Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

MOS:QUOTE

I'd like to draw attention to the habit in this article of linking to things within quotations. This directly contradicts the advice in the Manual of Style that says, "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Unless there is significant objection, I intend to work my way through the article removing such instances. Where possible, I will make adjustments to try to make sure important links are adjacent to the quotes in some way. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just glanced at a few, and I concur. Just to be ultra-careful, it would be nice if you made a list of links removed, where you did not find an easy way to link it elsewhere. For example, the first three I see are "EST", "IP Address" and "Turkey". I don't feel any of these need a wikilink, and I'll be surprised if someone feels that "EST" absolutely must be wikilinked. However, I could imagine someone feeling that a wikilink to "IP Address" adds to the story. If you make a list of those entries no longer wikilinked, then anyone can glance through and see if any other actions are needed.--SPhilbrickT 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, good luck Ignignot (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO it's always wise to wikilink to timezones other then UTC. IP address is perhaps less important Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I've linked in words and phrases within quotes on this article. I wasn't aware of the style guideline but it sounds sensible. --TS 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully no one bites my head of but I was bold and removed the first wikilink for IP address in the quotation which also therefore occured twice in consecutive sentences. I also moved the link to EST out of the quotation into the next sentence which isn't a quotation. I left Turkey in although I agree it doesn't add much and probably isn't necessary Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've delinked Turkey and tweaked a couple of other things, but it is hard to know exactly what to do with some of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I've done as much as I can with this issue. The few remaining do not seem to do any undue harm. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

On a suggestion in an earlier thread I've put a notice up pointing to Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/rewrite. Suggested outlines are available on this page and there seems to be substantial consensus for them, and in my opinion they are sufficiently compatible for us to start work. --TS 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Where was this discussed? I don't recall attempts at reaching consensus...--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
See the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 12#Suggested article outline. --TS 13:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Please go to work. Don't feel constrained by the outline (I thought I copied Cla68's but it turns out I copied Guettarda's. Both have a lot of support). --TS 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually Marknau copied my outline to /outline earlier, I started developing it. Guettarda (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. I'll delete my copy. --TS 13:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions and answers on the climate e-mail controversy

I'm not sure that this adds anything to the article, but it does do a nice job of summarizing some of the key issues surrounding the controversy in a Q and A format: [1]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That website wants me to accepts its cookies, register using my home address, and log in. If this is the article I'm thinking of, it's by Renee Schoof of McClatchy Newspapers and was also carried last weekend by the Miami Herald (minus the onerous access requirements) here.
I looked at it a few days ago. It's a pretty good summary, I think, though it doesn't add much we don't cover already. Sorry if I have the wrong article--I cannot see the article at that link without giving private data about myself to a website that is not bound by my country's Data Protection Act. --TS 14:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, same article. (Didn't ask me to register, for whatever reason.) Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Weird. It didn't ask me to register either. I'm on a new PC (Yay for me!) so I know I didn't register for it previously and forgot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably a US/non-US thing. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU Hacking Dispute

{{rfctag|pol|sci}} There is disagreement over whether the claim by CRU that they were hacked, and an inconclusive statement by the police that they are investigating a "security breach" is grounds for writing the article as though it were a categorical fact that a hack occurred, despite some (also inconclusive) evidence to the contrary. Drolz (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of this summary is disputed. See FAQ question 5.

This large RFC has been moved to a page of its own:

/RFC/CRU Hacking Dispute

--TS 13:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Death threats against climate scientists

{{rfctag|sci|pol}} Following newspaper, media and blog reports of the contents of emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit, death threats have been reported by climate scientists in the US, the UK and Australia. There at least two distinct law enforcement investigations: one by the FBI and the other by Norfolk Constabulary. There is a difference of opinion on whether these threats should be mentioned in the lead section of the article. --TS 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This large RFC has been moved to a page of its own:

/RFC/Death threats against climate scientists

--TS 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

After a 7-day discussion no consensus was achieved for the proposed move and no popular alternative was identified. Discussion continues.

{{movereq|Climatic Research Unit Incident}}

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit incident — Other data besides email were included in the incident; there is some debate whether this was a leak or a hack - should these be reflected in the title? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The article's name seems misguided as more than emails were hacked...there are thousands of pages of source code and other documents "hacked." There is also controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. Perhaps the article should be renamed Climatic Research Unit incident ...the name seems far more neutral without adding extra emphasis on the e-mails.Smallman12q (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a smilar discussion at the german lemma, here it was renamed from Climategate or E-Mail incident to a lengthy translation of the english lemma. Keep me posted :) --Polentario (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can just remove the "e-mail" from the name? Then change the opening line to reflect it? Ignignot (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Polentario, I wouldn't put too much faith in the English Wikipedia on this topic. We have a severe POV-pushing problem here between two different sides. The current article name merely reflects which side has better Wikilawyering skills. I suspect the best name for the article is either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" but it's not a battle I'm willing to fight. I hope that helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be evidence they were leaked, not "stolen" or "hacked" in the traditional sense. A name change would make sense (perhaps "scandal"?). Riley Ralston (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)user was blocked as a sockpuppet Kim D. Petersen (talk)
We already have a guideline which addresses this issue. "Scandal" is a word to avoid. So, no, we can't use "scandal". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" is best. Doesn't reference a hack which is unproven and (surprising to me) appears increasingly less like what actually happened. Doesn't reference Climategate. Indicates that there is a controversy over documents/emails without saying whether the controversy revolves around their content or matter of acquisition, which is an acceptable compromise, I believe (and really, outside of wikipedia, the controversy is the content). Drolz (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid: WP:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal. Actually this has been discussed a few times before, might be worth looking over previous suggestions an comments as well.
—Apis (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The page says to avoid using "controversy" except in cases where the is clearly a debate going on. That is, cases exactly like this one. Drolz (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to discuss possible names for this article with a view to achieving consensus. So far we seem to be bogged down, though. Most of the suggested alternatives have irresolvable problems. --TS 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute." Controversy is clearly an appropriate name for this topic. There is, in fact, no other word to accurately describe it. Incident needs to be replaced ASAP because it strongly implies that this was an isolated occurrence rather than an ongoing and developing story. "Climate Research Unit File Controversy" fairly describes what is going on. Constantly objecting to proposed names without finding alternatives is not constructive behavior, and only serves to keep the current, biased name in place. Drolz (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The emphasis used above is not part of the original text. A different part to "highlight" could be: "[controversy] is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject."
—Apis (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe 'Climate Research Unit FOIA Controversy' or just 'Climate Research Unit Incident'? I don't want to contribute to sending the discussion off in a hundred directions at once, it's just that 'File Controversy' is a bit strange to me. The current title is clumsy, but I don't have strong opinions on alternatives.Dduff442 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There are now 3,000,000 google hits for "climategate" ... and google seems to be back censoring the term "climategate" in its "quick text" feature (or whatever it is called), because again it suggested "climate guatemala" even when I had "climateg..". But of course, according to the "scientists" who edit these articles, the google hit rate is going down, there is no censorship of wikipedia, and there never was a scandal. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually there are only 680. Those numbers that Google puts up at the top are actually pretty meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Climategate is neither neutral or encyclopedic language. The word is in the article, just not in the title.Dduff442 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
FOIA would be fine with me, but others would probably consider email or documents better. Again I think controversy is obviously better than incident. I agree about file in retrospect-awkward. Drolz (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid". Actually, per WP:AVOID, "When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict." Numerous reliable sources are using the term 'controversy' including: The Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, TechNewsWorld, The Star, Mail & Guardian, Scientific American, Live Science, Politico, Irish Times, St Petersburg Times, Sidney Morning Herald, Seattle Times, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Reuters A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallstreet Journal The Guardian Los Angeles Times Christian Science Monitor San Francisco Chronicle FOX News The Boston Globe Business Week Forbes MSNBC The Miami Herald The Scotsman Cosmos Magazine CNBC New Zealand Herald BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Incident or Climate Research Unit Controversy are each fine by me. As Monbiot points out, attempting to deny there's a scientific controversy (of whatever severity; mild to moderate IMO) simply erodes the credibility of the person making the claim and the credibility of climate science generally. Von Storch's attitude reflects my views as well. There's the hacking controversy as well of course.
My only real objection to the current title is its incredible clumsiness.Dduff442 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where Monbiot or any other serious commentator has said there is a scientific controversy: there may be a career crisis for 3 - 4 scientists, but there is no controversy with regard to the science itself and the other several thousand scientists involved in it. Has anybody called for the cancellation or postponement of COP15? If there were serious scientific controversy over AGW, that would have happened. That is just the extreme-right, big-oil fringe trying to have a last word. This is the article about the incident, and all its ramifications, in that there are no others, just what we have here. For sure, the only mention at Copenhagen has been the Saudis, and what could their motivation be? --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sry about late reply; didn't notice your post. It all depends upon what you mean by 'crisis'. For sure, the incident is insufficient to cast into question the massive body of work on AGW. It seriously damages the prestige and credibility of the discipline in the public mind, however, and by extension the environmental movement's ability to mobilise public opinion. Morale, strangely enough, is also important. The deniers are ebullient at the moment.Dduff442 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to be more specific in the title. Perhaps it should be "2009 Climatic Research Unit incident", or "Climatic Research Unit data theft", or something like that. Use of "controversy" should be avoided at all costs, particularly because there is nothing controversial about the theft of data (it happens all the time). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Scjessey's suggestion, "CRU incident" or "CRU data theft" is OK by me. Also consider other similar articles, Pentagon Papers for example, it's not called pentagon controversy or pentagon scandal not even pentagate.
—Apis (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't be called Pentagate because because Watergate happened after the Pentagon Papers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes sorry, Pentagate was added as irony, but that was unnecessary and it's easily misunderstood here. Point is, we should strive to use a neutral name.
—Apis (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is based off consensus, perhaps we could take a vote...

