Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 4 December 2009

This talk page has been semi-protected to prevent disruption from certain users. If you don't have a user account on wikipedia, or recently created one, you can post comments related to improvement of the article at this page.

Template:Shell

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

Hacked, Leaked, or Left

There appears to be a long running low level edit war over whether to describe the incident as data theft. Beyond the fact that data theft appears to be what the majority of reliable sources say, an important point that perhaps people are missing is that whether hacking was involved or an "insider" released the information, it would still likely constitute data theft. In fact our very own article emphasises the fact most data theft is perpretrated by employees and the like, not by external intrusion. The only cases I can imagine where it would perhaps not be data theft is if someone inadvertedly put the information on a public server although even then there may still be some dispute since it is unlikely anyone would genuinely believe the information is intended to be public. P.S. Also, if people genuinely saying it was a hacking incident is inappropriate, they should properly start a discussion to rename the article since it seems to me calling something a hacking incident is more serious then a few mentions of theft Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are hints of insider involvement, but without a credible case that the person leaking owned the docs (which is almost beyond imagination), it was data theft. If backed up by RS, it may be fair to note speculation about insider involvement, but only as speculation, not as established fact. In any event, I suspect that aspect will be resolved fairly soon, so we shouldn't expend too much energy debating the point.--SPhilbrickT 13:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If this is an internal leak, then there are whistle-blower protections. The comparison most apt is probably the Pentagon Papers. This isn't referred to as document theft. Depending on the views of a writer, they might use terms like "whistle-blower", "leak", "security breach", but not theft. Perhaps a more neutral term needs to be used: "unauthorised release" or "data security breach"? The article currently is claiming external hack and theft. This can be viewed as partisan. Slowjoe17 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In a fantasy world, perhaps, but not in reality. There is no evidence of an internal leak. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The unreceptive position that a theft must have taken place because there is no evidende of an internal leak is quite incredulous. Anyone who is intelligent enough to be a regular Misplaced Pages editor and that hasn't stooped to partisan editing should accede that the possibility of a whistleblower (i.e. an inside job) is a real one, not a far-fetched one belonging only in a fantasy world. And no, we don't have to request a claim that the leak is the work of an insider to accept that this is a real possibility. If there is merit to the plentifold allegations that this entire debacle constitutes a monumental scientific fraud, then it would not be hard to imagine how someone on the inside with a tortured conscience might commit the acts which brought the documents in question into the hands of AGW critics. __meco (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't speculate on Misplaced Pages talk pages about hypothetical leakers that might exist. This may come as a shock to you, but what we do, is talk about how to improve articles with the best sources that we have at our disposal. A theft did take place, and it has nothing to do with speculating about a leaker. Stop trying to connect the two. Unless you have actual evidence, there isn't a connection. You're either here to write an article about the data theft at CRU, or you are here to push a POV that isn't based on the evidence at hand. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we're NOT SUPPOSED TO SPECULATE on Misplaced Pages, calling it a hack is against the rules you so properly city. We have NO evidence of a hack, other than Phil Jones' self-serving accusation (just as we have NO evidence of global warming, other than Phil Jones' cooked books and his computer code full of "fudge factors" that are all positive for recent years, and negative for times decades ago. When the CRU presents evidence of a hack, it can be called a hack. Until such time, Occam's Razor leans towards it being either the act of a whistle-blower, or (since there is significant evidence in both the computer code itself, and in previous errant leaks of accidentally putting files on a web server that they did not intend to release) that this is typical data mismanagement because Jones and CRU apparently wouldn't hire anybody with any IT professionals (for fear that anyone outside the cabal would have blown the whistle a decade ago?) In any event, there is NO EVIDENCE of outside intrusion into CRU, so claiming that it was a hack is fraudulent. Just like Jones. Akulkis (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To me this discussion provides a great insight to the wisdom of the no-news-rule. I pledge for leaving it as it is atm, and discuss the matter in future, when this point has been clarified (or if it'll become obvious that there are no intention by RS to clarify it). 84.72.61.221 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We only have allegations of theft. No evidence. No parties. Not only could it be an inside release, it could even be an accidental release as happened at the same site earlier this year. At most, it can be called "alleged theft." Doesn't innocent-until-proven-guilty apply here, particularly with absolutely zero evidence of it being a criminal act?Mr Pete (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it would seem best to refer to an "alleged theft" or unauthorized release, unless directly quoting a RS. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, as of this writing, we have 12 cites to "leak" or "leaked" files, vs. 2 cites for "stolen" and none for "theft" (in article titles). Pete Tillman (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Left? The FOIA material appears to have been on a server external to the CRU. Blog moderators suggest that the most likely cause is the files were placed on an external server without proper password security. Accordingly they were available to the public to read/download. No evidence has been given that this was not the case. See: The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation. The CRU promptly changed all passwords and switched from their external file server to an older data set on an emergency file server. See More on the RC Hack. Security specialist Pete Holzmann has a similar perspective Mr. Pete to Andy Revkin "In my experience, among security non-specialists by far the most common way that confidential information is released is through accidental disclosure. The second most common is purposeful disclosure by someone who either didn’t know the data was confidential, or someone who did know but released it anyway. External attack, particularly the kind that requires some kind of break in, is way down the list." Stating the data was "stolen" without evidence, when timing and CRU actions suggest it might have been "left" is POV favoring the CRU. Recommend discussing each of the options without favoring "Theft" or "stolen". I added "Leaked, or Left" to the section title as an example.DLH (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Tillman's note of no references for "theft" while there are numerous articles on "hacked", I changed "theft" to "hacked" in the subtitle. "theft" could be mentioned later in the text if evidence emerges for that.DLH (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this be renamed "Climatic Research Unit e-mail disclosure incident" (replace hacking with disclosure in title) since its not been verified that it was hacked versus an insider vs some inadvertent disclosure? Jmcnamera (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I should resist but I can't. Anyway sure of course we should be trusting someone who says "Often the FTP server for an organization may also be the organization’s external web server as the two functions are often combined on the same CPU or hardware box." and "by putting it in an FTP directory which was on the same CPU as the external webserver" (emphasis mine). Clearly an IT expert we have there... Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue in itself justifies a section discussing these claims of hacked versus leaked vs left. The overall title is a separate issue. DLH (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have any reliable sources for the notion that it isn't hacking. We have plenty of reliable sources for the notion, accepted almost universally, that it's a hacking. We go with the sources. --TS 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

The word "climategate" is a loaded term used by global warming skeptics and deniers and their associated pundits and opinion peddlers. Looking at every major controversy since Watergate first occurred, we can see that some pundit or another has added "-gate" to their incident du jour, from Clintongate to Gatesgate, to Bushgate to Bankgate, the result is the same. The politicization and polarization of a topic, resulting in loud headlines, but little substance. None of these terms that I have just mentioned are in any wide use and fell quickly to the sidelines once the press got tired with the stories. And this is just a small sample. We should not be following the lead of "if it bleeds it leads". We are an encyclopedia that takes a NPOV. It is not significant or important that pundits and crackpots are reframing and renaming this incident to suit their agenda. What is significant is that we remain neutral, and do not play into the hands of those who wish to manipulate history. I am removing this non-notable term from this article. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "global warming denier" is a loaded term, to attempt to paint people who don't believe false data to be the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers, you partisan flack. As for global warming skeptics... SCIENTISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SKEPTICS. No scientist has EVER taken the word of someone else's research on blind faith. In fact, the first step of doing any experiment is to use the equipment to perform another experiment so as to calibrate it. And it was by this repeated performance of the "charge of an electron" experiment that the initial value reported was discovered by over-estimated by around 30% of the actual value. If it wasn't for "cold fusion skeptics", we would be right now wasting BILLIONS OF DOLLARS right now building cold-fusion power plants that would never produce a single watt of energy.

