AGF I polity ask for sources that support this claim No one has given a single source for this. The sources given above has shown that this controversy has been covered as Climategate in "the most reliable ones". Do you have reliable sources that has covered this controversy without naming it or telling that Climategate is the name for this? Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I discount the editorials you use to support your claim explicitly. Above, I cited an extremely recent article in Nature about this subject that explicitly does not use the term "Climategate" (the second comment in the above thread). My point is that the sources which use "Climategate" are essentially climate-denialist opinion-based sources or sources that are responding to the ravings of denialists. When cooler heads prevail, the incident isn't named anything succinctly because it is, as we have all agreed, a giant mishmash. jps (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, again WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments "I discount the editorials you use" and "My point is that the sources which use "Climategate" are essentially climate-denialist opinion-based sources or sources that are responding to the ravings of denialists.".Nature uses Climategate as shown for the third time on this discussion page in the latest month. Please read my latest post below [15]. Editorials says something about what the stance is in Nature. Editors manage the publishing of articles, and when they states and uses Climategate as the name it could not be better. But this is again a sidetrack as far as I see it. Our main responsibilities is to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (please read the old signpost(SPV#Tutorial:_Summary_of_policies 2008-03-13) stating this quit clearly.). Our current name breaks 1,2, and probably 3 by breaking 1 and 2. Nsaa (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't discount the editorials because "I don't like them". I discount them because they are editorials. As someone who reads Nature rather frequently, I can tell you that "Nature" doesn't exist as a monolithic personality to take a "stance" on anything and we certainly shouldn't take their use of a term in editorials as smoking gun evidence for naming. The applicable policy is not WP:V, WP:OR, nor WP:NPOV. It's WP:NAME, and I think there are stronger arguments for declaring that this proposed name is not enough in common usage to justify invoking the "common name, but pejorative e.g. Boston Massacre" clause. jps (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - most sources which use the term use it in quotes. It's not a "-gate scandal", it's not a scandal at all, so using the term without quotes is highly misleading. It is, to quote Mr Popo "the thing without a name". Since it doesn't really have a name, we should stick with a descriptive title. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "-gate scandal"...so using the term without quotes is highly misleading.

Here's the first 3 "highly misleading" non-WP Google hits in a search for "Watergate" (no quotes used)..."Watergate"and "Watergate" and "Watergate". Wikipedia is out-of-step with an overwhelming prevailing reference in the popular culture. Fix it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fix what? Are you saying that Watergate scandal should be moved to Watergate? If so, I think you are in the wrong place. If not, I have no idea what you're trying to say. In any case, the Watergate scandal is so named because it stemmed from a break-in at the Watergate complex...so "Watergate scandal" is actually a descriptive name, much like this one. And, incidentally, Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal. The point is that this was an entirely manufactured controversy, not a scandal (apart from the hacking, email theft, misrepresentation of the content of the email, false accusations of misdeeds, etc.) Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scandal? Maybe not, but it's a controversy named Climategate by "the most reliable ones". Please check out my post above and the references given [16]. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"The most reliable ones"? Seriously, I'm sick of your palpably false claims. One editorial in Nature. That's one source. Except, of course, that it was an opinion piece. In the main article, the term "climategate" was not used. And given that you replied to the post in which SA linked to that article, it would appear that you are aware of this fact. So...despite the fact that you know what you're saying is false, you still make the claim. As NW outlined above, it's possible to make reasonable arguments either way. Making palpably false claims is unhelpful, and strikes me as disruptive editing. So please stop. Guettarda (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, Yopienso above has showed that Nature has referred to it as Climategate four times, in articles entitled Closing the Climategate (18 November 2010), Lessons from Climategate (9 September 2010), Climategate closed (Nature Geoscience 3, 509 (2010), Editorial) and "Climategate" scientist speaks out (16 February 2010). Eventually, this article's title is going to be Climategate and sooner or later you're going to have to accept it. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to in any way demean your ability to predict the future Alex, but how does that make Nsaa's use of misrepresentation acceptable? Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please retract the last part of the comment. It's not acceptable. Way beyond acceptable. Nature uses Climategate as pointed out in the comment above again (Closing the Climategate (18 November 2010) doi:10.1038/468345a, Lessons from Climategate (9 September 2010) doi:10.1038/467157a, Climategate closed (Nature Geoscience 3, 509 (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo937 and 'Climategate' scientist speaks out doi:10.1038/news.2010.71). And if you still haven't seen the lists that was made for approx., you have not read the above discussions. Please see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Climategate_usage and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_Climategate (among them The IndependentClimategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics New scientist: Climategate scientist questioned in Parliament (2 March 2010 by Fred Pearce) and other liberal leaning media with whats look like a strong stance in support of the AGW pro camp etc.). Some recent sources (liberal and main ones yes: BBC Climategate: Sceptic sorry for UEA staff in scandal (15 November 2010), The Guardian Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming (8 July 2010), Climategate: No whitewash, but CRU scientists are far from squeaky clean (7 July 2010) etc.). Nsaa (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Originally the most common name was "climategate" (i.e., with quotes), but in recent months the quotes have been removed in many significant sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - per DesSmogBlog. I think there's a message there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - The obvious choice. What's sad is that Wikipedia is used by the lazy media people and not calling it Climategate here has caused some media to refer to it by the Wikipedia name. That can't be in the spirit of Wikipedia? If there is a rule for "no original research" the should be a ban for "making shit up to impress the world".91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Redirects here anyway. Just a delay and indirect deny tactic, more Obscurantism / Climate change denial by other means than the Merchants of Doubt. 99.155.152.87 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great that you have so many WP:RS sourcing supporting your claims about "Just a delay and indirect deny tactic, more Obscurantism / Climate change denial" (I've not seen one, not even the latest Nature article cited in discussions above. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I find the term personally offensive and an affront to scientists everywhere. However, the term is clearly in widespread (although not nearly universal) use in the popular media. It's also apparent that the use of the "-gate" suffix is much more easy-come, easy-go outside the USA from reading the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I would weak-support a rename of the article to "Climategate" so as to indicate that the use of the name is not universally accepted. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Looking back at the so-called controversy, we see a manufactured smear campaign promoted by bloggers and opinion writers with a political agenda to oppose climate science and climate scientists by any means necessary, including dragging their names, reputation and expertise through the mud before a single investigation was ever conducted. After report after report exonerated the people involved and showed that it was a lot of hot air intended to disrupt the climate conference and poison the well, except for a few sources, very few retractions were made, with the smearing continuing as it has always continued since the climate denial movement began in the 1980s. There is little difference here between the organized birthers screaming about a birth certificate and the bloggers screeching about FOIA, yet because Wikipedia attracts an unusual number of fringe views, we are told that we must cover this topic from the POV of these same people, rather than the NPOV we hold out like a candle in the darkness of deceit and ignorance, in the blackness of misinformation raining down on us from the mainstream media, tabloids, and opinion after uninformed opinion. We know now that there never was a "climategate"; rather there was a release of emails and documents, and subsequent investigations that upheld the science and the reputations of those involved. Changing this title is an attempt to deliberately ignore the facts and the outcome, and to continue to smear the innocent victims after these smears have been disproved. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

...we are told that we must cover this topic from the POV of these same people, rather than the NPOV we hold out like a candle in the darkness of deceit and ignorance, in the blackness of misinformation raining down on us from the mainstream media, tabloids, and opinion after uninformed opinion.