Do you support renaming this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident" (or something similar such as 2009 CRU Incident)Smallman12q (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Smallman12q (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. (I'd leave out 2009)Dduff442 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. It's not just about email or about hacking. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Also prefer to exclude the year. Would be okay with "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support Drolz (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. It's the content and the reaction to it, not the *alleged* hacking, that makes this a notable event.Flegelpuss (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Scjessey or Climatic Research Unit files incident. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Judith & Scjessey. Despite what some may think, I'm not actually opposed to controversy since I feel controversy doesn't imply there was any wrongdoing on the part of the CRU or scientists involved but given the controversy that will cause (pun semi-intended) incident is probably the best compromise Nil Einne (talk)
  9. Support. "Controversy" would be better but I'll support "incident." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Qualified support Agree that "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" is neutral and accurate. Collect (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support. Would be happy with "Climatic Research Unit incident", "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" or "Climatic Research Unit controversy". I think the last is the best, but recognize some are quite opposed, so eith er of the first two are clearly better than the current, misleading title.--SPhilbrickT 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support. It's a better title.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support. though "Climatic Research Unit Research Misconduct Incident" would be more descriptive -- 97.125.30.19 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)— 97.125.30.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  14. Support though I more strongly support the widely-accepted "Climategate" despite WP policies to the contrary. Nightmote (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support Removing the POV term hacking and to narrow e-mail should be done prompt. Although I'd prefered a name like Climate Research Unit documents controversy as proposed by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) below. Nsaa (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support Why not just rename it "The Official Wiki Warmist Coverup and Propaganda Page"? Then everyone will not only know what it is but what was done to it with the blessings of the current administration. Following that, a supportive someone can post an embellished plea for more $$$ so the same can be done to every page. And, as a courteous consequence, anyone seeking straight information on the matter will immediately know just to skip right over this "source". Thanks in advance. Jfcj1 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Whats wrong with Climategate?? Peterlewis (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    Should this be recategorized as "On the Fence", or does Peter really prefer the current name, which is not "ClimateGate", to the proposal?Flegelpuss (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    It should be left as it is - Peter is opposing the name change, he is not on any fence. Brumski (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    'Climategate' isn't an option. '-gate' is listed as a word to avoid for article titles accoring to this guideline: WP:AVOID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. If we miss out the hacking, then we've missed the point of the article. The persistent notion that there is significant debate over whether it was a hacking or a leak is addressed in the FAQ. UEA has reported a hacking incident to the police and the police are investigating it as a criminal offence, and there is absolutely no evidence to support the speculation that there was no hack. I'd also like to go on record as disliking this "vote" format. It's never a good way to manage a discussion on a wiki. --TS 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. The proposed name ("Climatic Research Unit Incident") is far too vague. The clear weight of the media is behind that this was a hacking incident, and the largest majority of the media discussion has been about the e-mails disclosed. We cannot really leave either of these terms out, without making the title almost meaningless. When I say media, I mean, of course the WP:RS media, not the looney/denier blogosphere. --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. The arguments for changing the name aren't persuasive, so I'm OK with leaving it as it is. I'm with TS RE the vote as well. Brumski (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    To expand a little: going from policy, WP:Naming conventions#Deciding an article name advises the following for titles - Recognizable: Use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Easy to find: Use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). Precise: Use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Concise: Use names and terms that are brief and to the point. Consistent: Use names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. The current article name satisfies all those criteria adequately for me. The one that is arguable is "precise" but the policy clarifies that it just needs to be sufficiently precise to identify the topic to me; every time I see this subject in the news or discussed anywhere, the context (or frame) that news or discussion source uses to set the scene (i.e. to identify the subject/incident/topic for me) nearly always uses "email" and "hack/hacking" (or "leak" in some cases). So, on the basis of policy and the lack of a persuasive argument for the alternative, the current name is fine for me. Brumski (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Vague to the point of being meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    I have mixed feeling about "email" (although the other files have attracted little attention, so it's really not too bad). I think "hacking" is a crucial element. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not wedded to "incident", but I can't think of a better word at the moment. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose. I still think that 'Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy' or 'Climate Research Unit documents controversy' are the most descriptive and accurate names for this subject, and in-line with the terminology used by WP:RS. However, I'm fine with whatever the majority decides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. As Guettarda points out, the proposed rename is hopelessly vague. We are required to use descriptive names for articles, which this certainly wouldn't be. I am also rather suspicious of the rationale behind this proposal, given the repeated attempts to whitewash any mention of hacking from this article; I note that some of the supporting comments invoke this POV, which relies on nothing more than a few bloggers' wild speculations. And in fact, immediately below in #Further discussion, the editor who proposed this change is busy pushing the (completely unsourced) line that the files were not hacked. His motive for deleting "hacking" from the title seems to be fairly transparent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    I'd just like to point out that I'm in favor of removing "hacking" for the reason that it allows for an article of broader scope -- so at least one editor has other motives than those you mentioned. But your point is noted. jheiv (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Meaningless proposal. Current name is widely recognized and the e-mails are the locus of the discussion. "Controversy" is not recommended for any article. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Hacking should be in the title. -Atmoz (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. "Climatic Research Unit Incident" is too vague to be taken seriously. What's next, The New York Incident for the 2008-9 financial collapse? The American Incident for the Civil War? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    Well.. This would be more like referring to the American civil war of the 1850's as the 'War Between the States'. It might not be any clearer than 'the Civil War', but one would think it should be easier to agree on than describing that war as the 'War of Northern Aggression' or something related to opposition to secession or the preservation of the Union. Nevard (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as per the above, hacking is the major part of this controversy. Email while not entirely correct, is what the major focus of media attention has been on - whenever they explain the controversy, they mention emails as the most important part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Opposing with general agreement on weasel-like confusion of new name. It'll likely need a rename to something more official at some point, but this shouldn't be it. As far as someone browsing would know, the article is about an inexplicable explosion at the settled South Pole research facility sparked by Penguin extremists protesting the loss of their icebergs. That's, uh, technically every aspect of the new name, and also far sillier and what I wish we could have there. Hell, we don't even know if this story has a true notable future or might end up a section in an article of the conference as a whole. If this happened at any other time in the past 10 years no one would have cared. The Penguin Extremists who stole WMD from one of those frightful micronations in the region that demand sovereignty and a Wikipedia article? Oh yea. Now that'd be notable. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, the hack and e-mails have been central to the discussion, without them there would be no "incident". Simply incident is too vague. It's true that more than e-mails were stolen, but as pointed out, there have been little discussion about the other files.
    —Apis (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. Opposed until we sort out what the mission statement is for the article. MarkNau (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for now. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - this proposed title is excessively vague. Names should be as clear as possible, and the current one, while a little wordy, is definitely preferable for that reason. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. Oppose This is a current event that is still developing. The current name seems properly descriptive enough for users to properly find the information that are seeking, which is the intent in the name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. Reject in light of the recent news it is certain it will be forever known in the annals of scandals as Climategate! They're going down! Isonomia (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy is a better title. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  20. Strongly Oppose. The proper way to call it would be "CRU Climate Change Controversy" and then put an "Sometimes also referred to as ClimateGate, this controversy... etc." clause in the article itself. Also, I notice that the FAQ gives a lame reason for not quoting properly. I've written peer-reviewed articles before, and I know that you can put in quotes a particular item word for word as long as you give the full reference and credit to the owner/author and do a proper bibliography. As such, please put them in, as I have read the original files, and I would like to see the part where they suggested cutting off the last few points in the data, which is completely unethical and should be brought to light as well. Nobody is saying the climate isn't getting warmer. We're just saying it's not artificial other than local warming due to deforestation, irrigation and urbanization. Please bring the real matter to light, that is, the fact that we don't really know what is causing most of the warming, other than the fact that this isn't the first time it's happened. Also note that confusing Corelation for Causation is a very common scientific error even among scientists, and is bad statistics. It's why I gather tons of data before I even try to induce anything. I have even asked a statistician and the answer I get is "Yes, lopping of data you don't like is completely unethical, and yes, corelation does not equal causation". So please, be professional and neutral and, ahem, write the truth! --y2kproxima -- There is but one truth, and it is absolute. Grey is due to lack of detail. (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC) — Y2kproxima (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On the fence

  1. Undecided. Would prefer "controversy", but I do feel removing "hacking" gets us closer. It seems there is significant support for "controversy", but as not to derail this vote, should I just let this vote go the way it looks like it will, then propose the change? jheiv (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Undecided. I suspect the new proposed name or name range is too vague. However, there's a rather obvious problem with the current "hacking incident" - the real world narrative and debate is not primarily about the hacking of the material, it's about the content of that material now it's in the public domain, and the furore around it. That's the case whether you think the material reveals an evil plot by scientists to deceive the world and allow a one-world government to tax us all to death, or whether you think it's simply another example of ill-informed columnists and bloggers seizing on any apparent scraps in order to push a minority (in terms of current science) viewpoint. I know it's frowned on, but I'm not sure we can get away from "controversy", which also has the advantage of covering those points from both angles. But without the "hacking". --Nickhh (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