Veriditas, your words here indicat that you are a very a partisan editor with both an agenda and a refusal to look at facts, and only facts. Akulkis (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times can hardly be termed a skeptic. --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

More deception. Revkin wasn't using the term. He was reporting that the term was being used, in this case, by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a known anti-global warming group. You are basically astroturfing for them here, much as you have done for your entire Misplaced Pages career, as your user contributions show without question. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"He was reporting that the term was being used ..." - No offense, but isn't this exactly the point? --GoRight (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He was reporting that the term was being used by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Why should this appear in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted. However, Climategate is well-sourced and widely-used, so it's here to stay. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Others apparently agree with me, as the same thing has been said in the thread above this one, titled Unused references. We simply do not use sensationalistic terms to frame an article, and that's what "Climategate" is, and I've given you examples above regarding past uses of "gate" appended to many controversies. They simply do not hold up historically, and are soon forgotten, so they are a good example of recentism. We need to avoid short term perspectives and focus on the long term benefits of writing articles that stand the test of time. The sources you and others provide as support for using "Climategate" simply don't meet the criteria. I suppose some mention of the term might be possible in the article given better sources, but placing it in the lead is not neutral, as the term is primarily used by global warming skeptics and deniers. On Misplaced Pages, we try to stay away from using sensationalistic terms in the lead, especially if they are primarily used in partisan blogs and opinion pieces. Let's describe the article in the most neutral language possible, and if necessary, talk about what terms specific people are using. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"They simply do not hold up historically, and are soon forgotten, so they are a good example of recentism." - And yet you have managed to produce an extensive list of terms that use it. Hmmm. Regardless, it is well established as a term that refers to this incident and so it is legitimate content. --GoRight (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See the link provided by User:Schizombie below: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. How many of those are redirects and make no mention of the term in the lead section, GoRight? I've already proved below that the term "climategate" is an artificially created talking point used by partisan anti-global warming lobby groups funded by oil companies. It has no place whatsoever in the lead section of this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this matters, of course. The primary questions are: Is the term used in WP:RS? Answer: Yes. Can this be WP:Ved? Answer: Yes. You personal WP:OR analysis of anything beyond that is not relevant to this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All of it matters, of course. Fringe and lobby groups using the term "climategate" aren't important enough for us to cover in the lead section. Just because a reporter says "some groups like CFACT are using the term" doesn't mean we place it in the lead. It means we look at who is using the term, and when we realize that they are not neutral and are paid by outside interests to promote a singular POV to spin this topic, we either discard the term entirely, or write about it using the best sources we can find. Since there are, at this time, no sources that describe the use of the term other than in passing, we have nothing to go on. The fact is, it is you who is performing OR, because you are claiming that the term is important and representative of the topic, when we have no such indication. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who keeps adding the word "climategate" to the lead section. Since this word is being used by anti-global warming activists and pundits to push their POV and does not seem to be widely represented in neutral sources, there is no reason for us to include it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who keeps adding the word "climategate" to the lead section." - And I have provided it in the form of 3 citations, all from WP:RS, and all from DIFFERENT, widely respected media sources. --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you have cited discuss the term, they only mention it in passing. It isn't appropriate for the lead unless it is notable. Aside from skeptics using it as a sensationalistic talking point, I don't see why you are obsessed with it. We're primarily focused with describing the incident in the most neutral terms possible, and that should be your concern as well. Can you tell me why it is important to add "climategate" the lead? I don't see many sources using the term. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have more than adequately sourced the term using WP:RS. You personal aversion to the term does not negate its use or existence. I will remind you, Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not simply drop a word into this article merely because a source uses it. Misplaced Pages has a NPOV policy, and we write articles in a different way. The so-called reliable sources you are using actually say something entirely different than what you are claiming. Let's take a closer look at the sources you are using:

• In the NYT, Andrew C. Revkin writes: "Some see in the e-mail correspondence...evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, 'Climategate.'" To support this claim, Revkin links the word "Climategate" to a website, climatedepot.com, which is owned and run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which according to Misplaced Pages, is a conservative organization whose funding partially comes from or came from The Exxon Mobil Corporation and The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund. CFACT is a "member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which aims at "dispelling the myths of global warming through sound science and analysis." The Cooler Heads Colation is described by Nicholas Confessore as "an Astroturf group funded by industries opposed to regulation of CO2 emissions." CFACT is not a neutral source for an article on Misplaced Pages, and their deliberate reframing of this article using the term "climategate" is a talking point passed on to other conservative and partisan blogs. It should under no circumstances be represented in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-gate is a rather idiotic, lazy and overused suffix as List of scandals with "-gate" suffix shows. Putting it as the main AKA of the article is maybe overdoing it at the moment, and the sources are somewhat overextended. The NY Times, for example, notes that the conservative Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calls it that; the NY Times or the NY Times writer do not themselves employ it. Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that, so that source is relatively useless. And then conservative James Delingpole of the conservative Daily Telegraph calls it that. So one conservative organization, and one conservative writer, and it gets a redirect and featured in bold in the lede sentence. POV push much? Шизомби (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The NY Times, for example, notes that the conservative Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calls it that; the NY Times or the NY Times writer do not themselves employ it." - And in so doing they highlighted the term's notability and legitimized its use.

"Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that ..." - Doesn't matter. The entire point here is that they TOO have noted the term's use and thus legitimized it.