So much for basing "...arguments on article title policy...". Could there be a more succint demonstration of ambivalence to the guidance offered by WP:TRUTH? Your rhetoric should be posted there as an example of precisely how not to support a position in this project. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My position is based on the facts as I know them, and references to policies and guidelines can be found embedded in my prose. Your contribution history shows that since 2005, you've spent 46% of your time on talk pages,[17] an unusually high percentage, with less than 20% of your edits to articles. And when we look at the articles you've chosen to spend your time on,[18] it appears that you have spent the last five years on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing fringe views and a partisan political agenda. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Please find another website. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The name climategate is not value neutral, it carries an inuendo of deciet and malpractise. It would be a partisan move to rename the article at this stage and it would be seen as a vote for climate change deniers by Wikipedia, and as such used as a propoganda tool. Climategate redirects here and is mentiioned as an alternative name in the first sentence. There can be no confusion as to what the article is about. Leave it as it is. Lumos3 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per policy on avoiding "gate" names. Plus the scandal has turned out to centre on how the documents were released rather than the actions of climate scientists. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The coining of the term 'climategate' was a clear partisan attempt to link scientists' work in an English university to the American scandal that led to the downfall of president Nixon. As we say in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, "The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name [in this case 'climate' itself!] to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal ... the term may 'suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up'." We recognise the term with a redirect and a mention and brief explanation in the first line, but there is no need to legitimise it any further, especially considering that all investigations have found all the scientists innocent of any misconduct, and all their scientific work stands unchanged. --Nigelj (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This bit of partisan hackery ran its course long, long ago. Apart from the granddaddy, we shouldn't use blatantly POV names for articles, especially "-gate" gibberish. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per clear instruction of WP:POVTITLE. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, no need for a POV-laden title. Nsk92 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support for reasons discussed many times, as the common name for the event whatever its origins. As a process matter, though, I respect that this has never had consensus. Haven't we had this discussion a few times already? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Viriditas comment and reasoning above. Vsmith (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as before. It's what everyone else calls the affair. Our current name appears to be WP:OR. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever - I fully support NW's suggestion, "After this move request, further discussion of the title of the article is forbidden for at least 6 months." But, I'd prefer a 6-year ban on further title discussions. Whatever the title is is of little relevance, just nit-picky silliness...but it seems to me the Oppose side has the stronger argument.

--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question Does anyone know why it is that every time I click the 'edit' button on this section I get told You tried to edit a section that does not exist. Because there is no section 17, there is no place to save your edit. Sections may have been removed after you loaded the page; try to purge the page or bypass your browser cache. I am sure there is a good reason for it, and now that I've pointed out the problem, I trust that the 7 days response time will be extended accordingly, to accommodate all those editors who likely tried to say something but were unable to. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it works now is passed a query string of 'section=13'. My bad? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the complete answer, but I can give you a partial answer. When you click on an edit button next to a section, say "Media Reception" it doesn't literally execute the command to edit the Media Reception section. Instead, it executes a command to edit section number N, which almost always is the section number associated with the section you want. However, certain changes, such as deleting a section, can leave the section numbering off-kilter for a short time. When that happens, the edit number is connected to a nonexistent section, and you'll get the error. I don't know what action fixes it (maybe just trying again in such a way that it doesn't try to reuse what it has in cache, but it is usually OK in short order.--SPhilbrickT 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that you were looking at a cached version of this page when you tried to edit. Clicking on the "edit" link went to a URL that didn't exist. I'm pretty sure this is what happened because your previous post to this page was done before a bot archive which changes the section numbering. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Incidentally, this problem can, occasionally, result unintentional reverts. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. "Climategate" is pejorative, POV and judgmental. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, it is what it is known by in the press. Since no other source is using the current title to refer to this, the current name is nothing but OR and bias pushing. Q Science (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, avoid -gate suffix in names. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Voting twice? Loss of 15 yards, unsportsmanlike conduct. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote, and we don't "count" them. This is based on strength of arguments, not numbers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

True, it's not a vote, but I've struck the bolded part as a duplicate nevertheless, for greater clarity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A mistake, sorry. Just didn't remember that I had already voted. Struck out completely. Thanks FuturePerfect for headsup. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, many opposes above have not shown a single WP:RS-source covering their analysis of the Climategate-name. They're just telling us their ::WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ORIGINAL analysis. I don't say that it's wrong. I just see no reliable sources covering it like it's told. It has been established beyond any doubt that the name of this controversy is Climategate. Just let us again quote "one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals" Nature that says "most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate."[19][20] (my bolding). Nsaa (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling this out, Nsaa. I think we need to go to a formal renaming process (where?) with a neutral admin as arbitrator, as there are too many doctrinaire naysayers here to ever resolve the issue -- even though it's crystal-clear in the Real World. If Nature agrees.... well, a stronger bastion of pro-AGW alarmism in the scientific community would be hard to imagine. And the current, absurdly OR name continues to make WP a laughingstock. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please try to restrict your comments to the proposed move rather than giving your views on other editors and their votes. This is a formal move request, forum shopping is not a better approach. --Nigelj (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• You do realise that the statement you bolded is (a) an expression of opinion, not of fact, (b) was made in an opinion piece, not an actual news or research communication, and (c) was a prediction about the future made by someone who is not accredited with the Psychic's Guild? More to the point, "will be known as" is not the same as "will generally be known as"...it's probably reasonable to predict that a certain segment with a vested interest in presenting this as a scandal will continue to use that term. Just like some people will continue to use the term "nipplegate", despite the fact that almost everyone else has forgotten about the incident, let alone that it was sensationalised into some sort of a great scandal. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• And, by the way, remember that MBH 1998 was also published in Nature, and unlike this opinion piece, that was actually peer reviewed. So if Nature is to be taken as infallible here, then surely would take it as infallible there? Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The editorial says something about what Nature has as an editorial stance (i.e. a fact in that regard). So we can say that Nature says that ... (my bolding above). See our article Editorial that states "be supposed to reflect the opinion of the periodical.". Maybe this statement needs a {{cn}}? Nsaa (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. If even Watergate is a redirect, there's no reason to move this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  Please? Watergate is redirected to Watergate scandal. If it's fine for most people using Climategate scandal (or Climategate controversy) we could do the same. This is hardly the discussion here is it? Nsaa (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  Climategate controversy is better than Climategate, but Climategate scandal would be terrible given the outcome of the reviews. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. A lot of the RSs still use scare quotes round the word 'climategate', also frequently using some formulation such as 'the affair, dubbed "climategate"...' to alert the reader to the fact that they don't want to use the term as a straight, descriptive, objective way to refer to these events. They're right, it isn't, and we shouldn't use it either. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This "scare quotes" argument doesn't pass the smell test. Contemporary media/cultural constructs are commonly noted within quotes...as is "Watergate" to this day. As pointed out to Guetterda above, here's the the first 3 Google hits in a search for "Watergate" (no quotes used)...all three enclosing "Watergate"and "Watergate" and "Watergate" in "scare quotes". JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your nose is malfunctioning. Those quotes are (1) ' "watergate" is shorthand for this tumultuous time...' Here, the quotes are used to show that the sentence is about the word "watergate", not the events now called watergate. (2) ' "Watergate" is a general term used to describe a complex ...' again, talking about the term. (3) exactly the same phrase as (2), from a different page of the same website. Your whole argument is based on a mistaken understanding of how those punctuation marks work in the pages at those three links. They aren't scare quotes, they're sense-and-reference quotes. Please review Sense and reference.

You don't even bother to address my point about the 'dubbed "X" ' construct. My vote is unchanged. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:POVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Not that it matters, since users seem to have this major objection to calling it Climategate even though there are loads of articles with the -gate suffix. 74.79.102.111 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • — 74.79.102.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment What about 'Cablegate'? I see we called it United States diplomatic cables leak. It must be some kind of policy or guideline or something here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've always felt this is pejorative misnomer. I understand and appreciate the WP:POVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME arguments, but I still don't think that has been shown that a majority of RS use "Climategate" in an unqualified manner (i.e. with scare quotes, or subsequent explanation of the term). NickCT (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't often get involved in climate related articles, but I feel it would be a retrograde step to rename this article. Luckily my timing seems perfect as I agree with NickCT above. Climategate is a misnomer, changing the name to Climate gate would perpetuate this misnomer, and it's use in reliable sources is not universal and when it is used it is often qualified or explained as a misnomer. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Climategate is clearly the preferred name within the news media. Since the use of quote marks seems to be an issue, perhaps something like this -- "Climategate" controversy -- might be a more palatable title than just calling it Climategate. J. Langton (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2010 (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.