There is controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. I generally dislike the voting format, but I don't see any other way to demonstrate a consensus for the change.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus for change. Look in the archives. It's been discussed to death. --TS 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there is indeed rough consensus for a change, your opposition effectively stands alone here. Gigs (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
'Climategate' is simply a non-runner - it's been thoroughly dispensed with elsewhere. The vote is only reasonable as a last resort however it looks like the only way of at least cutting down the field of options. A solid majority position has been established. Now it's really down to the opponents to decide why it is they rule out the new wording. 'Functional' is probably the most charitable description for the current title. Dduff442 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So what's holding us up here? The lone dissenter seems not to be active. Dduff442 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
TS is active. Peterlewis is AWOL, but he didn't really oppose the rename per se anyway. "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" then? If you think we are ready to go, we should put {{editprotected}} followed by the rename request, and an admin will come review consensus and do the move. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there now appears to be quite a bit of support for this. As the discussion was previously in the middle of the page, however, and many involved in other discussions on the page haven't weighed in, I'd suggest that we give it another couple of days to allow them to comment if they want to. I've moved this section to the end to increase its prominence (I almost missed it myself). --TS 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and tagged it for WP:RM. Apparently we're supposed to leave seven days for discussion (which seems reasonable to me). --TS 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Your listing there is anything but neutral. Can you reformulate it in a more neutral manner that doesn't put words in people's mouths? Gigs (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer you to do it. Just rewrite it using your own words and replace the signature. As I said, my words were just a formal placeholder. --TS 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The template is supposed to open discussion, not close it. Fixed. I also decapitalized incident. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with this version, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, this is not a vote, it is an attempt to gauge current consensus. Therefore the quality of the arguments given for and against each comment will have to be judged and weighed, not just the numbers of them compared. --Nigelj (talk)

That's some strange twist of logic. Ignoring !votes not based on policy reasons when there is a question of policy such as at an XfD is one thing. For something like this where it's more of a simple gauge of current opinion, accompanied with pages of actual discussion, it's kind of a strange argument to make. I agree that a simple majority doesn't indicate consensus, and people shouldn't confuse a straw poll with some kind of binding vote in any normal sense, but I think you've taken the logic a step too far. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Harrumph. I've no objection to the word hacking, it's just that its inclusion in the title isn't a major concern. Looks like I misjudged the state of opinion on this. We're as far from agreement as ever. Dduff442 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Everyone doesn't need to agree with the change, everyone should agree that there is consensus for making it before any change is made. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the 'voting is a bad idea' I'm actually of the opinion it's a good idea here. It's apparent that there's significant ill feeling on both sides and a lot of discussions get heated and quite a few just degrade into back and forths, after a while usually repeating the same thing that's been discussed before, sometimes with some unnecessary sniping, sometimes eventually only involving a few and the same editors. And yes I've been a part of that on occassion. The protection also indicates a breakdown in communication and discussion. A move!vote, which is actually a fairly establised part of proposed page moves (and often used even when a page move appears non controversial but to check or even if there's been limited discussion but the proposer feels it's merited) is a good way IMHO for all to gauge their position. If editors find themselves supporting a clearly minimally supported option, even if it's not enough for consensus on a move, my hope is they will reassess their position and work towards compromise. This isn't something like Myanmar/Burma where there's only 1 option. Perhaps this won't happen but we'll just get more of the same, only time will tell. I would remind editors that nothing here is set in stone. It's perfectly fine to revisit this in 3 months if it appears things have changed and given the nature of this story, it may be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A vote can help sift out the realistic options from the non starters. I think the sceptics would make more headway if they structured their efforts and were less diffuse in their targetting. Their sense of outraged frustration is palpable however their own approach lacks practicality. Dduff442 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we have very many skeptics left editing the article? Most of them have been effectively banned with the page restrictions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This stems in part from the very lack of practicality I referred to. Rather than getting stuck in to reverts etc, which is a numbers game you can only lose, some progress might be possible if you focused on patient argumentation on a more limited range of issues. I only mention this because, as an AGW proponent, I think the perception (valid or invalid, I make no call) that the system is stacked against you creates a sense of righteous indignation and only serves to fuel the fire. Dduff442 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
AQFN, there are no restrictions (afaik) on contributing to this Talk page. The idea of restricting access to the article is only to reduce ill-informed and un-supported edits to it, not to weed out one or more types of opinion. It gives new and inexperienced contributors a chance to find out about WP policies and procedures before hacking the article to a mess in their enthusiasm to get a point across, before they find out how things work here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Dduff, the system is stacked against them. By design, we have a systemic bias toward published scientific works. Its usually not a bad thing, but it definitely puts a spin on these more politicized science articles. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(Back on the topic of the name change) I'd actually prefer "controversy" to be quite honest as I feel it most aptly describes the situation. While I understand it is "a word to avoid", consider the precedent of Killian documents controversy, and the fact that it has found its way into at least one related article: Global warming controversy. jheiv (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to "controversy". My only caveat is that this does not seem to be as much of an ongoing issue in the mainstream media, so it may be more appropriate to retain "incident", but I'm OK with either way. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Equally important, don't forget, is the feeling disseminated across widely in the loonier reaches of the blogosphere, Conservapedia etc, that this hacking incident represents the 'final nail in the coffin' that exposes all the 'fraud and manipulations by scientists' and so overturns the whole global warming 'theory'. Those guys don't want us to be discussing a 'hacking incident', but a glorious liberation of true knowledge that puts the whole oily world back as they like it. The sub-text of the title must not be allowed to drift in that direction. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Spin and distortion are as old as the hills. I wouldn't be too threatened by conservapedia... they're a minority of a minority. If our own house is kept in order, we have nothing to fear.Dduff442 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not so much Conservapedia that's the problem, it's all the Glenn Beck fans and naive or uninformed people who confuse bloggers' speculations with reliably sourced facts. That said, I can live with "controversy" in the title, since the issue discussed in the article is not just the initial hacking incident but the subsequent controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Their article is funny. But I only got about half-way through before I got bored and quit reading it. It does, however, score over our version in that I didn't read any sections that read like a list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I've read that Conservapedia's founder Andrew Schlafly was on Colbert recently. I wonder if he took the opportunity to mention the imminent demise of the communist socialist atheist homosexualist satanist conspiracy. --TS 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the arguments here are seriously jumping the shark. Senator James Inhofe, Ex-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, statistician Steven McIntyre, the number one news channel Fox News, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. are mainstream America, they are not "the loony fringe" or anywhere approaching it, no matter how strongly many editors here seem to wish they could portray them that way. Ditto for Russian government officials, Lord Lawson and many others in Britain, and so on for their countries. Also, folks who claim the article is about the hacking have to realize that police, prosecutors, and computer security officials are then the appropriate experts to quote, not scientists. Only if the article is about the content of the documents, the events discussed in the documents, and reactions to these documents and events, is it appropriate for the article to be quoting scientists as experts, as well as politicians on the political consequences of this scandal. Despite the silly claims to the contrary, the extensive coverage given to scientists in the article shows that it is obviously about the content of the documents, and the events discussed in the documents, not about the hacking, as in fact it should be, reflecting the extremely voluminous debate over the content and events discussed in the documents that any Google search on any of the famous quotes will readily find.Flegelpuss (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument from authority. Please read and familiarize yourself with it. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. FOX News, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal are all reliable sources. Assuming that these are straight news sources, it's not Argument from authority, it's the very essence of Wikipedia and exactly how we're supposed to write this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think not. Flegelpuss offers an argument from authority. He claims we should accept and respect the opinions of Inhofe, "Ex-Vice Presidential candidate " Palin, McIntryre, "number one" news channels, etc. not because their opinion is relevant to the topic, but because of who they are, and Flegelpuss erroneously claims they cannot be considered or criticized as "loony fringe" because their authority somehow rises above the level of criticism. This is in fact false - they are, most assuredly criticized, and quite heavily I might add. Now to address your claims. FOX News is not a reliable source for analyzing climate science. Neither is the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. Viriditas (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Vir, you are way off-base. This isn't a formal debate, where all logical fallacies are to be avoided. We are writing an encyclopedia, where informal logic is a better guiding principle. More importantly, this article is not "analyzing climate science". Not even close. WP has developed policies and guidelines covering what can be used as reliable sources. (As an aside, I could support a guideline preferring peer-reviewed sources over media sources in a purely science article, but I don't see evidence that WP has reached that conclusion, and in any event, it isn't applicable here.) You may not like Fox News, but it qualifies as a reliable source. Same for Washington Times and the New York Times.--SPhilbrickT 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. You're confused, and I'm here to help you understand why. Flegelpuss does not offer any reason why the sources should be used, and we don't automatically use a source because you consider it reliable. FOX News is most certainly not a reliable source on analyzing climate science, which you yourself claimed above. Whenever possible, we choose to use the best sources at our disposal. I very much doubt FOX News is a good source for this topic considering their open, overt, often confrontational bias against climate science. Perhaps if we determine that we need to demonstrate how certain media outlets are biased against this issue, using academic scholars on the subject, then yes, we can make an example of FOX News and use their poor, shoddy, biased, and error-filled reporting as an example of poor journalistic coverage on this topic. I look forward to writing that section myself, so I'll keep you updated on my progress. How does a section called, "Media bias and inaccuracy" sound, with an example of FOX News leading the first paragraph? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I’m not confused. You seem to think this is an article about climate science. It is not. I don’t disagree that Fox news’ coverage is shoddy, poor biased and error-filled. Roughly the same for the NYT. They are both media outlets more interested in satisfying an agenda that getting the facts right. But they both qualify as RS, so they are perfectly fine for this article. They are also perfectly fine for an article about science. However, if an article is about science, and the consensus of peer-reviewed articles disagrees with newspaper coverage, then I’m going with the peer-reviewed conclusions. But that doesn’t apply here. Almost every sentence is about something other than science, and I’m only adding the qualifier because I might have missed a sentence or two, but I don’t see any scientific statements in this article. SPhilbrickT 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No, Jim Inhofe is pretty fringe, and not a little loony. He claims that 90% of Americans don't believe the planet is warming, for example. Palin's problems with facts are also well documented, as is the fact that even the McCain campaign thought her unqualified to run for VP, so the fact that she's an ex VP candidate doesn't add much credibility. As for Fox News, the fact that it's a leading cable news channel in the US says very little - few people actually watch cable news, the US is just 5% of the world's population, etc. - and the fact that Fox isn't very good with the facts is well established. They aren't "mainstream America", and when it comes down to it, America isn't exactly mainstream on the issue. So 'they are mainstream America', even if it were true, is a pretty weak argument. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Jim Inhofe could be as fringe and loony as you like but his opinion would still belong there because he's the senior Senator from Oklahoma. At national level, the opinions of elected officials in any important country are significant and should probably be reported. --TS 01:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I could debate that with you until the cows come home, but I consider myself even-handed. As long as Ihofe isn't given undue weight, I don't have a problem with him appearing in this article, but I still don't think he belongs. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit where the title of the page came from [2]. --172.129.7.82 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. This is the correct diff. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was the server hacked?