"And then conservative James Delingpole of the conservative Daily Telegraph calls it that." - Gee, you seem focused on the political leanings of those employing the term. I don't recall WP:RS or WP:V stating that if a conservative states it that it doesn't count. Can you point me to where they do? --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a conservative talking point. They are deliberately using the term to reframe a crime against scientists into a crime by scientists, and they are turning the original meaning on its head. The Watergate scandal originally referred to the Republican-funded breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex. The goal of the burglary was to place electronic surveillance equipment in the Democratic offices to get information which would help the re-election of then, U.S. President Richard Nixon. In this case, the word is being turned on its head, and its meaning is being reversed. This is propaganda, pure and simple. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"It's a conservative talking point." - No it isn't. It is a term being used and discussed in the WP:RS media. That makes it notable. --GoRight (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, GoRight. The New York Times may note that some groups compare Obama to Hitler, or his health-care reform package to the operation of Dachau. That does not automatically "legitimize" such terms, or validate a decision to use them as "AKAs" in the lead of Barack Obama or related articles. MastCell  06:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your analogy is not really analogous to this situation. Comparing Obama to Hitler is not at all the same thing as simply coining a term to refer to this incident. Even so, if the NYT DID discuss those things according to WP:RS and WP:V they are fair game to be used in an article. No? --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"And in so doing they highlighted the term's notability and legitimized its use." Hardly. Maybe you could make a case for it being notable insofar as it was noted, but it wasn't highlighted, and... legitimized? How do you see that? "'Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that ...' - Doesn't matter." It absolutely does matter, that kind of terrible sourcing may do for journalism but not here. "they TOO have noted the term's use and thus legitimized it" No, they didn't. That's no way to write an encyclopedia. "Gee, you seem focused on the political leanings of those employing the term." Logically, we should be. "I don't recall WP:RS or WP:V stating that if a conservative states it that it doesn't count." Here at least we agree. That a con or a lib says something doesn't mean it doesn't count. However, see e.g. WP:PROMINENCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I'm not saying the word shouldn't appear in the article somewhere, if that can be justified, or that there shouldn't be a redirect, if that can be justified, and perhaps both of these things can be. But right now having it in the lede as an alternate name for the article is really not justifiable at all; that's a prominence that among your sources only James Delingpole gives it, which again reflects his own admitted bias. Шизомби (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Google news (US) count for Climategate is now at 377. We have a week to cool off and check if the number goes up (my bet) or down. After that, we can resume this (third on this page) discussion. Dimawik (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the term is totally appropriate. We can hold off on using it now, but its eventual inclusion is inevitable. GardiaP (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Maybe, although WP:GOOGLETEST. A count doesn't tell us what kinds of news outlets are using it, article or opinion, featured or mentioned, whether the article's author employs it or attributes it to someone else and if so who, etc. Шизомби (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jonsson, Patrik (2009-11-28). "As Copenhagen summit nears, 'Climategate' dogs global warming debate". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-28. Tom Harrison 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That CS Monitor article shows the term is one of the widely used names for this subject, used by more than just one POV but by reliable sources trying to avoid POV. We put alternate names in the lead to inform readers, and a reader who had vaguely heard of "climategate" and wanted to know more about it should be able to be told, in the lead, that this subject is what's referred to. It's NPOV rather than bias for us to recognize that this term is being widely used and seems to have stuck. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it notable that someone somewhere used the term to describe the controversy? Conservapedia uses the term "fascism lite" to describe the Obama Presidency, however I don't see the Obama Administration page on wikipedia headlined as such. Just because a group of fringe extremists are using a certain word to produce sensationalism and try to dress up their claims as something they are not, does not mean that this is somehow the accepted colloquial name of the event, even if the media reports that such extremist groups are using this term. Anyhow, the colloquial term for sexual intercourse is f***ing and you don't see a wikipedia page introduced as such. This is a factual arena. Of course some form of redirect is useful, indeed I typed in "Climategate" to get to this page, and of course it should at some point be noted that some have referred to the issue as such, but as a major part of the article's lead it has no place. Duster (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Worth noting: "Climategate" has surpassed "global warming" on Google. At least according to one experiment. Feel free to replicate the experiment. The data and the means have been openly and freely shared with the public, following the best scientific practice. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I support including the term Climategate as a reference for this incident. Whether you like the term or not, it is how the incident is being called in the press, from the left and the right. For example, the Huffington Post has an article on this topic titled "ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About the Supposed "Global Warming Hoax" "global_warming_hoax"/ She argues that the term is a misnomer (she'd rather call it "SwiftHack") and yet she ackowledges that this is what people are calling it, in the text and in the headline. To leave out this label would be a bad omission. If I were looking for information on Climategate I would expect something in this article, in the lead paragraph, to clearly indicate that I was reading the right article. To leave it out is clear POV bias.--Coastside (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" should be mentioned because the use of the term has contributed to the notoriety of the scandal. If newspapers described it as "Climate Research... incident" it wouldn't have gained so much attention. "Climategate" is the fist and only widely used title for this 'incident.' If anything there should be a section describing how authors overwhelmingly refer to climategate. Techn0scho0lbus (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations for allegations of criminality