Small insertion

What is the point of this addition? It is not very good grammar, does not follow from what was there, and is out of temporal sequence. The section roughly proceeds from the early responses to later ones, and this ends the section by taking us right back to Dec 09, with relatively meaningless stabs that do not relate to the previous statements. It's time to update long sections like this by reducing our repetition of uninformed comments from the first few weeks and replacing them with more considered and scholarly recent summaries. This is a step in the opposite direction. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred Pearce is a respected journalist from one of the UK's most respected newspapers and he did a big investigation into the Climategate affair. If you're asking why a paragraph or even a whole section is not devoted to his Climategate investigation then I'd say you have a good point. It shouldn't be tacked onto the end of this paragraph. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article: Climategate

See section Requested move below. NW (Talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think a number of editors have noted that with even Nature calling the incident 'Climategate' in its editorial, it's probably time to reconsider the name of this article. Wikipedia's title, "Climate Research Unit email controversy," is confusing and vague, because the controversy is about more than the CRU, and it's about more than emails. We evidently made up this name "Climate Research Unit email controversy", and we have refused to use the name that nearly everyone else is using. Further, googling suggests that very few have copied us. I don't believe our title is representative of reliable sources and we seem to be clearly taking sides with the few scientists involved who don't like the name "Climategate". That's not consistent with NPOV. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Nature didn't call it climategate here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, but Nature did call it Climategate in quotes here and without quotes here and here and here. The only reason for our absurd article title is the bias of the editors who control it. But don't fight it, Alex--there's a redirect for people who logically enough search for a Wikipedia article on Climategate. The title serves to clearly mark the bias, so it's well to leave it alone. --Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC) That comment seems to be made in extreme bad faith, and bad taste. People have been topic banned for less. I suggest a review of WP:TPG, especially WP:TPNO, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions. Please feel free to remove it, along with this response. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Maybe you should read some of the comments given further down? WP:TPNO states "such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist.". Read then this comment: "idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE" … ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)". Hopefully you will react here? I agree with you that we should try not to name calling anybody. It just distort the environment. Is it bad faith to counter a not true statement with four sources? And the current title is biased compared to our policies as I've noted below. Nsaa (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Personally I'm against "Climategate" as it's pretty obviously a pejorative misnomer used to mislead people; however, I'm more than ready to agree that consensus can change. Perhaps if this topic hasn't been RfCed recently, you should simply RfC the issue. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)One of the main people in the case is Michael E. Mann at the Pennsylvania State University with for example this much quoted email: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[21]. The Climategate area covers much more than CRU and emails "Altogether there were five inquiries or investigations, conducted by, respectively, The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Oxburgh panel, the Independent Climate Change Emails Review under Sir Muir Russell, Penn State University and the InterAcademy Council. The first three were established in the UK and focused on scientists at the CRU. The fourth was focused on Michael Mann of Penn State University, a major correspondent in the Climategate archive. The fifth was commissioned by the IPCC itself as a review of its policies and procedures." [22]. This tells us that it has been official inquiries into Penn state and Michael Mann, and inquiries done by UN into it's methods and work related to the Climategate incident. Emails is not correct either, even if we just takes a look at the article today. and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. … When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents[23]. And Washington Post at 21 November 2009: University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents [24]. The current article name fails on every part except controversy (many sources has used Climategate controversy, so this could be a middle way that covers the article area and is used in secondary sources (WP:V). Now even Nature directly talks about the Climategate name (not use it as some has claimed earlier by lazy journalist), where they state that: "most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate." and "Take the name Climategate itself. The 'gate' suffix, now routinely applied to the most mundane controversies, is as trite as it is predictable. At the height of the controversy, senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims of research skulduggery and corruption. That reaction alone helps to explain the sluggish response of the science establishment a year ago to the allegations made against their colleagues and their profession. One lesson that must be taken from Climategate is that scientists do not get to define the terms by which others see them and their place in society. This journal has already warned that climate scientists have to accept that they are in a street fight. They should expect a few low blows. The key is to learn which punches to roll with and which to block and counter."[25]([26]). It's time to move it to Climategate now. Nsaa (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC) That rationale essentially relies on opinion pieces to drive the name of the article. I don't think that's good practice. As to the claims that the "area covers much more than CRU and emails": I don't see any evidence for this. Just because investigations are far-afield doesn't mean they aren't related to the e-mails. The claims that the 3000 "other documents" are somehow of interest seems silly to me. Most of the "other documents" were apparently e-mail attachments and subversion controls and very few received any attention or "controversy" at all. This rationale strikes me as strident and seems to come from a fairly antagonistic perspective toward the people "implicated" in the "scandal". The term nipplegate is similar, IMHO. Nipplegate is the term commonly referred to in certain circles, but those circles are too parochial to influence Wikipedia. We should rise above the idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE" and we even should rise above the reactionary responses of science journalists and bloggers to their bluster. This is an article about a controversy surrounding the unauthorized release of data related to e-mails and programming files from CRU. The current title seems to summarize that point. "Climategate" seems to sensationalize it needlessly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Opinion pieces? Ok, so a lot of WP:RS sources that's not opinion pieces uses another description on this subject? No I don't think so … (or have I missed something?). I partly agree that most of the WP:RS sources has dealt with the e-mails. But for example the IPCC review cover other parts like how the process in IPCC works (doesn't is better to say). It has hardly to do directly with the emails. You do what's looks like an stupid comparison with Nipplegate. You claim it's similar. Can you provide one source saying that? Or give an overview like this [27][28] with all main sources covering it? Please? You claim that we should "above the idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE"". Great! I didn't know that Nature was "web-based climate denialists". Thanks for the clarification (Yes Nature uses Climategate). Can you please read the current article again. Ex it says "A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, […] but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.[41] The Investigatory Committee reported on June 4, 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, "[29], so your claim that it "related to e-mails and programming files from CRU." is not correct. Or do MM work for CRU? Maybe I've missed something. Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Your post is almost not worth commenting on as it's a whole lot of bluster with little in the way of argument. I will say this: Nipplegate and climategate are similar in that those who think they represent legitimate controversies are political hacks who are generally of the conservative persuasion. Both are essentially manufactured controversies. (Compare Heartland Institute and American Family Association.) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC) [outdent] Nice post, Nsaa. I agree with your reasoning, and support the name change. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Lying low for awhile, then springing up with this same old song and dance one you think the coast is clear is not gong to happen. If anything, the media hysteria over this incident has subsided to a low background noise these days, so the "-gate" idiocy is even less relevant today. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC) With the debunking of much of the alleged conspiracy and media sensationalizing having died down, a name change seems even less appropriate now than when proposed a month or two ago. BigK HeX (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC) "Climategate" is an inherently POV term, as the appellation of the "-gate" suffix implies that something scandalous occurred. Given that the allegations of a vast climate conspiracy have proven more unfounded with each subsequent inquiry, it seems unwise to use such a loaded term. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I don't know if the nipplegate comparison is the best comparison. While I could guess what that was, I've never heard that term before. I suspect the term people associate most with the event is 'waldrobe malfunction' although that's obviously not a suitable name for the event. In this of this article, I rarely see the controversy referred to by anything else (sometimes in quotes sometimes not) and I've semi supported a move before however I've also seen it claimed -gate implies some sort of legitimate scandal in the US (in NZ the term so overused it doesn't really, for example corngate) so I'm sympathetic to concerns about such naming it such. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC) A simple comparison with the original, Watergate, is enough: Five burglars were arrested, facing impeachment a US president resigned, and a government was toppled. At CRU, no-one was arrested, no trials, no convictions, no-one even lost their job, no government was overthrown. There is no comparison, except in the dreams of a few political extremists, who failed to achieve anything much, except to add a little confusion to COP15. COP16 is coming up soon, so even that now makes little difference in their world. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I've not made the connection to Wategate. Why? It's not our responsibility making original research like this. We should follow our core policies wp:Neutral point of view, wp:No original research and wp:Verifiability (if you're unsure about that, read this signpost Signpost/2008-03-13 Tutorial:_Summary_of_policies). That the current article title (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) fails on every one of these policies. That some people has managed to block the move is a wiki scandal, and it will probably blow in our face (this is my original research). It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that this incident has been named Climategate by nearly every WP:RS source commenting on it. Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC) You've not made a connection to Watergate? Where did you think the -gate came from in 'climategate'? Did you think a gap in a fence had something to do with it? You make a connection to Watergate every time you say it. The policy you're looking for is WP:POVTITLE. There's a link there to WP:RNEUTRAL, which uses this very article, and the climategate redirect, as an example of good practice. --Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah Please read WP:POVTITLE: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). " (My bolding). This has been established beyond any doubt, so I rest my case. Even through Wikipedia has had it's own homemade name for this incident It has not even been picked up and used by more than a couple of blogs like this Climatic Research Unit email controversy « I Hate Al Gore (probably somewhat critical of the current title) … Nsaa (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC) WP:POVTITLE does not provide enough help to definitively settle this. It states that resolving whether an article title is neutral depends on deciding whether to use a common title (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors). When a topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should use that name as our article title, even if that common name includes non-neutral words [or phrases] that Wikipedia normally avoids (examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). That section goes on to say that it is also acceptable to create articles with a descriptive title. In that case, it is best to choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject (lifted from that page with a few modifications). It is my opinion that "Climategate" easily is the best for the former criteria and "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" fits the latter criteria better. I don't really have an issue with either title, but I question whether it is beneficial to spend so much time discussing this, as it only seems to be leading to bad feelings. NW (Talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC) NW, I don't think that's an accurate representation of what POVTITLE says. After your quoted sentence, it continues: In such cases [i.e. where a single common name exists], the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL. It is implied that we are only meant to create descriptive titles when common names don't exist. That's not the case here. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC) And then did you follow the link to WP:RNEUTRAL? It gives two examples of good practice with regard to neutrality, and this is one of them. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Common" is a relative term. I'd argue that no name for this obscure and boring saga is common because it's not of any historical relevance yet and it is unclear whether our recent focus on it and the sources that use the colloquial term for the event are going to have any lasting impact on the ultimate narrative. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC) (e/c)Nothing at RNEUTRAL is relevant to the discussion because our subject has a single common name, viz. Climategate. POVTITLE asks us: Does the article have a single common name as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources? Nsaa and others have demonstrated beyond any doubt that it does. RNEUTRAL would become relevant if our subject did not have a single common name. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC) SA, it is wishful thinking that Climategate is going to be forgotten. Climategate will be remembered for as long as there are climate change skeptics to keep reminding people about it. But if you want to believe that somehow this scandal is going to be forgotten I can't stop you. But I can bet with you that we'll be having the same discussion about this article title every three months or so until it is changed. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I think you proved my point with "as long as there are climate change skeptics to keep reminding people about it". I agree with you about interminable discussion being likely, but that's par for the course on Wikipedia and not a basis for changing the name. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Everyone calls it climategate even a journalist trying to defend prof Jones calls it climategate: "That was the conclusion of the official investigation into “Climategate” which completely exonerated him and his Climatic Research Unit at UEA from the accusation that data had been deliberately suppressed to support their findings."[30] Given that everyone uses this name to refer to these events, it is nothing short of scandalous that a few people to try and pretend that climategate is not the term for these events.Isonomia (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If not by the front door, then by the back?