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

Duplicate discussion (#Consensus on question 5 of FAQ)

Is there evidence that the CRU was hacked? What about Real Climate?

It has been suggested on numerous skeptical web sites that:

1. A whistleblower inside of CRU uploaded the emails to a server and 2. Used passwords already present in some of the emails to access the Real Climate servers.

If so this hardly fits the existing Wikipedia definition of Hack_(technology).

The assertion from CRU that the emails were removed via a hack is obviously self serving but, as nearly as I can tell the only evidence that has been offered.

I would like to see one of the following:

1. If there are details about the hack (specifically evidence that somebody "re-configur[ed] or re-programm[ed] [the] system to function in ways not facilitated by" CRU or UEA as defined by the existing wikipedia article), then I would like the article to include them. Even if we don't know how the emails got out, if it is known that this was not an instance of whistleblowing, I would like to see the article provide that information.

2. Alternatively, if the only evidence of hacking is a self-interested statement by a university spokesman, the word "hack" should probably not be used without qualifiers (like alleged) until additional information becomes available. Otherwise, it serves to bias the article. 71.243.119.32 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


See question 5 of the FAQ and the discussion above here about the consensus of question 5, which is about exactly this thing. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Consensus on question 5 of FAQ

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

Speculation by Graham was based on assumptions that have now been debunked.

Hey guys. Given that the usage of words like "hack," "leak" and "stole" has been brought up repeatedly on this talkpage with no consensus reached, it feels inappropriate to "answer" this question in the FAQ as if so clear an answer is available. I want to see this question deleted entirely. If you have a compromise in mind, feel free to offer it up. However I'm having trouble imagining that such a compromised answer (e.g., "opinions are mixed on whether to do x") would provide much guidance to the reader at all.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text of the entry as it currently stands:

Q5:Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?
A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia", and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair.
Opinion is also "mixed" as to whether Barack Obama is a Muslim or has a forged birth certificate, but these issues are addressed in Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, on which this page's FAQ is modelled. The bottom line in both cases is that we reflect facts as published by reliable sources, not speculation and myths. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and as in that case all the reliable sources point in one and only one direction: in this case, that the servers were compromised. --TS 13:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In order to make the case for us to say that it's a whistleblower, you need to find some reliable sources. We had one previously, but it was edited out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we did, actually. The only sources able to tell us how the files got out are the police, the university and the hacker. Since the hacker isn't commenting we have to go by what the police and the university say, i.e. that the files were hacked. Anything else would have come from third parties with no direct knowledge of the situation and no way of knowing - i.e. mere speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to this article.[3] I did make an effort the other day to try to find some other sources, but came up empty. It's really neither here nor there. I'm not a fan of finding the one oddball source that says something different and citing that oddball source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's also at PC World, but it's the same article.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This article was discussed before on this page and rejected. The "whistleblower" claim is attributed to the personal opinion of one non-involved individual (an activist climate-change sceptic, incidentally). It's just speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm. And for the claim that it was the work of an outside hacker intruding upon the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in a skulking smash-and-grab to come up with this carefully structured "FOIA2009.zip" archive predominantly consisting of data files and computer code - with a gracenote minority of e-mails showing how utterly rotten-to-the-core are the correspondents responsible not only for running the CRU but also the RealClimate AGW fraudsters' propaganda blog - we have only the claims of the University of East Anglia officers responsible for running the CRU and the proprietors of the RealClimate sack of feculent lies. You WikiNazi Watermelon scum want to think this over a bit? 71.125.130.14 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
What speculation? It's definitely a reliable source for the sentence "Robert Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said that "80 percent of the time it's an insider."" Didn't we have the same discussion just yesterday? Anyway, I'm not proposing adding this sentence into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a reliable source only for the unsourced personal opinion of one non-involved, non-notable individual. Since there is no indication that this individual has any particular knowledge of this particular incident, its inclusion would be undue weight on a non-notable opinion. This has all been discussed before; there's no need to rehash it yet again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Now you hit the nail on the head. It's a weighting issue, not reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's actually both. As I said, it's only reliable as a source for this person's personal opinion. It is not reliable as a source for what happened with the CRU's data, since he has no involvement with it whatsoever. It can't be used as a factual source on that issue since it's a mere statement of opinion. That's the reliability issue. The weighting issue is down to him being a non-notable individual; his opinion is really not worth more than any other climate-sceptic blogger. As you've noted yourself, it's the "one oddball source that says something different". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, he appears to be an expert on security, so this does fall within his area of expertise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This has been dealt with already. Look it up in the archives of this talk page. I'm not going to repeat this argument yet again - it's a waste of time. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Curious. What do you mean "dealt with"? Anyway, I did some more research and it turns out that he's been cited by numerous reliable sources including BBC News[5], CNET[6], MSNBC[7], eWeek[8], InfoWorld[9], USA Today[10] and many others. Non-notable, indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
He's been cited by many people, yes. And I see that you continue to believe that journalistic sources are always reliable sources and that as such their statements must be taken as factual and verifiable--which is not the case.
Further, many of the articles you cite say nothing about the CRU exploit. The BBC item, for instance, is a 2007 piece in which Graham emphasizes the ease with which traffic can be hijacked and information in data packets can be obtained. Why does Mr. Graham suddenly believe that an academic website could not be hacked, when we know for a fact that Pentagon websites have been hacked, and a Scottish programmer is in the process of being extradited for that hacking? This one doesn't pass the "sniff" test. --TS 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but my point is that the claim that he's a non-notable expert does not appear to be correct. So the situation as it stands is that we have an established and notable expert speaking within his area of expertise. But yes, the lack of corroborating sources remains problematic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, anything coming from Robert Graham is tainted by his admission that he is a climate skeptic. That conflict of interest eliminates him as a reliable source, to my mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm heading out for the night, so I won't be able to research this until later, but when we started this discussion, we had no reliable sources to support the claim that it might have been an insider. We now have one reliable source which which quotes an established and notable expert speaking within his area of expertise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
As I remarked earlier, this fellow's opinion is not relevant because he has no (none, zilch, zero) information related to the incident. The Norfolk police, the Metropolitan police, the University of East Anglia, the RealClimate, do have information relevant to the incident, and they're treating it seriously, as a criminal offence.
I don't subscribe to the notion of "notability", but even if I did the question of notability is moot. He's speculating, and the nicest thing I can say is that he's entitled to speculate. Let's quote his opinion if he is hired as an expert by the Metropolitan Police in this case. At that point we might presume that he has actual data to go on. --TS 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Per the anon's comment below: it's a frequently asked question, so it belongs in the FAQ. The answer may not be satisfactory to you, but broadly speaking it explains why we have done things the way we have done. It provides enough information for someone who disagrees with it to know how to phrase their disagreement. It doesn't give "The" answer to the question, but it explains why things are the way they are, at present. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have proof the documents were hacked, rather than released by a whistle blower, calling them hacked is just speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.61.57 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ above, question 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to represent the speculation of a self-appointed "security expert" who had no actual knowledge of the case in hand as evidence that there was an inside job is doomed to failure. All reliable sources tell us it's being treated as a hacking, and only speculation of the type we saw in the Obama case (thanks for reminding us, Chris) says otherwise. --TS 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, when we started this discussion, we had no reliable sources to support the claim that it might have been an insider. We now have at least one reliable source[11] which which quotes an established and notable expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security): BBC News[12], CNET[13], MSNBC[14], eWeek[15], InfoWorld[16], USA Today[17] and many others.
I did some more research and it appears that Robert Graham is also a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[18] Elsevier is a respected publishing house, is it not? According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You should read the articles you link to. Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
AQFK is missing the point again. Re-read what Tony says: Graham's speculating. He is not involved in any capacity in this issue. He might be qualified to speak about general issues of network security but as an uninvolved party he has no more idea than the rest of us about what happened in this specific issue. AQFK has shown that he's a talking head; big deal. It doesn't make his opinion any more relevant. I'm not even sure that he's speaking in his capacity as a security expert in this case; the (undisclosed) fact that Graham is an activist climate-sceptic blogger suggests that he's merely forwarding blogosphere speculation, of which he is surely aware. We don't deal in speculation, period. I don't know why AQFK is even bothering to push this, since he's already acknowledged that Graham's is a fringe view. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Robert Graham is a highly reputable computer security professional. He analysis is widely quoted in the media and should go in the article to counter the undue weight given to the speculation that the emails were "stolen" or "hacked". Flegelpuss (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
But as someone with an admitted conflict of interest, he has effectively ruled himself out for use as a reliable source. I really cannot see how this discussion can be further prolonged, given these circumstances. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Chris, please keep in mind that thus far, I have agreed with you and Tony regarding this issue because I found your arguments persuasive. However, if it turns out that I was wrong, I have no problem admitting that I was wrong. I hope that you can do the same. Wikipedia, like science, should be self-correcting.
As I have noted before, this is not a topic that I am particularly interested in. My primary interest is in making sure we write a neutral article. Whether content "helps" or "hurts" a particular side of the global climate debate is, quite frankly, not my concern.
But what I am concerned about is what I think I'm hearing about Graham's character. Are you accusing Robert Graham of compromising his professional integrity in this matter? If so, that's a very serious accusation and WP:BLP applies. Now, if you have reliable sources to back such allegations, that's one thing. But WP:BLP applies to talk pages, too. Perhaps this is a road you don't want to go down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
We have reliable sources that categorically state that the UEA servers were illegally accessed, and that a data theft took place. The stolen data was then disseminated to the internet. That data theft is being investigated by police, and both the CRU and the Norfolk rozzers have corroborated this. On the flip side, we have a climate skeptic who happens to be a security expert. He gives his opinion based on access to the stolen data, but with no access to the servers and no "insider" information from the UEA or the police conducting the investigation. This is nothing more than the opinion of someone with a conflict of interest without full access to the facts. Let's not waste more time on this, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
All we have is that he's quoted as saying: 'Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider"'. He knows nothing about this incident, he has an opinion about this 'type' of incident, but we don't know what 'type' of incident he thinks this is - a university research department hack? a global warming hack? a politically motivated hack? a hack shortly before an international conference? He doesn't say. He also doesn't say what research he is basing his '80%' on - is it actual statistics or is it just a guess? The figure is a very round number for actual research, and actual research would have defined what 'type' of incident this is too. The whole quote gives us nothing except a source for his opinion, and his opinion doesn't even seem to be based on anything much. It certainly has nothing to do with this case. For this case, as ChrisO said above, there are three parties with an informed opinion, the university, the police and the perpetrator. We've quoted two of them, and will add the third when it's established. The rest is tendentious argument. --Nigelj (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
He is simply quoting statistics, in 80% of all cases of information theft, the theft is committed by an insider (nothing really controversial about that). The trouble is when you take a specific incident without knowing the background, and stating that it is most likely an insider... statistically you will be correct in 80% of the cases - but when applied to a specific case it has no information value. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
"He knows nothing about this incident". Actually, you might want to read his blog posting where he discusses the hack, including his examination of the computer logs: [19]
There also appears to be a misunderstanding surrounding this whole "hacker vs insider" question. Graham is saying that it was a hacker who had a legitimate account or physical access to a University of East Anglia computer. This entire "hacker vs insider" issue appears to be based on a False dichotomy at least as far as Graham's analysis goes.
BTW, I found a couple more reliable sources which also published this article: Reuters[20] and PC World[21]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Erm? Do you know what background for analysing hacks/data thefts is? Or what logs are? Do you know why he is using the sentence "most proxies also forward the original IP address as a separate field in the web request", did you know that it is possible to "chain" proxies? All he has examined is where a posting to a blog came from. He has no knowledge of the security system at CRU, the firewall software, the intrusion detection software (if any), or insight into any of the logs for the systems, all of which are essential to determining where the hacker/whatever came from and whether it was an outside or inside job.
Summary: Graham has absolutely no knowledge about what happened at CRU, and only guesses about postings on a blog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That blog post of his proves several things: (a) he has no concrete or inside information about this attack, as we said (b) he does now say, in direct contradiction of that quote you wanted to put in, that it was an outside hack (c) he is not involved in the case and so is still guessing (d) he still can't help using his blog to put forward fringe, nonsensical and libellous views on climate change in general and these scientific workers in particular (under 'Context' at the end). Therefore, this whole discussion about quoting his original unfounded guesses was a waste of everybody's time here. I hope you're not now expecting us to discuss his attempt for another '15 minutes of fame' with this new unfounded guesswork? --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hold on a second there, I haven't proposed adding any quote to the article. I was originally only making a minor point about reliability and it morphed into this huge discussion which I did not anticipate. The reason for that is every time I'm been told something, I looked it up for myself and it turned out to be wrong. "We don't have any sources for possibility of it being an insider." Wrong. We have at least one. "Graham's not notable." Wrong. He's widely cited by numerous reliable sources. "Graham's not an expert." Wrong. He is an expert and security is his area of expertise. "It can't be an insider, it must be a hacker." Wrong, hacker and insider are not mutually exclusive. But both you and Kim have made excellent points that Graham doesn't have inside access to their system.
Where this all leads us, I don't know. As I already mentioned a few times now, I see the lack of corroborating sources as problematic. But this whole discussion, I think, has been very productive because it has revealed that the the ongoing "hacker vs. insider" debate has been framed incorrectly. You can be both a hacker and insider at the same time. For example, I work in IT and while I do have access to my company's source code, I don't have access to my company's e-mail server. If wanted to get my company's e-mails, I'd probably have to hack into it. Obviously, I have no intention of doing that, but hypothetically speaking, if I were, I would be both a hacker and an insider. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It is correct that a hacker can come from the inside as well. Graham does make another serious mistake, where he assumes without knowledge, and that is in the timeline, where he places the Oct 12 as the beginning of the hack. He is running with rumours here (which have later been debunked by Hudson), that the BBC had access to "hacked versions" of the emails. They didn't. Hudson was part of an email-conversation (he was CC'd or Bcc'd), and thus could match his genuine mails with the hacked ones... that was misinterpreted by some blogs as if Hudson had gotten "early advances" of the hacked emails. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible sources - Climategate and Wikipedia