The citation after "unknown individual stole" cites a CRU press release. Press releases are fine for describing CRU's statements, but secondary sources should be used for all citations describing a living person as engaging in illegal activities. Andjam (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no living person involved yet. That may be a problem if the hacker (or someone suspected of having done the hacking) gets caught though. There is no BLP violations in saying "a hacker stole" - while there is a BLP violation in stating that "X stole" (where X is named). Its an fact that the material was appropriated by illegal means (ie. stolen), it is not a fact who did the deed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless it has been ruled out that this leak could also have involved someone on the inside, even the statement that "the material was appropriated by illegal means" is unwarranted conjecture. __meco (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The UEA is the owner of the material in question. Its ownership is undisputed. It has stated unequivocally that the material has been stolen. That is not "conjecture" - it's a statement of fact by the victim of the crime and the owner of the stolen property. You have no source whatsoever to support any claim that the material was not stolen. Furthermore, I can't see any good reason why the opinion of an outside party should outweigh a statement of fact by the UEA. Since the UEA is the owner of the material, it's the only source which is competent to address the question of whether its property rights have been violated. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "someone", be that an individual or organization, solemnly declares that something has been stolen from them does not guarantee this to be fact. If I worked at the CRU and decided I would want to leak some papers without telling my colleagues or superiors, and that may have been the case here, then obviously noone else would know about that. And, as for your last sentence, no, I have no source to support this. I don't need to. The burden of evidence lies on the party which claims to know what has taken place out of a number of possible scenarios. __meco (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You can never be entirely certain about anything, it might be the university that's making it all up as a PR-trick as well, who knows? Currently theft appears to be the most likely explanation and since that's what the sources describe it as, it's reasonable to call it that.
—Apis (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. We may take that as a tentative premise until a criminal investigation finds this to be true or false. What we are not justified to do though is to consider it proven just because the UEA asserts it. __meco (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The ownership of the material hasn't been contested, and is irrelevant to the discussion. If I drop my credit card on the ground, and someone else picks it up, it is still owned by me, and they are not guilty of theft. While we don't know if that is what happened (and my guess is that it is not the case) it has not been ruled out.--SPhilbrickT 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. __meco (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. Data-theft is data-theft. If they as you say "just found it", they still didn't have the right to distribute it. In this case we have a clear statement of theft, we have an ongoing criminal investigation - these are facts. Your (and others) speculation as to other reasons or ways this may have happened is just that ... pure speculation without any facts what so ever to base it upon. You (or others) do not have access to the logs, the security parameters or anything other upon which you could base such speculation. Try sticking to facts instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To me you look like the one who is unable to distinguish facts and assertions. The fact that UEA has stated that that the documents were stolen does not by necessity equate with the fact that the documents were stolen. This has yet to be confirmed. Your bringing up various potential sources of evidence is absolutely non-sequiturial as these have not been investigated. Noone in the media landscape knows what lies in there. Also you obfuscate the matter when you write in one sentence: "Data-theft is data-theft." Then, completely unrelated to the issue of theft in the next sentence you srite: "If they as you say "just found it", they still didn't have the right to distribute it.". There's no logical connection between the two sentences. __meco (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, with all due respect, you are missing the argument. As with my credit card example, I wouldn't argue that anyone finding it has the right to use it. That would be illegal. It may well be that the further dissemination of the material breaks laws. That why we have been careful not to post full copies of the email contents, as it might contravene copyright law. But surely you know that a criminal investigation is hardly proof of criminal action, at least not in a free society. The narrow issue is whether the claim that the data has been stolen is so incontrovertible that it can be stated as a fact, rather than as an allegation.--SPhilbrickT 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but UEA has stated quite clearly that there server got hacked, and that material was stolen. They have called in the authorities. They took down their mainserver, and put an alternative online. A criminal investigation to find the hacker in question is running. Anything beside that .... is speculation based on no knowledge of the real facts (logfiles, filesystem,..) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that based on the above you seem to conclude that a server has been hacked and documents stolen off it. __meco (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is fact, until shown wrong. Sorry. If its a lie, then the authorities will most certainly inform us (they have after all been called in), and we will document it then. Everything else here is pure speculation without any form of background knowledge to back it up. That you don't like that this is the only real information we have, it is really not of any consequence. Please remember that we are not on a deadline and that we aren't here to make news. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You sir, have a very peculiar understanding of the term fact. __meco (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to - you can call, what i state as fact, "the only assertions based on factual knowledge" in this case. (this certainly applies as fact in your link). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That certainly is moving in the right direction. __meco (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you are not properly stating the appropriate baseline. No one is suggesting that the article should declare it is not a theft, that's speculation. But neither should it be declared that it IS a theft, until some reliable source concludes it was theft. The claim by the CRU is hardly unbiased, and investigation by authorities is investigation, not conclusion. A NPOV would note allegations of theft and hold off factual pronouncements until there are facts supporting the allegation. I peg the odds at 90% that such facts will be found, but 90% isn't 100%. I peg the odds of a sunrise tomorrow quite a bit higher, but were I to post it as a fact in a WP article, it would properly be removed as WP:CRYSTAL.--SPhilbrickT 18:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look over this talk-page, as well as look over the reversions done to this article, the statement "No one is suggesting that the article should declare it is not a theft" is incorrect, since we've had several assertions/edits that consider "there must have been an insider" as factual.

Theft is the only correct word (not "alleged") since we know for a fact, that UAH/CRU didn't release the data voluntarily. Even if an insider/whistleblower is involved, it is still theft. Speculations of "it was just lying around" are in fact rather far out, and btw. would in many jurisdictions still be called theft (its not theirs and they took it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, someone thinks it's an inside job. First, that's not proven, and shouldn't be in the article. Second it isn't even a rebuttal to the "theft" claim. However, others making edits without adequate sources is hardly a reason for leaving in an edit that is not supported by facts. Furthermore, you implication that it must be theft is contradicted by recent events at CRU itself. IIRC, McIntyre stumbled on some data left unprotected. AFAIK, no one prosecuted him for it, so it appears to be possible to get data from CRU and not be engaged in theft. Your argument is not only Original Research, it is incorrect. Can we please stick to facts in this article?--SPhilbrickT 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No it is not "contradicted", those two cases are entirely different. (just a few reasons: no theft, not restricted data (apparently (and certainly not personal data)) and no authorities were called in to investigate). Comparing those cases btw. is OR (more specifically a synthesis). And of course the really big elephant in the room: Most reliable sources, which aren't opinion, state that it was a hacker - and that the data was stolen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but we know what the basis for those assertions were, viz. the UEA's pronouncement that hackers had stolen their data. And it is quite transparent – no need for synthesis or original research – that at the present time that is the sole basis for concluding hacker and stolen. As a matter of good faith on an issue were most find it uncontroversial to assume that to be the most likely scenario the media has largely adopted the UAE's description of facts. We are an encyclopedia, and we need to be much clearer about essentials and hidden assumptions than what a newspaper may decide to be. In this matter we need to spell out the assumption. It would be blatant intellectual (and factual) dishonesty if we simply recused ourselves of that responsibility hiding behind quotes from "reliable sources" which we know are based on conjecture even though they don't always make that explicit. __meco (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I'll urge you to read Original Research and Synthesis. While it would be problematic if I were proposing to add to the article that it might very well not be theft, I'm not advancing any such argument. I'm trying to explain to you why this is an alleged theft, not a proven theft. Revkin, who no one views as a skeptic, is now taking a more cautious approach, using the phrase "disclosed files". One cite is not sufficient, but cites from CRU itself are hardly unbiased on this issue.--SPhilbrickT 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. The UEA says that the files were stolen. As the owner of the files it is the only source that is competent to make that assessment. No source of any kind - let alone a reliable source - has been cited so far on this talk page that suggests anything different. All we're seeing in this discussion is completely unsourced POV speculation. This discussion will go nowhere unless you and the other editors pushing this POV original research start realising that there are certain standards we have to follow in writing content. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, please discuss this issue without resorting to tendentious wording like POV pushing. I'm arguing that you are failing to meet the standards of Misplaced Pages - sourcing a claim of a crime to a victim is not the best possible source, it isn't even obvious it is an acceptable source at all. And that's the only cite for the term. I think those who insist the data was stolen need better sourcing. I don't know if Misplaced Pages has addressed this issue squarely in the past, but I'll be surprised if the unsupported statement of the alleged victim is considered grounds for stating a crime, as opposed to an alleged crime , has occurred. If it is policy, I'd like to see it, because it is time to improve that policy. Do you know of an example where this has been settled?--SPhilbrickT 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources to make accusations about third parties. If secondary sources find the accusations credible enough that they publish them, then we cite the secondary sources to say what allegedly happened, and we only cite the primary sources to describe the alleged victim's comments. Andjam (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your comments on the BLP noticeboard, you seem to think this is a BLP issue. It's not. No identified third party is named (obviously, since the culprit isn't yet known) so BLP doesn't apply. The fact of the theft is incontrovertible, since the UEA has stated definitively that the files were stolen. No other party is in a position to make that assessment. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your and Kim D. Petersen's (and possibly others) conclusion that "The fact of the theft is incontrovertible, since the UEA has stated definitively that the files were stolen" (bold script applied after carefully concluding that this is the core of the matter) is a blatant fallacy and non-sequitor. I and others have already given reason for why that is the case. Until you relinquish this position we are stuck on this issue. The way forward on this should be that more editors point this out to you and if even that doesn't bring the point home, we need to settle it through some form of conflict resolution (RFC/mediation). __meco (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Your argument is completely tendentious and without any merit whatsoever:

• You have not cited any source of any kind to support your speculation that a theft did not occur.
• You have not explained why any third-party source would even be competent to support such a contention.