This isn't going to fly. Respect the quite firm "-gate" opposition in the requested move above and don't try to get it in by other means, please. This was an entirely not-good faith edit. Tarc (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

* --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal – adding Naming of the controversy section

There has been a lot of discussion about the naming of this controversy and as far as I see we need probably a section that describe what reliable sources has said about this matter. Hopefully more people can add and adjust the proposed text so we can get something the community accept.

What the media has dubbed the controversy

In an editorial one year after the public release of the documents, on of the most prestigious scientific journals Nature states that “the affair will be forever known as Climategate” stating that senior climate scientists cannot manage the naming of this controversy.

Analysis by FactCheck stated that sceptics who allege that the documents show fabrication of evidence of man-made global warming "are portraying the affair as a major scandal: 'Climategate'."

Writing in Time, Bryan Walsh reported that the controversy was dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of global warming, with "obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up", while advocates of action on climate change dubbed it "Swifthack" in reference to the 2004 "Swiftboating" campaign against US Presidential candidate John Kerry, characterising it as "an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change." Los Angeles Times entertainment and pop culture writer Patrick Goldstein attributes the origin of the term "Climategate" to the Wall Street Journal. Daily Telegraph commentator Christopher Booker attributes the origin of the term to his colleague, James Delingpole. Delingpole, on the other hand, said that "The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on Watts Up With That site (Anthony Watts' blog)". The comment was "Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?"

[…]

References

Is this ok to add? What needs to be changed to be acceptable? Nsaa (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you think? Look at the authors of the references - Dellingpole, Watts, Booker... Then there's the fact that it's nonsense: As a whois request shows, climategate.com was registered on 05 Jan 2008. Someone's been planning this for a long time before the e-mails became public. When we have scholarly reviews of the actual facts (maybe after the police track down the perpetrators, they have been tried, and there has been some time to review the transcripts), we will have something to write about. These do not count as encyclopedic sources for factual matters. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets remove everything except the Nature-based section then. Ok? For most people it may be very interesting to know where the concept was created as described by WP:RS sources (yeah you hate them, but they're still WP:RS). Your assertion about that we need "scholarly reviews of the actual facts" to write about this as I've done above. Then we need to remove some 99.999 % of whats written in Wikipedia. Nsaa (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting your whois request about climategate.com and "Creation Date: 05-jan-2008". Do we have any WP:RS sources covering this and where it can directly be linked to this controversy? Many people have requested domain names long before they get know. For example, maybe they know about the Wikipedia Hanno graph[31][32][33] or this pulled report [34] and other stuff some taught could be a climategate scandal. This is off course just speculation by you and me so we can't say anything without WP:RS sources. The sources given above is all WP:RS and it's not up to us deciding if it's true or not. We should tell what's known per wp:rs-sources. If you read it you see that even these sources tells different stories about the origin. Both can be true or false. Its not up to us to decide. We should tell what different sources say about it. what I see is that it exist different meanings about the origin of the concept, and we should attribute who says what (we do: "Los Angeles Times entertainment and pop culture writer Patrick Goldstein attributes the origin of the term "Climategate" to the Wall Street Journal", "Christopher Booker attributes the origin of the term to his colleague, James Delingpole." and "Delingpole, on the other hand, said that "The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on Watts Up With That site (Anthony Watts' blog)".". The last one is indirectly backed up by our reference to the blog where it stands (this is the most questionable reference as far as I see, but since it's just support another WP:RS source and what it says it should be ok. It would be great to incorporate the registering of climategate.com! Do we have sources for this that do a connection directly to this controversy (as I've tried to explain, this could just be prior speculation from the registrar that something in the future will explode)? Nsaa (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The prior domain registry has to be assumed a coincidence absent strong evidence to the contrary. People constantly register dot-com domains they think might be useful for any reason at all; adding "gate" to any word might suggest scandal but also suggests a gateway to information on that topic. Other long-registered domains waiting for their moment in the sun include cloudgate, stormgate, hatgate, ballgate, foodgate, econgate, and oilgate.com. Means nothing. --Blogjack (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's looking for other sources, the Economist calls it climategate, the New Yorker calls it climategate, the Atlantic calls it climategate, and the Economist calls it climategate again. Note that none of those sources use quotes around the term. It's just what the event is called outside of Wikipedia. Chadhoward (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So, let's call the dang article Climategate already!!! BFD!!!--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be covered by FAQ #1, above. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Global warming

I couldn't be arsed to type global warming, and looked in vane for a link in the first paragraph. Then I discovered I couldn't even edit the article to add the link.

Just to ensure you take the normal knee jerk action, I'll tell you upfront I'm a sceptic ... which means that someone will immediately jump in and say: "this proposal isn't worth discussing - we should close this discussion now". Isonomia (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Looked in weather vane? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've linked to the global warming article from the first mention in the lead. Seems like a good idea. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Squiddy! (but I still think it will get reverted just because I'm a sceptic!). Isonomia (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I expect so.... Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As a sceptic myself, I see no reason for it to be reverted. Jolly good show, . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hacking

I've removed the superfluous phrase "[a]ccording to the Government of the United Kingdom" from the description of the incident in the lede. No reliable source having produced evidence to suppose that this was anything other than an illegal hacking, we don't need to insert implicit caveats at this stage. --TS 20:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this edit summary, what reliable sources 'state that it may have been an "inside job"'? I can't recall anything more than uninformed speculation. Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If anybody is adding (or restoring) statements in the lede of this article on that basis, we need to see, and see cited, these sources in the body of the text. I remember it as an unheard-of 'computer expert' in a computer magazine saying something like, "Oh, it's almost always an inside job in cases like this", on the basis of zero information and zero evidence a few days after the hack. Whatever these new sources are, they need to be better than that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

+1. I also remember this random opinion as our best source for the inside job theory. Surely this doesn't even come close to outweighing a government report. Hans Adler 00:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to remove the caveat. The relevant authority here is the Norfolk Police, and unless and until they make a firm statement that it was a hacking (e.g., by charging somebody) anything is else is pretty much speculation. Of course speculation by the UK government is likely to be better informed that most other potential sources, and that is why we quite properly include their opinion, while we don't include the opinions of random computer experts. But it is still just their opinion, and it is perfectly proper to label it as such. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be only two plausible options in regard reliable sources on this matter; either Wired is among the reliable sources, or there are no reliable sources other than law enforcement, and they aren't talking. The latter seems to have consensus. HMG has a notable opinion, but not much more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well a "notable opinion" goes towards weight. Actually the police have said it's a server breach, so that's two "notable opinions" of considerable weight and nothing to the contrary. Can we call it a fact now, since there's absolutely no reason to doubt the facts of the case? if the word "hack" is a problem change it to "server breach". It's the same thing. If any reliable source says it might have been an inside job, a psychic attack by Lemurians allied with Betelgeuse, or whatever, then we can add that. But if there are no reliable sources blurring opinion, all reliable sources are agreed, so we report what they agree on. That's what the neutral point of view means. --TS 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

By the arguments made last time this was discussed, HMG is not a "reliable source" for this purpose, only notable. Wired is generally considered notable, also, although not as notable. Furthermore the police didn't say it was a "server breach", they said they were considering it as a server breach. Not the same thing.