  • Solomon, Lawrence (December 19, 2009). "Wikipedia's climate doctor: How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles". National Post. The National Post Company. Retrieved 2009-12-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Ball, Tim (December 7, 2009). "Climategate; The Supporting Cast - Thought Police Anyone?". Canada Free Press. canadafreepress.com. Retrieved 2009-12-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cirt (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lawrence Solomon piece is part of a long series of opinion columns in the National Post. The Canada Free Press piece is so full of distortions and rank falsehoods that even linking to it from Wikipedia would raise serious concerns related to our biographies of living persons policy. --TS 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay okay okay, just suggestions. No worries, Cirt (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Solomon's article is hilarious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The Solomon and Ball reports are consistent with what I've learned while trying to discuss and edit Wikipedia articles related to climate. One need only read the discussion above to see the extreme double standards when applying the rules on reliable sources, depending on whether they tend to confirm or refute the dominant editors' beliefs, which are now way out of the mainstream. BTW, TS, what specific errors did you find in either of the reports? I didn't find any. Flegelpuss (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The ridiculous accusations of deliberate deception are the most obvious falsehoods. There are other lies which involve detailed claims, but those big lies are the ones that stand out. The article is apparently written by a retired geography lecturer who has occasionally been misrepresented by third parties as a climatologist. I notice that a note appended to this piece by him again repeated the false description of him as a "former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg." --TS 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought WP:LINKSPAM was not allowed. WTF? --GoRight (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that there is a serious conflict of interest here after reading all the article editing. This is definitely a controversial issue that needs both views clearly mentioned without a clear settlement. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention using this talk page to promote his personal blog. Bill, if the content of your blog is helpful in improving the article, just copy and paste your blog post here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No, WMC's posting of the URL is quite right. He has every right to defend himself against the attacks being aimed at him by Solomon, Ball and their followers. However, it's not really appropriate to use Wikipedia to do so. Therefore the appropriate thing to do is to respond on his blog and direct people to his response (and the associated debate), exactly as he has done above. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"The other view" on this matter, as expressed by bloggers and opinion pieces in the right-wing media, is that these scientists are liars, frauds and conspirators to destroy the civilised world. All of these opinions fail our WP:BLP policy as none of them have been proved in a court of law or by an officially sanctioned investigation. These will come out if there is any case to answer, and then we'll report all the sordid details that are exposed. Until then, there is no COI and there has been no biassed editing here - just reflections of the facts as reported by reliable sources, as it will continue to be. --Nigelj (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the other view on this matter, as expressed by bloggers and opinions pieces in the left-wing media, is that these scientists are beyond reproach, and any such evidence that shows otherwise needs to be automatically labled as "lies" or "slander", and deleted by the AGW cabal. No biased editing? That's funny, and intellectually dishonest, but we seem to be getting quite a bit of that from the left nowadays, huh? 75.150.245.244 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— 75.150.245.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Nigel: AFAIK, as long as we're citing third-party reliable sources, we should be fine in most all situations. Exceptions include religious beliefs, sexual orientation, people who are relatively unknown, dates of birth, names of family members, etc., none of which currently applies to this topic.
Crazy: I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BLP so you know what's allowed and what's not. It's extremely important that you cite third-party, reliable sources. You can't use op-eds or blogs for controversial material about someone else. Which reminds me. I hope we're not using RealClimate or ClimateAudit as sources for controversial material about each other or for anyone else. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You are using them, just do a search for RealClimate and you will find 50 something links. And it appear that a few are about opinions of the writers and not factual statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Painlord2k (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead getting cluttered again

In earlier discussions I remarked that the lead had become very congested with multiple source references. As the lead is only supposed to be a summary, the use of multiple references at that point is not necessary. As I had done before, since the lead had again become congested, I have removed secondary, tertiary, and other references. One is enough. --TS 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is cluttered because profoundly biased editors have insisted on packing every possible negative and speculative word -- "illegal", "stolen", "hacked", etc. into the lead and repeating these flames as many times as possible. We even have a specific quote about the alleged hack in the lead -- quotes obviously don't belong in a lead, for crying out loud. And as another editor commented above, the first sentence in this lead is out-and-out false. "Climategate" as used by well over 90% of the people using that word refers to the content of the documents and the extremely controversial behavior described or embodied in them, and to the resulting investigations and reviews of the documents and of the work of Jones, Mann, etc., not to the alleged hack. CRU is an open scientific research institute holding public scientific data, not a secret weapons research facility or repository of credit card numbers or anything else sensitive, so a breach by itself is not notable. It has only been made notable by what was revealed in the documents and the resulting political storm and investigations. Flegelpuss (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You say "quotes obviously don't belong in a lead", but out lead section guideline seems to contradict your claim in at least two places:
  • Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations.
  • The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited.
There are at present two brief quotations in the lead, both from the University's confirmation announcement stating that "data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites." and "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised." I don't see anything wrong with those--they seem uncontroversial and confirm that the university is taking this theft seriously. --TS 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the server hacked? Pt 2