Until you do both of those things your unsupported speculations are a waste of everyone's time. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is mind-boggling. The only possible circumstances in which a crime may not have occurred are if (i) Jones himself released the emails and this is all some perverse attempt to seek publicity or (ii) someone at a very high management level at UEA authorized release of Phil Jones's emails and, somehow, the rest of the UEA administration didn't know about it. And even in these circumstances the legal authority to release the emails is open to question. Circumstance (i) is absurd. Circumstance (ii) is equally weird: why would a high-level UEA administrator authorize release of documents, and then effect the release by uploading the documents to open proxies? Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And on top of everything else, the UEA has reported the theft to the police, who are pursuing a criminal investigation. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To Meco and anyone else making the same arguments - please stop. There is no question that a theft occurred, and there is no reliable source that disputes this state of affairs. If you wish to pursue this line of thought, please take it elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Both you and others asserting the same seem oblivious to the not so fine distinction between (a) the fact that noone in reliable sources is positively questioning whether a theft has occurred, and (b) meriting a theft having occurred a factual occurrence. This is simply stupidity and mushy thinking, and if such editors are going to be allowed to strongarm their position using blatant slander and brute threats, well, Misplaced Pages would be all the poorer as a consequence. __meco (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meco, I read what you wrote above, and you are not making any reasonable sense. Data theft occurred, and this has been covered by RS. That is a fact. Anything else is speculation and has no place here. If you don't agree, then I suggest you take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Veridas, I agree with your position, but you are conflating "fact" with "concrete claim".

• The fact here is that the data was reported stolen by the responsible party. The social norm is to take this on face value to at least the extent that "object reported stolen" can be referenced as "stolen object" without implying a level certainty that doesn't exist.
• There is presently no concrete claim pertaining to any other mechanism of data leakage (who or when or why). Against the reported theft, we have only vague possibility: no whistleblower note, no disgruntled insider terminated under a cloud, etc. "Stolen" at this point is the operative fact.
• Application of the word "alleged" here would be a bit slimy. The press is very careful with the use of alleged to abide by the presumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty. It's done to protect a person, not a thing. Things are not presumed unstolen until proven otherwise.
• Finally, under the conventions of copyright, with no clear public license, this data is floating around in apparent contravention of laws designed to protect property.

I'm not aware of any source which claims that releasing the information violates copyright laws. And it's not obvious. There are exceptions, such as fair dealing in the UK. Claiming that the release violates copyright laws and is therefore stolen is synthesis. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no synthesis involved. The owner of the stolen material has stated unequivocally that it was stolen. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

English is not a first order predicate language. The word "stolen" here is doing much successful work: as an operative fact uncontested by concrete counter-claim, as a transgression of copyright, as a formal statement by the responsible party. Even the extremely legalistic interpretation of what this word promises in the context of its use (misguided, IMO) is problematic, since many convicted rapists have since been released—after serving long sentences—when genetic analysis contradicted the social verdict (i.e. even convicted is not proven).

• The appropriate place to draw attention to uncertainty (which always exists, since fact, to the paranoid, is turtles all the way down) is when there are concrete counterclaims on both sides.
• Until a RS puts forth a concrete counterclaim, the addition of a weasel word will not improve accuracy.
• When I read the phrase "alleged theft" I'm expecting to soon be informed about a concrete counterclaim; not mere speculation that such a thing could possibly have happened. If this doesn't materialize, the word "alleged" is committing the greater crime. Note: an "alleged thief" is judged by a different standard of evidence. — MaxEnt (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My issue isn´t with the claim (since we operate on verifiability, not truth), but with the sourcing. Please use secondary sources rather than primary sources as far as possible. Andjam (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiding the decline/data "trick"

Changed data' to decline/data as hiding the decline is the primary quote. (Data has also been hidden, but that is little known.) DLH (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Recommend a section on Hiding the data trick" as a major issue arising from these CRU emails. See How “The Trick” was pulled offDLH (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a reliable source for sure. We'll get right on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But "any eco-related scare for which the prescription would result in a massive transfer of power to the political class is bogus" applied to AGW is at least doubly wrong, hence right! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the widespread MSM discussion of "Mike's Nature trick," it's odd that the only discussion of that "trick" in the Misplaced Pages article is drawn verbatim from the RealClimate site's damage control effort. If the publications of right-wing pundits and the "denier" blogs (many of them created and maintained by credentialed climatologists who had been frozen out of the referee'd professional journals by way of the CRU correspondents' co-option of the peer review process) are not "reliable sources," how is it that the CRU correspondents' own principal advocacy site has become acceptably "reliable"? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article eventually needs such a section, but I think it is premature at the moment. I gather that the "trick" is a reference to the need to conjoin instrument based temperature records with dendrology based temperature records. This is a legitimate need, and it is plausible that the mechanism for doing so is both appropriate and described as a "trick". However, it would be nice to see reliable sources discussing this in a NPOV before adding the material. The blogs I've read so far are breathless and biased, and "conclusive" without even a pretense of examining all issues.--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve McIntyre was the IPCC reviewer who explicitly warned the IPCC “don’t cover up the divergence”. See the IPCC documentation: Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18) Boris - if you have a better site showing the graphs before / after please provide it. This issue of "hiding the decline" is iconic, core to both the scientific and political controversy, and is most widely known. It needs a major section to describe the development from Brifa 2000 which was cited in the caption to IPCC Fig 2.21, to Jone's email, and the subsequent recent disclosure of the full data that Brifa had deleted in his 2000 figure, and the programmer's commenting dealing with such deletion after 1960 - in the Harry Readme file. Obviously there would be quotes from protagonists, antagonists, and reviewers. The link I gave has the best graphics I have found.DLH (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What specific data were contained in ESR's plot? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Watts forgets to mention that the divergence is described in specifics at page 472-473 in Chapter 6 of the AR4 WG1 report. They also specifically note the 1960 cut-off-point. I find it very very hard to call something a "cover-up" when it is described in detail in both the report (and of course also in Briffa et al.(2001), which the AR4 cites) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann claimed: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.” In “A good way to deal with a problem” McIntyre notes: “However, although the “real” Briffa reconstruction goes down after 1960, the series in the diagram attributed to “Briffa (1999)” goes up. The decline in the Briffa reconstruction is not shown; it is hidden.” However, in: How “The Trick” was pulled off McIntyre notes: “There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960. Nor is there any mention of the deletion in the IPCC reference (Briffa 2000) nor, for that matter, in the article cited by Gavin Schmidt (Briffa et al 1998). These articles report the divergence, but do not delete it. (Briffa et al 2001 does delete the post-1960 values.)”DLH (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the statement by McI that "There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960" is quite simply wrong, please check page 473 like i asked...(i quote (emph. mine)):

Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).