And we're not supposed to consider whether there is "reason to doubt" it was a hack. We're supposed to consider only what reliable sources say about it. I don't consider redefining "reliable sources" (for a second time) to include other sources previously rejected as being unreliable for that statement, in order to support the "hacking" verbiage, as being constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." On what basis do you think that the government of the UK are either incompetent, undermanned, or cavalier in their publication process? That sounds like an extraordinary claim. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, you seem to be implying that you have a Wired source claiming that it was an inside job. It does not appear to be cited in the article. Can you please proved a pointer.

Moreover, the idea that an insider with legal access to the data, in an extreme breach of confidence followed by actual illegal hacking, publishes it by hacking the Realclimate blog, seems quiet far-fetched to me. Occam's razor clearly supports the theory that the majority of the mainstream reports got it right. Hans Adler 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

At one point speculation was rife on the net and on here that it was a "whistleblower". But if it was, they would have come forward by now. BTW, it could be a hack and still involve someone on the inside. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't follow at all that they would have come forward by now. In fact the other way round - if it had been a hack, evidence of the hacking trail would have been found and produced by now. Poujeaux (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point there is nobody contradicting the police, which you seem to acknowledge as a reliable source, in their clear statement that a server was in fact breached. There is not even any reason to doubt it. This continual failure to report the facts from reliable sources was a ridiculous situation a year ago, and it's becoming more ridiculous by the day. And honestly I've no idea where you got this weaseling about "considering as" from. Certainly no police statement I have seen contains such wording. --TS 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but I have been looking for the clear statement from the Norfolk Police that a server was in fact breached; I have found several things that almost say that, but nothing that quite does. No doubt I have just missed it, but could you point me to it? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's right there in our Reference 7 (the Daily mail, that well-known anti-AGW rag): "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).’"[35] Not an alleged, or a suspected, or a possible, data breach, an actual one. --Nigelj (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The last time I checked the references, the Norfolk Constabulary were investigating it as a data breach, which is not the same thing as their saying it was a data breach. A subtle difference, which I would expect law enforcement (if not the press) to keep clear. I guess I'll withdraw the comment; we (Wikipedia) need to say it was a data breach, whether or not we believe it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That article uses the term "data breach", not "server breach" and certainly not "hack". See also below. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we now present this as an established fact in the article, using the term "data breach"? --TS 00:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the term "data breach", but would oppose the use of "server breach" or "hack" without better sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers. . ."We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated. --BBC
• Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online. . .The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit Guardian
• Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server. . . NY Times
• Police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach. . . UPI

The first three sources seem to depend on the University's statements. The university's opinion (that this was a hack) is certainly notable and should be reported as long as it is made clear that this is their opinion. The last source is more interesting; it's the best source I have seen so far for a police statement that it was a server breach, rather than merely being investigated as one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct. There is still no evidence for a hack. Obviously the University would like it to be a hack - less embarrassing for them. I removed one 'hacked' (that was superflous anyway) but tony reverted with some remark about weasels(?) Poujeaux (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Correct. There is still no evidence for a hack"? Um...three of the four sources JAJ cited use the word "hack". Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I supplied those sources. Sorry I forgot to sign. JAJ is correct that the first three depend on a University spokesman. That, however, is good enough for me until the police or a court says otherwise. The rule is to tell what the media says, not what the truth may be. The truth is not presently known and may never be. Meanwhile, we have to stick to the RSs. We must remember, however, that the RS cannot at this time report fact but only allegations. I don't see a reason for this huge fuss over using the word "hack." To me it's perfectly admissible, and if a dastardly traitor from within is ever discovered this article will immediately be edited to reflect the newly available information. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So according to you, the aim of wikipedia is to report what the newspapers say, regardless of whether it's true or not or whether there is any evidence for it. That explains a lot about the state of this article.Poujeaux (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While that is putting it somewhat pointed, that is more or less core policy. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:TRUTH. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the policies have been distorted on this article, but it's true we report what reliable sources say, regardless of whether it's true or not, or whether there is any evidence for it. For this fact, alone, reliable sources have been redefined to mean "reliable sources with knowledge", namely the police. (UEA might have knowledge, but any statement that it was a hack would be self-serving, hence not allowable to support a statement of fact.) There have been reliable sources, as previously defined, which say that it was almost certain an insider leaked the information, although its placement on RealClimate was definitely a hack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yopienso's argument, however, is completely bogus in regard Wikipedia policies. UEA is not a reliable source in regard whether it was a leak. Their opinion, and reports of their opinion, are not reliable sources for the statement that it was a hack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the Wired article, it stated it was an inside job. It was not considered reliable, as the writer (probably) did not have inside information or sources, and has since been removed as a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. Nature Wikispan (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting. Nature is generably reliable (if that's not editorial or commentary), but "Nature" understands" is a bit hedging, don't you think? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  And it's based on an interview with ... Phil Jones! And this evidence has still not 'emerged'. If they had any valid evidence, they would produce it, to convince the doubters. Poujeaux (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If NASA had any valid evidence of the moon landing, they would produce it, too! Instead, if you doubt the official story in public, a highly trained ex-military will sock you one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Poujeaux, who are you trying to convince? Has any WP:RS made either of those points? I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and work together with your colleagues here while we survey potential sources, as part of maintaining and improving the article, instead of trying to wind people up. --Nigelj (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Arthur Rubin. My argument is not bogus, but as Stephan Schultz said, core policy. The UEA is not the source, the media is. The media is the secondary source quoting the UEA, which is the primary source. What you could validly object to would be sourcing from the University's website or from a press release of theirs. The main problem here is that some editors have a strong opinion they wish to see upheld. Just sticking with the RSs is so simple. They overwhelmingly say it was an outsider hack.

I'm not contending, but asking in good faith which Wired article is being referred to. I went looking and found only this: An online debate over global warming science has broken out after an unknown hacker broke into the e-mail server at a prominent, British climate-research center, stole more than a thousand e-mails about global warming research and posted them online. Yopienso (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the argument is bogus. If UEA says it's a hack, and newspapers report that, then all we can say is that UEA says it's a hack, not that it is a hack. The statement that UEA says it's a hack doesn't support a claim that it was a hack.

I've lost track of the reference. There was a article in Wired quoting a computer security expert saying that it was almost certainly a leak. The expert didn't have access to any of the "evidence", but he is a expert. Consensus was that the source was not "reliable" for the purpose of supporting that statement, and I've lost track of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The university says it was a hack, the several official enquiries say it was a hack, the police say it was a hack, the UK government say it was a hack, the newspapers report on the balance of all this evidence, and no one is being investigated as an 'insider' who made a serious breach of their employment terms. The only way it could not be a hack would be if the release was authorised by the senior management of the university, in cahoots with the police, parliament, and with two different UK governments, who have all agreed to lie to cover their conspiracy to expose the CRU staff's emails to the public. That is so mad that it is not worth discussing, even if somebody who is an expert thinks it might be true. --Nigelj (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still nonsense. The official enquiries (and, apparently, until recently, the police) assumed it was a hack, the university's statement that it was a hack is clearly self-serving, and the modification of WP:RS to exclude the Wired article makes the newspapers (and possibly HMG) irrelevant. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in verifiability.