Yes, the server was hacked. Whether the hacker was an insider or an outsider is unknown. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Was it hacked? They state that they had (the compilation of documents), the "file" sitting on the server. If this were the case, then an insider would only need to copy the file using their credentials...this would not be a case in which the server was reconfigured or reprogrammed. If the person who obtained the emails did not use authentic credentials to obtain the information, then one could say the server was hacked. There are notable people who believe that the data may have been leaked rather than hacked.Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Monckton would not be a reliable source for the colour of the sky, let alone an issue such as this on which he has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. We're not going to add speculation, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The logic behind such a statement is ad hominem abusive and therefore irrelevant. Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You are abusing the word logic here, thought processes would have been better. --GoRight (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
All the reliable sources say it was hacked. That's what we go with. --TS 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that's a sensible response. I do agree that for now it seems that the mainstream media is stating that the emails were hacked, but there are other sources still saying they may have been either hacked or leaked. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say "the mainstream media". I said "all the reliable sources." I am not referring to any speculation or opinions by any journalists, pundits or commentators. I am referring to statements of fact by reliable sources. --TS 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
ROFL. This is an incredible position for you to have taken given what you stated just an hour later, [27]. --GoRight (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the sense of both comments is identical. --TS 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Analysis-Leaked Following is proposed summary text:

“Network specialist Lance Levsen analyzed the emails and documents in the FOIA2009.zip file.[28] Emails were numbered and saved without headers while only one out of 402,839 emails was selected. The computer system topography indicates emails were archived at a gateway server, not from departmental servers or individual computers. Documents by contrast appear “dumped”, by the University's FOI Officer. Levensen concluded: “The details of the files tell a story that FOIA2009.zip was compiled internally and most likely released by an internal source.”” This gives objective factual basis for the argument that the file was collected by an FOI officer and leaked, rather than "hacked".DLH (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that we publish a blog article by a former weatherman as a reliable source? --TS 04:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No "speculation or opinions by any journalists, pundits or commentators", got it. In that case, we've got some work to do on the sourcing. The first instance of the word hacking is sandwiched between two references. [29] which is an opinion piece and [url=https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update] which is a primary source and does not use the term hack or hacking in any case. The next use of the word comes with a BBC news story [30] but has no actual quote stating that the server was hacked, paraphrasing the spokesman's quoted statement that information was taken illegally. The mention of the internal investigation and the story's own computer expert talking about having care with permissions so that users don't have access to inappropriate directories leave the impression that the use of hacking is a journalistic speculation designed to drive traffic and not a proper news conclusion. And really, that's about it for reliable sources. It's a conclusion that's not documented very well and seems to be mainly about jumping to the convenient conclusion that it was not a leak.
You really want to watch that 3rd reference in my list. If that sort of paraphrase is acceptable then Pachauri's recent incendiary slander in the Indian Express really ought to be in the article too. His accusation that journalists Christopher Booker and Richard North's news piece "were coming from the same group of people who had tried unsuccessfully to discredit the IPCC and the “irrefutable science” on climate change by hacking personal emails of some scientists a few weeks ago" is rather intemperate and comes as a bit of a non-sequitur because the news report is an ethical/economic conflict of interest piece[31]. TMLutas (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting take on matters. The problem here is that you're focussing on the word "hacking" rather than the question of whether the hacking took place. --TS 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TS that the source doesn't meet the requirements of reliable sources. That said, the analysis is interesting, and if the mainstream media would actually do their job, instead of flitting to the next ambulance, we might have a RS weighing in. However, the mandate of WP is well-established, so we can point out these observations on talk pages, which may be leading indicators of material eventually reported, but we can't include them in the article until better sourced.--SPhilbrickT 14:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The "analysis" is little more than speculation, and very inaccurate speculation at that. Anti-science activists have claimed that the files were part of a draft FOI release solely because of the filename. But the filename was clearly created by the hacker. The first version of the zipped file was uploaded to RealClimate under the filename foia.zip. The same file was then re-uploaded to a Russian FTP server under the name foi2009.zip. This "analyst" appears to be ignorant of that fact, and equally ignorant of how the UK FOI regime works - much of the stolen material would never have been releasable under FOI in the first place. The "analysis" is junk, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
We don't have to worry: there are going to be enquiries and maybe a trial, that's when more actual reliable facts will emerge. Until then, we have captured the significant statements of the significant parties already and there is no need to rush after more 'news' - there is none. On the subject of that blogger quoted above, he is confused, or just being confusing. He says, "only one out of 402,839 emails was selected". What does that mean? In an email client, you can 'select' an email to read it, but in a zip file, no files are 'selected' unless you display them in a zip client and select one. He draws conclusions from what the "computer system topography indicates". Does he mean the folder names within the zip file? They are only an artefact of the zip file, not of the computer that made the zip, or where the data came from. Even they look like the folder structure in some gateway server that he is familiar with, that does not mean that the "emails were archived at a gateway server" - those folders could be (re-)created in any zip file on any laptop. Anyway, how does a gateway server prove that they were "dumped by the University's FOI Officer"? A gateway server could be hacked externally as well as anything else - better maybe. The hackers could have had weeks to pre-process the data, rebuild the zip file, rename files and folders inside it, rename it... He is misusing a tiny bit of technical-sounding jargon to appear (to the non-technical) to prove whatever he likes. This is why it's not worth debating the present worthless speculation. Let's wait for serious investigations to report some actual facts. --Nigelj (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
He misses the most obvious thing... All of the mails are Jones' - the simple item is that all of these were in a unix mail folder on the same machine (probably labelled tree-work/temp-work or something like that, and then zipped it up [no need to hack into different machines or any of the other stuff]. The hacker took this file and dumped the mails into a directory as txt files (simple operation)). All of the network analysis is simply fluff. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: To seek consensus before acting

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

The proposal met considerable opposition. The discussion also fell in quality after personal remarks were exchanged. Please use dispute resolution to resolve interpersonal conflicts. Use this page to discuss article content.

This article covers a pretty controversial event, and partisan views are evident everywhere. I would like to propose that editors seeking to change the article first win consensus for their change on the talk page, unless the proposed edit is completely uncontroversial (like fixing a typo). For example, irrespective of the merits of the inclusion, this edit by Nightmote is clearly designed to provoke, rather than improve (as implied by the edit summary of, "Expert commentary. Let's time this.") - very unhelpful indeed. This would be similar to having the article fully protected, but conducted on a voluntary basis that allows us to make minor changes without administrator assistance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm neutral on this. One of the complaints made about the climate change articles is that they are "owned". Whether this is true or not is another matter, I don't believe they are, but a general resolution on consensus prior to all edits would tend to act as a hold on all edits, and I think that situation could become rather unhealthy. There are some merits, but too, I can't support this at present. --TS 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose (thanks for the redaction) My edit was made in good faith and refected my genuine opinion. I do not want to engage in an edit war, nor do I intend to, but I have grave reservations that some of the editors are unwilling to acknowledge that Reliably Sourced opposition opinions exist. but I am concerned that I seem to be unable to make headway towards "consesnsus" in the face of "bold editing" and rapid reverts. Nightmote (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree (probably for the first time ever :) with GoRight. This is unnecessary and diametrically opposed to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but time and again it has been proven that editors have been unable to "do the right thing" and continue edit contentious, tendentiously and disruptively. If this sort of poor behavior doesn't stop, I will have no choice but to request full page protection and have this limit imposed - a far less convenient solution. GoRight is wrong in saying "WP:BRD is tried and true", insofar as it only works effectively on relatively quiescent articles. In contentious articles like this, it is a recipe for disaster that constantly sparks edit warring. Complaints of ownership are indeed a problem, with one or two editors imposing themselves with overly-rapid discussion closures/archiving and unilateral edits that other editors would prefer to see discussed. Editors expressing a skeptical view (and in some cases, fringe view) have just as much right to have their concerns addressed in a meaningful discussion as those expressing a mainstream view. Everyone needs to calm down, talk about things more, and stop acting in ways that create discord. Although Nightmote's edit (referred to in my comment above) was made in an antagonistic manner, the editor makes a valid point about rapid reverting being a problem; however, bringing it to the talk page first would have been infinitely preferable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with you refering to my edit as "antagonistic", and with your double dismissive reference to my position as "fringe". I have been very patient, made every effort to discuss issues and seek consensus, and improve what I consider to be a bloated and off-topic article. I made several comments regarding Weart, including the observation that he was uninvolved with the UEA situation, relatively unknown, and that his quote wasn't particularly accurate. My deletion was in-line with WP policy, as was the revert. My subsequent quote addition and editing were also per WP policy. "If in doubt, leave it out." Isn't that your position? Assume Good Faith. Nightmote (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As I explained in my comment above (refactored earlier, but restored by me), your edit summary was unnecessarily antagonistic. If you hadn't used the edit summary to be pointy, this wouldn't have come up. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
My comment was general. Your comment was specific. My comment was aimed at editors who have been hovering over this article and reverting anything that didn't support their POV. Your comment was aimed at *specifcally* me, was very personal, and is unnecessary. (expanded) And, because this bears repeating, the deletion was made in Good Faith in an effort to improve the article *after* discussion on the current talk page and in an archived talk page. Not everybody agreed with my deletion, but not everybody agreed with the inclusion of the quote in the first place. As for blocking the article (again) I see little consensus for your position on that. Nightmote (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Scjessey has not only chosen to restore a previously redacted personal attack, but he has chosen to make things worse with "Although Nightmote's edit (referred to in my comment above) was made in an antagonistic manner ...". Another clear personal attack. If anyone is being antagonistic here, I would humbly submit that it is Scjessey and his inflammatory comments. --GoRight (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to simply quote someone's edit summary and say why it was antagonistic. The edit summary was written to bait other editors into a response, so I quoted it above as part of my proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: delete "Similar incidents" section