A thing like this is one reason amongst others that blog postings aren't reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that does not fly. You would then have to delete ALL RealClimate references. The whole CRU emails explosion was led by WattsUpWithThat, with a 350% increase in traffic, followed by a 500% increase at climateaudit.org and similar tripling at realclimate.org and climatedepot.com. MSM came in very late. McIntyre was an IPCC reviewer and his objections were documented at IPCC. etc.DLH (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note McIntyre explicitly distinguishes in his comments between (Brifa 1999), (Bifra 2000) and Bifra(2001). See the original posts.DLH (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris - Thanks for the ref. "hiding the decline" is a direct quote from Jone's email, not whether we think it is hidden or not. As you note, the IPCC WG1 Ch 6 p 472-473 states: ““Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades” . . . “In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’was a uniquely recent phenomenon” That IPCC statement vs McIntyre is the heart of the statistical or scientific issue -(i.e. is this cherry picking or legitimate?) These are statements that need to be quoted or summarized together with select graphs.DLH (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See above: IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence” IPCC Reviewer McIntyre statement.DLH (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this is original research, and none of it is covered in reliable sources. Therefore it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand how you read that. All the material is published/posted by others, none of my posts. I was listing materials to summarize.DLH (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are blogs acceptable or unacceptable sources of information for Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the skeptical spin on "Mike's nature trick" and "Hide the decline" aren't really making much serious talk. And if you're arguing that we should take them seriously because, despite this, some blogs mention them, well this isn't going to work. If on the other hand you had a reputable blog giving an opinion of a blog owner whose opinion independently would merit comment, then it might end up in Misplaced Pages. --TS 02:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next

I've been following this article, and have contributed to it, for about a week now. I think it's well developed now and gives a good account of the way the story of this hacking incident has developed and the way in which various interested parties have responded, and for the most part this has developed without serious edit warring.

Last night a spat seemed to develop between some editors over what I consider to be a relatively minor question--whether the word "Climategate", used extensively in the gutter press and even in some respectable publications, should be mentioned in the lead section. I think it's probably not encyclopedic to use the term, and I've removed it when it was used giving justification on the talk page. Other editors have a good faith disagreement on that. I wouldn't edit-war over it, and I don't think it's what we should be focusing on. I chose to try to kill the edit war by making a formal application for protection on requests for page protection.

Now we've had some new developments, and I think they should be added. In particular the university plans to announce an inquiry into the affair on Monday. We can certainly prepare and, with consensus agreement, post an alteration to the existing section on call for an inquiry, and to the lede, when the announcement is made. There is no hurry here--even the university itself plans to wait through the weekend, and as we're not a news source we can, in principle, take as long as we need to to get it right. A timely way to deal with this would be to agree an edit to be made by an administrator updating the article by Monday evening, Greenwich Mean Time. --TS 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that we can take all time in world to write this article, and a slowdown is welcome - as it allows us to spend our time more productively by contributing to less controversial articles. WP is not a blog; if someone will try to read it for news, disappointment is inevitable anyhow. We need for the battle mentality of both camps to subside, so I agree with you on the need to cover the least controversial topics first. If the article remains locked, "Climategate" will quickly become a non-issue, as the word will either swim or sink on its own, and arguing about its inclusion or omission will become easier and faster. Let's not discuss our pet issues on this page in the meantime (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am for inclusion of the "Climategate" reference and my pet issue is a direct link to the archive content). Dimawik (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC

There's certainly not going to be any direct linking to the archive content since, as already mentioned, that would be an indisputable copyright violation (see WP:LINKVIO. I'd suggest you find another pet issue since that one's a non-starter. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not worry about minutiae. The important thing is that we agree that this encyclopedia article can take the time to get it right. Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper. --TS 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in your link that suggests that news isn't appropriate for wikipedia. On the contrary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't say news is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. I say, rather, and Misplaced Pages policy has always been, that this encyclopedia isn't a newspaper and writing an encyclopedia article isn't journalism. That's why you wouldn't want to come to Misplaced Pages to find out what's in the latest news headlines. --TS 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

moving my misslocated sectionDLH (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about we agree not to use the term "Climategate" in the header of the article. It seems like it wouldn't be that big of a deal to leave it out. Does anyone care about including the term enough to break consensus? If not, let's unprotect/semiprotect this page.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We are permitted to link to a site which presents the leaked emails in a fair use context; this doesn't violate WP:LINKVIO. And while publishing the whole thing may make it harder to meet the amount and substantiality test, it doesn't necessarily prevent it from being fair use. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We already link to sources, such as press reports, that quote from the leaked e-mails. But a link to an archive of the e-mails - as some have called for - would indisputably violate WP:LINKVIO, the wording of which is categorical: "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." There's no wriggle room there, nor is there meant to be any. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and think we should use the term "Climategate" in the article, as:

1. this scandal does not yet have another short name permitting search on Google or twitter. I think with Climategate popularity going up (in Google News, about 200% growth over the weekend, main search is off the charts), an appearance of a new short name is unlikely
2. this is what media calls this scandal for the lack of better word per 1)

The subject of this article simply has no other name that an average person can reliably spell, almost everyone seems to be using it, so let's keep it in WP. Dimawik (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Penn State launches new investigation of Mann

Penn State is investigating Mann as a direct consequence of this incident. Impeccably sourced & clearly relevant to the issue at hand. Any good reason why this shouldn't go on the page? Ronnotel (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to make mention of the fact that Mann's comments are being reviewed by Penn State (their words). The statement that he's being investigated is premature. --TS 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, it says "reviewing", not "investigating". Yes, I would wait until some third-party, reliable sources start covering this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reviewed is better, my bad. Ronnotel (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Farnshon (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The above user appears to be a sleeper sock created seven days ago and activated for the first time 60 minutes prior to this comment. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how quickly he got into the thick of it, and very soon after this talk page was semiprotected. --TS 08:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with TS that the term "investigating" would be better served with "reviewing". The subject is clearly relevant, as the press release specifically mentions this incident. Should be included.--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While this article in the Penn State Daily Collegian is from a student-run paper and therefore not ideal, I would think a campus paper is considered a reliable source in the context of a situation like this. I will go ahead and add a brief mention since there seems to be consensus here. Ronnotel (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text I added. Please let me know if anyone has any suggested edits and I will gladly make them: As a result of the information contained in the leaked documents, ] announced that it would begin a review of Prof. ].<ref>{{cite web | author = Laura Nichols | title = PSU investigates Climategate | source = ] | date = 2009-11-30 | accessdate = 2009-11-30 | url = http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx}}</ref> Ronnotel (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that while the page was locked that we're supposed to reach consensus before making changes to the article? In any case, drop the "As a result of the information contained in the leaked documents". What information? That's WP:OR not contained in the student newspaper. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. In the mean time I will revise as you suggest. BTW, the phrase at issue was from the press release cited above (i.e. it wasn't pulled out of thin air). However, I have removed as you correctly suggest because the secondary source should have precedence. Ronnotel (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