That no one is being investigated as an 'insider' could mean that (1) UEA and/or law enforcement don't think there is one; that (2A) UEA is not interested in prosecuting, because they (their management) believes it would damage the university's reputation, and (2B) the government isn't interested in investigating because of lack of support from UEA, the question of whether the unauthorized release was justified under the FOIA is too close to call, or other concerns make prosecution inappropriate.
You also seem to be defining any unauthorized release, even if no computer security was circumvented, as a "hack" (or even a "data breach").
That being said, if the police now say it was a hack, then by the redefinition of WP:RS, we can say it was a hack, in the absence of any (redefined) reliable source to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If a suspect had been named in the article and charged by police, a caveat such as "alleged" would definitely be necessary. I don't see how the lack of evidence and a suspect makes the claim any less "alleged." Maghnus (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When the Police discover a victim, bound and gagged, with 13 deep knife wounds, they immediately open a murder investigation, whether the assailant is known or not. Prosecution is a another matter. Wikispan (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

False analogy. Poujeaux (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Police can have evidence pointing to the nature of a crime without knowing the identity of the criminal. Ordinary and unremarkable. Wikispan (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, they can, but that doesn't imply that such evidence exists here. If it does, nobody has reported it to the public yet. Maghnus (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Phil Jones on the death threats

Interesting quote from Dr. Jones:

“I received a lot of nasty emails from November to March/April last year from people threatening to kill me among other things. I passed them on to Norfolk police who said they didn’t fulfil the criteria for death threats." Source: [36] This was apparently a short interview by this local newspaper, for a talk Jones gave there on Feb 4.

We should consider adding a brief addendum re this to our death threat coverage (end of Timeline section). And the last sentence, re the Australian scientists Pitman and Karoly, doesn't appear to be directly related to the CRU email controversy [37], and probably should be cut. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The link to the first source you quote doesn't seem to work. As to the second, that article clearly says, "The FBI is investigating death threats to two scientists named in thousands of hacked private emails stolen from East Anglia University's internationally respected Climate Research Unit", so it backs up our mention of that in this article. It goes on to discuss "paid Russian hackers" and "fears of an orchestrated campaign" before naming Professor Andy Pitman and Professor David Karoly as recipients of threatening emails. I don't see anything wrong with our coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Spalding Today quote can be found cached at [38] and seems to be authentic. It's not clear to me whether/how we should use it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the article should be edited to reflect that there were not, in fact, credible death threats against Jones. Yopienso (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've archived the article at http://www.webcitation.org/5wKv02oO1 --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good move, but try again--it's not there. Yopienso (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed 2x -- I guess you can't archive a Google cache page at WebCite. Is there another archiving service? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Article is still in Google Cache, and I kept a personal copy. I went ahead and added a short quote, citing the cache URL. It would be good to archive this somehow. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidt said...

RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt said that he had information that the files were obtained through "a hack into [CRU's] backup mail server."[39] This sentence does not need all the caveats it recently had ("According to the Guardian..." and "Unreliable source"). The sentence says that Gavin Schmidt said something. The reference is the Guardian, one year ago, saying that he said it. What is there to doubt? If he hadn't said it, he has had a year to contact the newspaper and complain, to ask them to take that false statement down, to complain about being misreported on his blog and to the Press Complaints Commission, and to sue the Guardian for falsely reporting or twisting his words. None of these things have happened. I think we can safely say that he said that one thing. --Nigelj (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing that got lost in the mix is that very early on we had clear evidence of hacking. Gavin Schmidt, again, reported that he was locked out of the RealClimate website by hackers and when he regained it a zip file had been placed on the site. This was an early attempt by the hackers to make a splash. --TS 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gavin says his web site was hacked, ergo the CRU e-mail server was also hacked, by the same person/people. Flawless logic. :) By stating "Gavin says X", Gavin is the source for claim X. He is perhaps a reliable source for the claim about his own servers, but not for the CRU's servers unless someone leaked evidence to him. Maghnus (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Inspector General's report

This was an investigation into some allegations made against the NOAA based on the contents of the stolen emails. The result of the investigation, ordered by Senator Inhofe, is as expected.

http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2011/001688.html

--Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} In reference to the line

other commentators such as Roger A. Pielke[not in citation given] said that the evidence supported claims that dissenting scientific papers had been suppressed.[35]

Please change the footnote (35) to include (append) the missing reference: suggested text:

For allegations of suppression of dissenting scientific papers see p.194, Pielke Jr., Roger. The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. Basic Books, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popinade (talk • contribs)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mlack65, 18 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Within Section 3.3 (entitled "Climatologists"), I would suggest the following additional final sentence to paragraph 5: However, as Oreskes and Conway have pointed out in their recent book Merchants of Doubt, such tactics were repeatedly used by the founders of the George C. Marshall Institute - and Fred Singer in particular - to discredit the work climate scientists such as James Hansen and Benjamin Santer. Mlack65 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: could you provide the page(s) from the book where this assertion is made? I think I can get the rest of the information for a proper citation from the Merchants of Doubt article. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see

• Section 3.3 is entitled "Scientific organizations", not "Climatologists"
• The wiki link to George C. Marshall Institute is red (mistyped and not fixed)
• It is not clear what "such tactics" means
• Jim Henson created The Muppets. (I know, it is probably another typo.)

It seems clear that Mlack65 does not pay enough attention to detail to be taken seriously. IMHO, the suggested change should be rejected. Q Science (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the suggestion may need a better response than that, per WP:BITE if nothing else. I fixed the red link - it lacked a dot. I don't have the book, but the assertion of similar repeated tactics is what it's mostly about, from what I gather. It's true that we need more information regarding page refs, exact placement, and clarity over the names. --Nigelj (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out some more areas of this requested edit to work on. If you could lend us just bit of your Infinite Patience, I think we can address Mlack65's request to everyone's satisfaction. I have changed "Jim Henson" to "Jim Hansen", let me know if that's not the right target. — Bility (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Article bias