This section was added without a clear consensus -- see earlier discussion here -- and doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit a separate section. Perhaps a mention in passing elsewhere? See this National Post article for a complete report; this is the cite we should use, if we retain a mention of this (single) incident. Dr. Weaver is a redlink, and appears to be a publicity-seeker, and a bit paranoid. Note this line from NP: Weaver "believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion." " Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He may be a redlink on Wikipedia, but he's an IPCC lead auithor. --TS 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, this breakin was just one of others at the University of Victoria. From a forwarded Anthropology Dept email notice:
"I’ve just learned that there have been a number of office and lab break-ins across campus in recent days–initially Science & Engineering buildings, but now Cornett & BEC. Psychology has had several offices and labs broken into, and last night there were break-ins in second-floor offices in BEC. Entry seems to be happening by jimmying/forcing locks."
Probably not the shadowy minions of Exxon after all. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That's strange. The campus spokeswoman the National Post contacted confirmed that breakins, attempted hacking, and impersonation of technicians at CCCma (yes, specifically the CCCma, the climatology building) had taken place, and I fail to see how they can all be written off in the flippant manner your blogger does. According to Weaver, the office break-ins were last year while the hacking attempts were in the past few months.
And needless to say your blogger is not a reliable source on matters pertaining to CCCMa or crime. Weaver and the Post's University contact, however, are reliable sources who corroborate one another. Your blogger simply tries, and fails, to spread misinformation. --TS 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review: CRU emails

One the more controversial topics in the CRU emails surrounds the peer review process.

Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones 11 March 2003 RE: Prof. Mann's expresses his concerns and strategy at preventing opposing papers from being able to claim they have been peer reviewed after a skeptical paper is published by "Climate Research". The following is a summary of the key points of the email.

Prof. Mann comments that Soon & Baliunas could not have cleared a "legitmate" peer review process. Prof. Mann concludes that "Climate Research" has been hijacked by skeptics. Prof. Mann list De Frietas, someone in his department as hijackers. Prof. Mann also speculates on the positions of the editors on the editorial board. Prof. Mann believes the only choice was to ignore the journal and stop submitting papers to, and citing papers in it.

Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann and others on the cc list Prof. Jones states he is going to tell "Climate Research" that he will have nothing more to do with them until they get rid of the troublesome editor. Prof. Jones notes that a CRU person is on the editorial board but not the person dealing with the papers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the peer review discussions are covered in the article already, from reliable sources. --TS 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
New information's come out [32]. It looks like a good source. Any trouble with it? TMLutas (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece, and cannot be considered to be a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of Patrick Michaels. Whether Patrick Michaels' opinion belongs in the article is another question. --TS 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is important to have a separate category for peer review as it is a key issue, the WSJ article is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Tony it is not neutral or fair to consider every skeptic as an unreliable source. Please suggest a skeptic you would consider a reliable source. There is all kinds of opinion in the posted article with zero evidence to support them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcdonald29 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already told you. As I said above, Patrick Michaels is a reliable source for the opinion of Patrick Michaels. The only question is whether we think Patrick Michaels' opinion is significant enough to go into the article. I am undecided on that. If we use Michaels' opinion, we will of course make it absolutely plain that his words represent his opinion and only his opinion. --TS 10:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that established experts in the field ARE considered WP:RS for statements of fact. This is the argument continually set forth to justify the inclusion of tripe from RealClimate. So in this case your assertion appears to be vacuous. --GoRight (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the relevant bit from WP:RS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." An editorial is effectively self-published material which is why it is normally treated the way you mention. However, Michaels is an established climate expert with peer-reviewed publications in that field and as such he is more than qualified to discuss the peer review process as it exists in that field from an insider's perspective. --GoRight (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You know what, TS? I've decided that it's OK for me to lose my patience with you a little bit. You believe that a quote from Spencer R. Weart should be in, but that a quote from Patrick Michaels should be excluded? I'm going to go with the previous request, TS, that you name an honest-to-God hard-line skeptic that you will accept as a bona fide reliable source. It is time to put up or shut up when it comes to NPOV, and if you're not willing to accept that there *is* another side to this discussion, then I am going to find it increasingly difficult to accept that you're seeking any kind of consensus on this article. Nightmote (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You write "You believe that a quote from Spencer R. Weart should be in, but that a quote from Patrick Michaels should be excluded? "
No that is not what I believe and indeed it contradicts what I wrote. If you're going to lose your temper, please first get your facts right so that you will be getting angry over something rather than nothing. --TS 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's important that we don't fall into the trap of turning this into an article about the global warming debate. It is also important that we don't fall into the trap of giving skeptics like Michaels a platform by distorting WP:NPOV. For every AGW skeptic you can probably find a thousand who are not, so the skeptic POV is actually fringe POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
" ... As it is, just one qualified expert has been consulted, to our knowledge, and this is what he has to say. I think the quotation should remain ... " (TS on stub-worthy Weart) "Qualified"? Maybe so. But if Weart is significant, then so is Michaels. And if Michaels isn't qualified, then it is fair for me to ask (twice, now) for you to name a skeptic that you are willing to accept as a Reliable Source. Scjessey this has nothing to do with whether AGW is "fringe" or "non-fringe" - this is about the UEA data breach and whether an editor is willing to acknowledge that there exists an honestly-held opposition view without injecting his *opinion* whether that reliable source is right or not. Any Creationist can acknowledge that Darwin is a reliable source for statements on Evolution without compromising his/her beliefs. So, TS - name me the skeptic's Darwin, already, and make me eat crow. Nightmote (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You're missing my point. It's hard to find a "legitimate" or "qualified" skeptic of climate change because it's such a fringe view. In otherwords, having such a view virtually eliminates them reliable source contention. To use your own analogy, AGW is mainstream science in the same way as evolution is (considerably revised since Darwin's time, of course), and people skeptical of evolution are generally regarded as having a fringe view also. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you got it backwards, Nightmote. Darwin is the scientist, creationists are anti-science, climate research is a science. Who's the one who's right among the creationists? When you tell me that, I'll try and find the CC denier who's right. --Nigelj (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Nightmote is trying to find a Kent Hovind to "counterbalance" a Stephen Jay Gould. Which seems to be very much a case of promoting a false equivalence between fringe and mainstream scientific viewpoints. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. That's a better way of saying what I was trying to say. Ride that dinosaur! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I beg your pardon, but I am afraid that you have ALL missed my point. Darwin is a Reliable Source regarding Evolutionary Theory. The Bible might be cited as a Reliable Source for Creationist Theory, or Michael Faraday or Johannes Kepler or Isaac Newton. Reliable sources for the oppostion viewpoint. Climate research *is* a science, and certain scientists now stand *accused* (not convicted, by any means) of improprieties involving data fudging and corrupting the peer review process. Many scientists are standing up to defend the accused scientists' good names. Other scientists are standing up and demanding more openness and transparency, or suggesting that the billions of dollars of government funds are just as corrupting as the billions from Big Oil. Reliable Sources for the varying points of view exist, but if TS is unwilling to accept that individuals of good conscience exist on BOTH sides of the issue, then consensus on article neutrality cannot exist. STILL waiting for a name, TS. One name. One person of good conscience and reputation that you don't agree with. Nightmote (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I see part of the problem. This is not a scientific dispute; this is a dispute about how the scientists are operating, and one does not need to be an active scientist in the field to have a credible opinion about whether some of the actions suggested in the E-mails would be improper. What we need is a noted reliable ethicist to comment on this, except that there is no such animal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Arthur. What you wrote is far more productive that most of what I've written. Nightmote (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I think the problem is that there is no Bible quote that says you can pollute the atmosphere by burning up all the fuel in just a few hundred years and leave the crippled earth like a 'used kleenex' when you're done with getting rich and spoiling yourself in luxury. Even creationists have stuff to quote, these CC deniers are out on their own. Anyway, this is an article about an e-mail hacking incident and, until the investigations/hearings/trials are published we cannot speculate in the way bloggers and op-ed writers can. We can only report the facts via the reliably published statements of the involved parties, as we've done. --Nigelj (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that there is no confirmation that the scientists have actually done anything wrong. All we have at the moment are allegations. Your hypothetical ethicist would be in the same position as all the other commentators - speculating, without any firm knowledge of whether there had actually been any ethical violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little perturbed that, despite my pointing to the fact that it's contradicted by my own prior words, Nightmote continues to misrepresent my position as being opposed to the quoting the opinion of Patrick Michaels as an expert climatologist. I note that we already do, in fact, quote Michaels as such, and there's no question of that quote being removed simply because his opinion is opposed to that of most climate scientists. But I'll take up that matter, if necessary, with Nightmote himself, as it's an interpersonal matter. The fact is that I'm considering wheter we might incorporate Michaels' opinion piece into the article, and if so, how we should do it. Nightmote could not be more wrong. --TS 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I beg your pardon, TS, but you argued in writing for the inclusion of Weart's quote, and then stated in writing that you were "undecided" on the Michael's quote. I am willing to concede that I may have inadvertently misrepresented your position (for which I apologize), but surely you can see where I might be confused? My position on *both* quotes is that they have little bearing on the article and should be removed, but if Weart's quote should remain describing the unprecedented attack on science, then some balance is required to identify the source of the outrage. Nightmote (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging that I'm undecided on inclusion of the Patrick Michaels quote. If you think his quotes shouldn't be included, then why are you attacking me for considering that they might be? If your purpose is to confuse me, if have succeeded.
I do not understand your argument on balance. Do you contend that Michaels is an expert on the history of science? --TS 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Weart is an AGW-supporting author uninvolved in the controversy. Your observation in another section, along the lines of "we can't include everybody" applies equally well to Weart. If I am attacking you (though I tell you that I am taking issue with your *position*, not with *you*), it is only because you took the time to defend Weart, but are on the fence regarding Michaels. Michaels is at least as well-qualified to comment as Weart, though based on my initial edit you ought to know that I feel the entire section is superfluous. Nightmote (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Weart is "Involved in he controversy" by virtue of having written a book on the history of global warming? Good grief! --TS 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, did you mean to type "uninvolved"? I wrote that he is an AGW-supporting author, and that he is uninvolved in this controversy. What I mean by that is that there was a break-in, there is an ongoing investigation, and there is fallout. My (I believe defensible) position has been that the article ought to be limited to the clearly identifiable events and consequences, limiting quotes and opinion (and controversy) to a minimum. So (for instance) I think that it would be great to say, "The files were removed, the school claims they were stolen, some professors have received death threats, and the police are investigating this as a crime" but not so necessary (or pertinent) to include what professor Weart or professor Michaels or former Vice President Al Gore has to say unless that person was in a position to effect policy (President Obama isn't involved in the controversy, but his *opinion* of the controversy has significant bearing on US policy). Weart's quote might influence what President Obama thinks, but it is what President Obama says and does that are significant. If Professor Weart was appointed tomorrow as the new Global Warming Czar, I would then say that his quote was hugely important. I would support including external links to each and every one of these quotes, by the way. It's not that Professor Weare or Al Gore doesn't matter or isn't well-informed, it's that in the final analysis their opinions aren't pivotal. Nightmote (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your "uninvolved" as "involved". Mea culpa. On the subject matter, I think I've already remarked that Weart is cited as a science historian. What we're writing here is, technically, a historical article. Weart can be expected to have the long perspective that others do not, and that helps us to make this article a bit better than it would otherwise be. --TS 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the inclusion of his quote invites "dueling experts" and the blizzard of quotes under which the facts are buried. Nightmote (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If we have a statement by another science historian I think we should probably put it in, too. We probably have a dearth of such opinions. --TS 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur laments the absence of a citation from a "reliable" ethicist. Actually I believe the AP article cites an ethicist, or something close. During the past four days we seem to have become a little paralysed and haven't really incorporated the AP piece into the article, and I think that's a mistake. So, perhaps a reboot is in order. --TS 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