should not have been added to a protected page. Please take it out William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but please explain why you think this is controversial. Ronnotel (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ronnotel, I'm neutral as to your edits and don't think you've done a nit of harm or anything, but I would say nobody should be editing this article through protection unless there is overwhelming and settled consensus on this talk page for someone to go ahead and make a given edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that there are no stated arguments for not including the material I deduced that there was consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, it looked to me like you were being very careful, I'm only thinking, one might wait until there is also a looming consensus along the lines of, "Ok, that's settled, now, would an admin please make the edit?" Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Using your admin bit to edit an article in which you already had staked out a partisan position is a massive no-no. Arbcom has nailed admins to the wall for far less. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can be inferred from silence but it's clear now that consensus was not there (why did this additional input only become apparent after the good-faith edit was made?). Everyone please stop hyperventilating. This edit can easily wait until article is unprotected but I fail to see how the project will benefit. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The project is indeed harmed by protected pages, but they're mostly taken as a lesser harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like consensus to me. Has anyone objected to the factual nature of the edit or the relevancy? I see some process questions, but not a substantive objection to the content. I'm a bit puzzled why the actual wording used differs from the proposed wording, which I thought was better.I've reread and see the discussion.--SPhilbrickT 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an aweful lot of talk on this page. It is not reasonable to assume consensus based on silence. This page has lots of problems - the current text including climategate is just one of them. Just about everything here fails WP:NOTNEWS; adding yet more news through protection is definitely wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:NOTNEWS before, but I reread it to see if I had missed something. It is not applicable. This is hardly "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". Let's concentrate on making this a better article.--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As a humorous aside, I note that "climategate" gets 12.6 million Google hits while "global warming" gets just under 10. (Yes, I'm well aware that Google hits are not the be-all and end-all of relevance). I assume no one would take seriously a proposal to remove the term "global warming" from WP.--SPhilbrickT 16:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic is notable and will most likely become more notable. Hence, I don't think WP:NOTNEWS has any sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It also has to be recognized that not sticking to WP:NOTNEWS can make it unreasonable not to allow appropriate violations of WP:OR to place the latest news in the correct context. That context cannot always be given from published sources, but it can often be extracted from information after proper synthesis and analysis that is not yet done in a reliable source. Count Iblis (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's your grammar or my brain cells, but between the two we seem to have arrived at a situation where I don't know whether you're saying we should stuck to "Misplaced Pages is not news" or the very opposite. Obviously we should comply with Misplaced Pages's policies but you seem to be saying this would risk original research. Could you clarify? --TS 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The silence was possibly due to the fact that it was night time in the Americas and a lot of the English-speaking editors here were probably sleeping. Anyway, to satisfy WP:UNDUE, I would wait until reliable sources start covering this. Right now, the only paper that has covered this is a local paper, student run paper at that . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now a reference to it on the New York Times In a related announcement, Pennsylvania State University said it would review the work of a faculty member who is cited prominently in the e-mail messages, Michael Mann, to assure that it meets proper academic standards. So I think this can be added now. Ignignot (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Should full-protection of this article be changed to semi-protection?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the protection-level of this article be reduced from full-protection to semi-protection? The article was full-protected on November 28, set to be reduced to semi-protection (or completely removed) on December 5. __meco (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the RfC process guidelines state that "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment" I suggest that either this talk page be unprotected, or, the RfC section gets transcluded onto the talk page from an unprotected sub-page. __meco (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above in #Protection_level_has_been_appealed, i do not see that anything much has changed, and certainly not to an extent where we cannot wait 4 days for unprotection (which also makes this RfC without purpose - since the running time of an RfC is longer than that period) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KDP. I'm rather thinking we should extend the full-protection period, I don't see many constructive attempts to solve any content disputes so far.
—Apis (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of confusion here, understandably. The discussion of the reason for full protection does not occur at the section you mention, it occurs here: #Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next. The dispute that instigated full protection concerned whether or not to include the word "climategate" in the leader. In that section, and after the appeal was denied on the grounds that the dispute was not resolved, I posted a small comment asking if anyone would be opposed to excluding the word "climategate" from the leader in order to avoid controversy. I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to its exclusion, especially when doing so would yield a compromise. Given that no one has broken consensus on this I think it would be reasonable to go back to semiprotecting the page. But, of course, feel free to comment here if you are yourself opposed to its exclusion.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing at present, there have been few constructive developments during discussion, and little sign of consensus even on the broad shape of the article or its primary subject have emerged. I am leaning towards the belief that it would be wise to extend the period of protection. --TS 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does there have to be "consensus on the broad shape of the article or its primary subject" before non-admin users can edit it? If you really hold to this philosophy then please immediately full protect Interpretation (logic), where I have vocally expressed disagreement about both the broad shape of the article and its primary subject. And while you're at it, let me take this moment to make explicit the fact that I also disagree with users on the broad shape of the article and primary subject of Commensurability (philosophy of science), Sophism and First order logic. Please request that all of these pages are fully protected. I'm serious. I want some consistency, as this is all horribly frustrating.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not, but are there extensive edit wars that prevents any constructive work on these articles? Do you not discuss changes on the talk page with the other editors before making controversial edits? That's the problem here.
—Apis (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't make the edits I feel will lead to an edit war whether I want to make them or not. People here seem to be suggesting that we can only unprotect this page if everyone agrees or we'll reach some imagined "total edit war." This isn't how things work. There is no complete consensus on any article in wikipedia and this does not place wikipedia in a state of edit warfare.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above. We still have people talking past each other and being barely civil. Certainly the protection should not be lifted early. If anything it should be extended indefinitely until folks decide to play nice. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Full protection extension — one month and in the interim, admins can add in any real, substantive news on the issue. ► RATEL ◄ 01:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has only been open for two hours and of the comments added there are only two in favor and three against (once you discount Kim Petersen whose sock puppet accounts have been banned from this talkpage before). Please try to use your power responsibly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I'm sorry. I thought you were an admin.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I've stricken edits by confirmed sockpuppets (by Checkuser), but have never done any sockpuppeteering - nor have i ever been blocked (or banned from any page/topic or anything else). And i'm not an admin either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• In response to meco's question: Yes. Block edit warriors as needed, but the page is supposed to be able to be edited. Let's get back to normal practice ASAP. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Err, yes. We should go back to semiprotect. The original dispute was whether to include the word 'climategate' in the leader. I've asked twice and no one seems to be irrevocably opposed to its exclusion.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Respectfully disagree with your statements. Nobody simply noticed your "climategate" post on this busy page. I think we should wait. Dimawik (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The edit warring and POV-pushing before the block was a nightmare, and there is no reason to expect it to magically end if the block is lifted, I agree with keeping the full protection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Let the current protection run its course. No extension required. --GoRight (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• This page has been locked down long enough and efforts to extend the protection are at best misguided, and at worst a transparent attempt to hijack the editing and consensus process. Lift protection and see how it goes. WVBluefield (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• I can not see why this article is being protected. It's also pretty obvious why its being called "climategate": like everyone else I can't think of a better name! Also, I do wonder what the motives of those who engage in edit warring are! From past experience I have no doubt some will intentionally argue with every point with the intention of getting the article locked. It is far better to unblock the article, let it develop but tackle those who edit war, rather than allow the malicious attempts to stop information reaching the public domain through wikipedia. Isonomia (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• At the height of it's vandalism, Sarah Palin was only full-protected for four days. If that page could exist on semi in the run up to an election then I have a hard time seeing why this page needs full. Ronnotel (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  The logical response to that would be that this topic is more contentious than the candidacy of Sarah Palin for US Vice President. Now, that conclusion would of course be antithetical and anathemic to the apologist cadre on this page who want to have us think that this whole shebang is completely blown out of all proportions; basically a "storm in a teacup". Now, to corroborate their claim that this is no big matter, they really should let go of their iron grip on this article and let it be edited to reflect this evolving story. Otherwise, they by their frantic insisting that this article is the focus of heretofore untold assaults by POV warriors blatantly belie their own "nothing to see here, move along, folks" spin attempt. __meco (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, to be fair, Sarah Palin was a rock upon which more than one admin bit nearly foundered in a sea of blinding controversy. In other words, it was quite a bit more spirited than what we're seeing on this page. Ronnotel (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps Misplaced Pages learns from it's mistakes.
  —Apis (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• No reason to maintain protection here. WP runs the risk of being hijacked by those who fear edits. Collect (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  I agree - when an article like this is full protected it is a shame. There will be edit wars since there are so many people looking at this, but individual users should be punished for that. WP has shown time and again that such behavior doesn't win out, so let's get back to work here. Ignignot (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the page should be semi-protected. It is an obviously controversial subject and a tag reminding people of that should be sufficient. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection would likely be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions from blogs, columns and editorials by people not directly involved in the incident