It amazes me how biased this and many similar articles are. Any anti-warming evidence or incidents (such as this article) as all downplayed and discredited. For example, look at the section of "Content". The quote that was used concerning the lack of warming is a tragedy was said to be cherry-picked (taken out of context). Even if it were taken out of context, there is no other way to interpret that statement than at face value. In other articles showing the scientific debate, there are many skeptical scientists and organizations that were not mentioned. In fact, it was stated that there was virtually a consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming, which is anything but the truth. In the name of science and knowledge, the moral of this story is not necessarily about global warming, but about dishonesty and manipulating and fabricating data in scientific research which is totally unacceptable and inexcusable. Regardless of my personal opinion on the subject, this article and the like need to be a lot more neutral and objective. Geoboe84 (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that no "dishonesty and manipulating and fabricating data" was found to have occurred, you're absolutely right. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And except for the fact that "there [is] virtually a consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming". [See William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)] --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the moral of this story is about dishonesty in manipulating and fabricating allegations against scientific researchers as part of a continuing political campaign supporting polluting business interests? However, WP:NOTAFORUM and there don't seem to be any proposals here as required by WP:TALK, so this section should be archived. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just dropped in after a few months away from the project and thought I'll add my voice -- agreed, the article's bias is blatant. And as with many similar Wikipedia climate change pages, the bias is also quite unsophisticated which means that very little is demanded of the reader to perceive it. Therefore, most readers, in my opinion, will conclude that the whole page is unreliable. A pity, because a few bits are quite good. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please address this so-called bias with specific examples so that we can fix it. It might help if you address them one at at time. As far as I can tell, Alex, you and Geoboe84 are promoting a fringe position. No personal offense intended to Geoboe84, but his honest admission on his user page that he enjoys watching the "O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck, and Hannity" pretty much disqualifies him from contributing to any reasonable discussion on this subject. I'm sorry if you disagree with this strong statement, but it is entirely supported by the facts. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Geoboe has already provided a glaring example -- the article complains loudly in Wikipedia's voice that the famous Kevin Trenberth "travesty" remark was "cherry-picked". That's a glaring NPOV violation that any emotionally detached, experienced Wikipedian would see immediately. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's voice, Alex. it is the voice of...Kevin Trenberth.[40] You know, the guy whose own quotes were...cherry-picked. Are you saying there is a more neutral way of attributing a quote made by...the man who wrote it? Please don't tell me that O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Lindzen, Pielke, Solomon, Watts and all the rest are "neutral" when it comes to interpreting Trenberth. Surely, Trenberth knows what he said and what it meant? Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is in fact Wikipedia's voice asserting that something was "cherry-picked", not Kevin Trenberth's. I am not, however, going to waste any further time discussing it. This is your page after all. You do with it as you please. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If your concern is that the statement is not in quotes, I presume that could be fixed. But the important thing is that the phrase is in the source. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article currently says Cherry picked phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”,[4] were actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability.[33] That seems to be a clear statement that the phrases were cherry picked, not that Trenberth believes that they were cherry picked, or that Trenberth stated that they were cherry picked, and this phrasing seems inappropriate to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I don't see any problem with your tweaking the language. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The first part can be easily rephrased as One email phrase in which Kevin Trenberth stated, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”,[4] was subsequently described by Trenberth as "cherry-picked".[33] The second half is more difficult as the phrase doesn't occur in any source I can find, and I don't think it's an accurate precis of Trenberth, so I would be inclined just to delete it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The cited source, Revkin, actually states that "Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: 'The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t',” Trenberth himself clearly states that this referred to the need for more measurement to explain short-term variations, and his analysis is cited and supported by the EPA report. I've cited the latter and revised the sentences to read:
Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[4] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[33] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[34]
This aligns closely with the cited sources and gives a reasonable majority view of the situation. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's clear enough. Why is there an NPOV tag on this section? I see no current NPOV dispute, as long as this issue is rectified. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag was added by Tillman (talk · contribs) back in November. The article reason for the tagging is at the bottom of [41] this archive, but it seems to not have a specific allegation backing it up. I'm fine with its removal..... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's time for that tag to be removed too. As for the wording, since we have a horse's-mouth source for the phrase, why can't we say, 'Skeptic websites "cherry-picked"[42] phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated...'? --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, preferably wikified as cherry-picked. The process is clearly described in the various sources we've used, with Pearce using the term "soundbites" when discussing how this quote and others have been misleadingly taken out of context. Note the yellow highlighting giving further clarification. Pearce notes how critics such as Imhofe used the selective quotation from Trenberth to draw "bogus" connections and make "demontrably false" claims. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. So now we have Wikipedia's voice asserting instead that "skeptic websites" cherry-picked a phrase by Kevin Trenberth. A cite to Andrew Revkin follows, although nowhere does it say anything about 'cherry-picking'. Still a glaring NPOV violation that any experienced Wikipedian would see immediately. Pete Tillman's tag should be restored until the bias is actually removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Having monitored this topic and discussion from the very beginning, I think I can safely say that there is a concerted attempt to keep a permanent POV tag in this article for reasons that are known only to a special few. Could you explain the "POV" problem with saying "Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t"." How would you correct his alleged bias you perceive? Please offer an actual solution, otherwise you will reinforce my theory that there are continuing attempts to say and do anything to keep this article tagged. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, V, there is no conspiracy. The skeptics aren't out to get you. It's just a very biased article and that is very likely the reason people keep adding a bias tag. That something was or wasn't "cherry-picked" is your opinion, V. In my opinion, the statement wasn't cherry picked at all. We could then argue about why I think you're wrong, but it would be better if we just agreed that you can't assert in Wikipedia's voice that something was 'cherry-picked'. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are asserting that there's a dispute over whether the statement was cherry picked. There is no such dispute. Yet, Jonathan A Jones above claimed the phrasing was inappropriate, and it was changed per his objection. However, here you are again, with nothing but objections. I don't know why you keep personalizing this Alex, as I've had very little to nothing to do with this article. I've merely watched how SPA's like yourself waltz in and out of here in a conga line, dancing the limbo, yelling POV! POV! over and over again. When you say "bias", you really mean to say "the article doesn't promote my fringe theory about climate". Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I see, so if it was changed per the objection being seconded by others, why are you insisting that the objection was not valid? When I say "bias" I mean "bias", and I justify this meticulously with reference to Wikipedia's content policies. My so called fringe theory about climate is the same now as it always was, i.e. that humans probably are causing global warming. Of course, anyone who opposes the climate change extremists who have taken over Wikipedia's climate change pages are written off as "deniers" by definition and driven away from the project. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex, your comments in the below section titled "bias in presentation of Trenberth remark" illustrate the problem.[43] You seem to think that Wikipedia is a platform for POV pushing. Your claims that Trenberth "was not being completely honest" and that his words "leave it wide open that skeptics may actually be right" are not appropriate here. Further you conclude that "he really was saying that we couldn't account for the lack of global since 1998", when you were previously provided with a quote from Trenberth disputing your allegation.[44] It is very clear from your comments, Alex, that your sole purpose in posting here is to push a POV above and beyond the reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"The climate change extremists who have taken over Wikipedia's climate change pages", etc. I think that such lack of respect for other editors' motives was expressly forbidden by WP:ARBCC#User Conduct and WP:ARBCC#Casting aspersions. Please do not talk like that here, Alex. --Nigelj (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Politics of global warming and Politics of global warming (United States).

Add Politics of global warming and Politics of global warming (United States). 99.19.44.88 (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? The claim that it's politics is not proven, although the "investigations" certainly seem political, and in the UK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

bias in presentation of Trenberth remark

The following wording is still quite biased --

Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[4] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[33] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[34]

This is a very oddly written paragraph. The section is supposed to be about the email contents. The subject of this sentence, however, is "skeptic websites" -- i.e. nothing to do with email contents. It doesn't belong here. It appears to be here for one reason only, viz. to prevent a neutral presentation of the email contents from actually occurring.

Aside from this, it is grossly exaggerated that this remark was taken out of context. Although Trenberth himself said on TV that the remark was taken out of context, it is easy to see that he was not being completely honest.

The paper he refers to in the email is here.

This paper makes it plain that in his view there has been a "lack of global warming", and that it can't be explained, and it is a "travesty", or at least a big problem for scientists.

Here are excerpts from that paper:

The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role1 and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone."

He puts the validity of simply attributing this to natural variability on a par with skeptic arguments that global warming itself may be natural:

It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability. Similarly, common arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other natural origins are inadequate as they do not provide the physical mechanisms involved. There must be a physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic.

OK, so note that carefully: simply saying "it's natural variability" is no better than saying "global warming is all natural". Also note carefully that he does not believe that skeptic arguments are any less valid. In fact he explicitly acknowledges repeatedly that skeptics could actually be right:

Accounting for the known contributions to energy uptake still leaves a likely residual of 30 to 100×1020 J/yr, although total error bars overlap. Possibly this heat is being sequestered in the deep ocean below the 900 m depth used for the ARGO analyses where it would contribute about 0.4 to 0.5 mm/yr sea level rise, and then the land ice melt estimate would have to go down. Or the warming is not really present?

His final words in the paper again leave it wide open that skeptics may actually be right:

A climate information system that firstly determines what is taking place and then establishes why is better able to provide a sound basis for predictions and which can answer important questions such as “Has global warming really slowed or not?” Decisions are being made that depend on improved information about how and why our climate system is varying and changing, and the implications.

It is quite clear to anyone who reads this paper that there is nothing out of context about the famous Trenberth climategate quote. He really was saying that we couldn't account for the lack of global since 1998 and it was a big problem for scientists. As far as I know, it is still a big problem. And it was his view that this is a travesty. (He says that twice in the emails.)

Accordingly, we should back well away from taking sides in this. The article at best should simply note that Trenberth said on TV that the remark was taken out of context. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not read every word of that paper, but the gist of it seems to be,

But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, do we not?

Well, it seems that the answer is no, we do not. But we should! Given that global warming is unequivocally happening [2�] and there has so far been a failure to outline, let alone implement, global plans to mitigate the warming, then adapting to the climate change is an imperative.