New expert commentary

Thomas Sowell has published an article today about this controversy[33]. I plan on adding the following quote to the article:

"People who have in the past applauded whistleblowers in business, in the military, or in Republican administrations, and who lionized the New York Times for publishing the classified Pentagon papers, are now shocked and outraged that someone dared to expose massive evidence of manipulations, concealment and destruction of data— and deliberate cover-ups of all this— in the global warming establishment."

I'm certain that many of you here don't agree with many of Dr. Sowell's opinions. However his notability can't be ignored. -- User:Chelydramat This cursed Ograbme! 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What relevance does this blogged opinion have to the event? Everybody has an opinion on this. We can't include them all. --TS 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Blogged? Dr. Sowell is as far from a blogger as you can get. His published works far exceeds that of Spencer Weart. Then again, to use the standard you're using here, the whole Reactions section can be deleted since it's just a bin of quotations without any summation of the event in question. -- User:Chelydramat This cursed Ograbme! 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You added his commentary to "Other expert commentary". What is this fellow's expertise? --TS 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Sowell has written more books than Weart and is probably better known within the general population, but he is an economist and social commentator who's work (as far as I can tell) has had nothing to do with climate science or any physical sciences at all. In contrast, Spencer Weart is a physicist and science historian who's produced The Discovery of Global Warming, a highly detailed account of the development of the science behind AGW. Obviously, Weart's comments are far more relevant than anything Sowell would have to say.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia article he's an economist, It's hard to see how this comment is relevant to his field of expertise?
—Apis (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It was stated elsewhere that this event has had no significant scientific fallout, but some public fallout. Sowell would not be my first choice, but he is a reasonably well-known and authoritative conservative social commentator from National Review, and his opinion in that article is defensible. However. This quote is part of the slippery slope of including opinions from people not directly involved in the event; his opinion is Reliably Sourced, on the subject, and respected by a percentage of the population, but has little relevence. Nightmote (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
We address the political fallout directly by mentioning the calls for an inquiry by Senator Inhofe and Lord Lawson, the questions in Parliament, and so on. We've adopted a deliberate policy of avoiding the statements of self-appointed pundits, simply because it's an issue on which everybody has a strong opinion. --TS 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I think it would be more appropriate to say that you and the editors who have wrestled control of this article from the community have adopted a deliberate policy of avoiding the statements of self-appointed pundits … that is unless you agree with them and then its fair game. WVBluefield (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have evidence to support your allegation, use the dispute resolution policy. --TS 15:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

YouTube video

Are we seriously using a YouTube video for a cite on the James Inhofe/cap and trade bit?[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia"

I'm not sure what use (if any) we could (or should) make of this, but here's James Delingpole's take on this article, and other things Wikipedian:

“Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists.

Happy(?) reading -- Pete Tillman (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This definitely belongs in the article. Who could fail to be impressed by Delingpole's calm, reasoned presentation and his evenhanded analysis of the evidence? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Our article is clearly biased but his accusations against William Connolley regarding this article are unfounded. Bill is not the problem here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. The news article is rather disingenuous. When pundits have nothing else to do they make stuff up about Wikipedia. It speaks ill of the Telegraph that they print such factually wrong nonsense even in an editorial. But they're also the paper that ran with a news story about the World Net Daily piece about the Barack Obama article and failed to issue a correction when informed it was a set-up. If that experience is any guide, better batten down the hatches because this article is in for a large influx of newbies and trolls. Meanwhile, might as well add a {{press}} template. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with AQFK. Whatever the problems with this article if any, and whatever problems WMC may or may not have had in other Climate Change related articles, it's clear WMCs activity both in the talk page and in the article has been rather limited for the past 2 or 3 weeks and all this WMC controlling the article that some conspiracy theorists like to sprout is nonsense. Personally I stopped even bother to read what Delingpole writes when I read the first article someone here linked and found him talking up Ian Wishart Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Running scared. Great stuff!--82.29.1.10 (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is simply so biased in favor of the AGW pov that it is really useless. This article, in addition to the slant on other politicized controversies demonstrates that Wikipedia is under the dominance of no-life leftwingers who can camp their pet subjects 24/7 and totally distort what should be a neutral source of information.

Contribute my money to this, really?

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic to the coverage of the Delingpole and Solomon opinion pieces, but I suspect they amount to relatively minor matters for Solomon and Delingtpole's respective biographies and beyond the fact that the articles express Solomon's and Delingpole's non-expert opinions I don't see the relevance at this stage. Should those opinion columns prove to have a large impact, I think I would argue for inclusion of coverage in this article. So far, however, they seem to be just two statements from the more extreme, conspiracy-minded, end of climate scepticism. --TS 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally we avoid adding coverage of Wikipedia articles to the articles themselves, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVEL. Moreover, it would create an unhealthy feedback loop, particularly in the case of a hit piece that misrepresents what's going on here on Wikipedia. The 138 IP is kind of right. We have nothing better to do than navel-gaze at this stuff, whereas for a partisan journalist this is probably just a hit-and-run hack job. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't happy reading, but to include it in this article would be navel-gazing. Which is needed, but this isn't the place.--SPhilbrickT 17:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the hit count estimator shows[35] that the article did not cause a major increase in readership, and I don't really see a marked uptick in editing problems here, so I think we're okay. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The main global warming article gets far more hits according to the same counter [36] and a lot of the problems there are caused by people reading it and seeing the science presented in a way they've never seen it presented by whatever godawful rag they get their news from. An interesting side-point is that the Climategate redirect appears to be getting just a tiny fraction of the page impressions. [37] --TS 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Counter-proposed Page Move

Proposal retracted due to a current lack of support

Given that it is snowing oppose in the above proposal, I propose that the page be moved to "Climategate scandal" to mirror the way the Watergate scandal was done and then have "Climategate" redirect to that. The mainstream sources are almost universally using this term at this point (as opposed to when the incident first broke) and the article's name should properly reflect the term used in the mainstream media.

  • Strongly oppose. Article names are required to be descriptive. "Climategate" is an uninformative POV nickname. Its use as an article name would violate a range of policies and is specifically deprecated by non-negotiable policies and guidelines:
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming: "Encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." "Climategate" is a term which was coined by climate change sceptics to promote a POV that this controversy is a scandal.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Descriptive names rejects -gate names: "Where articles have descriptive names, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. ... For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy." We do not use -gate in current affairs article titles. This is not a partisan prohibition - we did not use the Democrat-coined term "Attorneygate" and we do not use the Republican-coined term "Rathergate" for the Killian documents controversy.
— Jeremyrainman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at ChrisO (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC). News flash, being a single purpose account does not disqualify you from participating on the project. Stop making personal attacks. --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
— Interesting that wikipedia labels people regardless of the validity of their points. Much like a number of political movements in the past. Good job ChrisO! Jeremyrainman (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring that your comments are partisan for the moment. What part of this is not a scandal? Jeremyrainman (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of those a blog posts on climate sceptic blogs, one is a Republican politico (who does not use the word scandal), and Pachauri is totally unrelated. It also seems that only one of the blog posts uses the word scandal (or skandal, just to be safe). How is that any evidence of a scandal outside the Right-Wing-O-Verse?

If anyone feels that this should be left open rather than collapsed, please feel free to remove the collapse tags along with this comment. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_13&oldid=1144571117"