Trenberth is urging scientists to devise better data collection and reporting methods. He is certainly not suggesting skeptics may be right:

Similarly, common arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other natural origins are inadequate, as they do not provide the physical mechanisms involved. Yopienso (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yopienso, it's hard to argue that one line is the thrust of the paper, given it's a remark made in passing in the second paragraph. I have summarised both the introductory remarks and the concluding remarks. Moreover, there is nothing in the sentence you posted that contradicts anything I said, viz. that Trenberth is herein considering a real possibility that some heat predicted to exist somewhere in the climate system may not actually be there (=> climate sensitivity is considerably lower than IPCC thought) or that global warming has slowed. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:PSTS. This paper is not only a primary source, it came before the primary sources (zeroth source?): it is a paper that some of the primary sources in this dispute (the emails) were talking about. We need to look at the secondary sources: what did the main commentators write about the phrases in the e-mails? Look at all the official enquiries, they went over the e-mail statements, and all the accusations made about them, in detail. Which ones concluded that global warming was not happening, and that it was a good job the e-mails were stolen so that the world would find that out? None of them. Issue closed. Global warming is still happening, and it's a travesty that some still think that by poring over old scientific papers they alone may find the hidden loophole in the science. --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nigel, I know about PSTS but you are missing the point (and making the usual false assumptions about motivations of editors who appear skeptical etc. etc.). I am not proposing a summary of primary source material for the article. I am demonstrating here in the talk page that analysis of the primary material shows that our present wording is factually inaccurate. I simply want the article to state that according to Trenberth, he was taken out of context, rather than having Wikipedia's voice present this as a fact. As far as the official inquiries are concerned, can you show me where any of them actually considered the Trenberth matter? I would have thought that was out of the scope of all of them, but could be wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot analyze (read "interpret") primary source material on Wikipedia, Alex, therefore you cannot claim that our wording, which is based on secondary source material and quotes (read "non-analysis) is inaccurate. I hope this puts an end to this thread. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good one. In fact, a certain amount of interpretation of source material is allowed and unavoidable. In any case, the whole point is that the article already contains "original research" and I am saying we must remove it, and demonstrating here that the original research is also wrong. My proposal is to update the article with a properly sourced statement per the content policies. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument and proposal are noted. However, I must ask at this time that you stop interpreting primary sources to push a POV. That kind of approach is explicitly prohibited and may lead to a topic ban and/or block. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop repeatedly with these conspiratorial assumptions of bad faith and childish threats? If you would like to argue that I have misunderstood something, go right ahead. Otherwise, you could consider not interrupting the discussion? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You aren't getting it. You are in violation of general sanctions regarding the misuse of sources, no original research, and disruption of the talk page. Your account is also a SPA used primarily to disrupt the topic of climate change. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't think your comments are very helpful. Alex Harvey is not going to be blocked or banned for researching a subject that he's writing on. As for SPA, if a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA.

As regards the subject at hand, I don't know whether the quote was taken out of context or not, but it does seem odd to me that we would state that the quote "was grossly mischaracterised by critics" without qualification, especially when the source is the person who was allegedly mischaracterised. --Thepm (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that SPA's engaged in political advocacy and public relations on Wikipedia would find my comments "helpful", as such accounts would be in violation of general sanctions on this topic and would therefore be subject to a topic ban. Wouldn't you agree, Thepm? Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, again, sigh, for the nth time, I am neither a SPA, nor engaged in political advocacy. Politically, I vote left, and support action on climate change. Sorry to have to take up talk page space responding to more of Viriditas's accusations. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I have no idea what an SPA engaged in political advocacy and public relations on Wikipedia would think of your comments. Perhaps it's best that the discussion focuses on the topic, not the editors. I'll say again that it seems odd to me that we would state that the quote "was grossly mischaracterised by critics" without qualification, especially when the source is the person who was allegedly mischaracterised. --Thepm (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Thepm, your statement is incorrect: source ref. [34] is a reliable third party source, and is not the person being mischaracterised. Please note that WP:BLP applies, good sources are required for any content attacking individuals and speculative interpretation of Trenberth's writings is unacceptable. Good quality secondary sources are required for any interpretations detrimental to individuals . . . dave souza, talk 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, [34] may be a reliable source but it doesn't establish the actual wording in our article. [34] establishes only that one person, Peabody, "grossly mischaracterised" Trenberth's position. You can't get from having one reliable source stating that one person grossly mischaracterised something to a conclusion that Trenberth's position was grossly mischacterised by all critics. As such, it is a NPOV violation. As for you BLP angle, that's completely a distraction. No one is suggesting that any wording attacking Trenberth should go in the article . . . Alex Harvey (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Dave. You're right. I got that wrong. Sorry for the distraction.

My cunning plan all along was that gross ineptitude would give everyone a laugh and avoid things from getting too tense. Let me know if it works. --Thepm (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Jonathan A Jones above already proposed a wording that would completely resolve the bias as far as I'm concerned (see the diff).

One email phrase in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t",[4] was subsequently described by Trenberth as "cherry-picked".[33]

That is perfect. It moves the subject of the sentence to where it belongs, i.e. the email contents, and states as fact only what we really know about whether it was cherry-picked -- assuming no one here would dream of having the article speculate on those primary sources. ;-) So does anyone have a problem with Jonathan's proposal? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's superseded by the addition of a reliable secondary source commenting on and supporting the statement by Trenberth. Your proposal looks like tendentiously trying to give equal validity to misrepresentation of Trenberth's email, however I'll assume it was simply a lapse of memory on your part. . . dave souza, talk 08:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The key here is that we must on no account mislead the reader by presenting statements of fact that we reliably know to be false. No interpretation of the neutral point of view would permit that. Whenever we present false statements, from any source, we must present them in context. --TS 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Tony, on the obvious understanding that "reliably know" means knowing on the basis of good quality reliable secondary sources, not on knowing The Truth on the basis of our own interpretation of primary sources. . . dave souza, talk 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the source that counts. --TS 13:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony's statement reads as a sensible statement of policy that we should all be able to agree on.

With that in mind, another obvious problem with our text at the moment is the statement, "This [i.e. the travesty remark] was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability[33]...". This statement is both obviously untrue, and not supported by the source. The remark was not part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring, although in the context of Trenberth's email it may be true that he was only talking about a need for better monitoring. The discussion, however, was initiated by Stephen H. Schneider, who wanted to take the BBC to task for saying there had been no warming since 1998. So we have got this plainly wrong.

Then there is of course our original research in asserting that skeptic websites picked out the travesty remark. In fact, the statement went viral and it was picked out by skeptic websites, the Guardian, Monbiot, RealClimate, the comedian Jon Stewart, and frankly everyone. Again, we, the editors, are playing the blame the skeptics game, without evidence, sources, reason, or argument.

Finally, there is still the bias implicit in our twisted wording. No one has explained to me why we are making the subject of this sentence skeptic websites when the section is supposed to be about email contents. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex, are you incapable of checking the cited sources?

From [33], "It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability." That statement is supported by two secondary sources as cited, and clearly they don't share your view that it's "obviously untrue". Both state that Trenberth was writing about the need for improved monitoring to improve our understanding of short-term variations in climate.

Revkin states "In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote."

Trenberth's later statement describes it as having gone viral, though evidently the first impact was from skeptic web sites. Pearce notes "Inhofe and other sceptics" spreading the misinformation, the EPA respond to Peabody Energy basing their arguments on the same misinterpretation. These reliable sources indicate the allegations were made by "skeptics". . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what [33] says. Our article implies that the email discussion was about energy flows. This is not what the email discussion was about at all. As such, we're presenting false information. Do you really not see this?

As for Revkin there are still problems: (1) our wording is not consistent with Revkin's. Revkin uses the more neutral "pointed out" where as we are trying to imply cherry picking using "picked out". (2) not all sources agree with Revkin. e.g. [45]. [46]. It then becomes a question of weight. (3) it is absurd to be saying that this email of Trenberth's was not inevitably going to be widely discussed, with or without skeptics. It is completely relevant that Tom Wigley also picked out this same sentence in his reply and was evidently a little offended by it. Tom Wigley isn't a skeptic is he? (4) as I am saying, even if we accept that Revkin is both reliable and preferable, and suppose we are not just cherry picking his piece because we like the way we can use him to blame the skeptics, there is still no explanation for why we are burying this, one of the most discussed of all emails, at the end of a paragraph, in a sentence whose subject is 'skeptic websites'. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex, you are POV pushing. Both of the sources you offer are way, way out of date and were published before any of the investigations had concluded. Please stop bringing up old information in these discussions. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On (2), what is the relevance of when the sources were published relative to when the inquiries completed? And on (1), (3) and (4), do you have anything better to say than "Down with the POV Pusher!" Could you instead of continuing to argue from your inspired assumptions about my hidden motivations address the points I raised? Thanks! Alex Harvey (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't getting us anywhere. There are opinions, which I would hope we'd document, and then there are the facts which have been established. Arguing over the facts at this late stage is pointless. The period when the attacks on the science based on selective quotation could as a matter of opinion be held credible is now more than a year in the past. --TS 13:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)