Although the opinions of some people and organisations are highly relevant, such as those of involved parties like the CRU (obviously) or RealClimate (also targeted by the hacker attack), some of the cited opinions seems less relevant. I think we need to consider carefully what and whose opinions to cite, so as to not introduce bias (by only citing those critical of AGW for example). We need to establish that the notability of the person is relevant to this case and to the opinion expressed. We should also consider weight, so that we do not cite an unreasonable proportion of opinions from one side of the issue. I'm rather sceptical to most of the opinions that have been cited throughout the article history, and I don't think an encyclopaedia article should read like a list of opinions expressed by different commentators. Shouldn't the article primarily try to reflect well established facts, supported by reliable sources (and in these cases blogs and opinion pieces cant be used as RS at all of course). I think this should be kept in mind before citing even more opinion pieces.
—Apis (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think an encyclopaedia article should read like a list of opinions expressed by different commentators." - Interesting. If this is the case, Apis, perhaps you could visit Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and see about cleaning that up as well. It's a mess. --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be the whole point of the article so it seems reasonable there. I'm not going to put that page up for deletion if that's what you are suggesting. As I (think I) said, some opinions might be relevant, but not every opinion from whoever happens to write an editorial on the subject. It's not what I would expect to find if I where to look up the subject in for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
—Apis (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That article is about the scientific opinion, and it doesn't list the opinion of individual (cherry picked) scientists. Other articles shouldn't be discussed here, if you have any concerns with another article, you should take it up on that articles talk page.
—Apis (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Apis. The addition of screeds of ill-informed waffle, from both sides of the argument (Monbiot comes to mind), tends to obfuscate rather than illuminate the salient facts. Perhaps all opinions should be relegated to the bottom of the page, signifying minor importance, and facts (just the facts, ma'am) should hold pole position. ► RATEL ◄ 01:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is "relevant", essentially, to everybody on the planet. It isn't only an article about science, it's just as much an article about public policy research. Anything that attracts so much editorial comment from so many obviously should have a representative sample of that comment. We should favor various things in picking that representative sample, and some of the things we should favor are editorials from major newspapers and other highly respected or influential commentators, comment from various points of view and comment from scientists and others particularly knowledgeable. Here's an interesting one:

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods--notably, peer review -- that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards -- at least whenever "the science" calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards. The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read David Henderson or the Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let's have some independent inquiries into what has been going on.

I think this, from one of the blogs at the influential Atlantic magazine, adequately conveys why it's important to get a wide sample of influential, authoritative opinions: A lot is at stake. (and this is from someone who accepts the mainstream view on climate change, although this episode is giving him doubts). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a news blog. It will take weeks and possibly months for the dust to settle and for us to begin to see if this will have any lasting effect. Writing about what people are saying on blog sites and in newspaper editorials won't help the reader to understand the facts. The news coverage is part of the facts, but a rather small part. --TS 03:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing about what people are saying on blog sites and in newspaper editorials won't help the reader to understand the facts. What a curious statement. What makes you say that? The news coverage is part of the facts, but a rather small part. Are there other third-party sources for us to use besides news coverage? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Straight news coverage is one thing. Partisan editorials and blog bloviations are another. I think we have too little of the former and (much) too much of the latter. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in terms of space, not in terms of references. We should have more references to various opinions but do it in about the same space or somewhat less. I'd prefer to see a longer section delving into what's been revealed in the released documents. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

JohnWBarber: Generally speaking, blogs aren't reliable sources (nor are they appropriate for the external links section). Why do you keep bringing this up? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AQFK, where did I suggest using a blog not in compliance with WP:RS for facts? And what's that got to do with my point here? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you've done it repeatedly, I'm not sure when you first did it. But the latest example is in this very thread (scroll up) where you argued for inclusion of the blog from Atlantic magazine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If I've done it repeatedly, you should be able to find examples of it. What makes you think I was suggesting that something from that blog post go anywhere but in the "Reactions" section? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You've completely missed/ignored the point about that other third-party, reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Also, is there a policy or guideline that says reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you quote the passage there that supports the idea that "reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable", because I can't find it there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to start excluding partisan blogs and editorials we should exclude RealClimate.org as well.

Allegedly...

I'd like to get rid of the word allegedly in the Hacked and leaked documents section. It's clearly a weasel word (the first one listed!), and is not backed up by the source. -Atmoz (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious. It's not alleged that the hack was done, but when/if they find who did it, it would be "allegedly".--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 09:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it would still not be alleged, but there would be (until a after a trial) "an alleged hacker"(named) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "allegedly" should certainly be removed--there isn't any doubt on this matter. --TS 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This illogical nonsense is being persistently promulgated by a small group of editors, Kim D. Petersen being one of these. They attempt to convince us that because the owners of the data have reported it as stolen via a hack, then that must be axiomatic, i.e. our baseline. To them the possibility that what the owners of the data present is incorrect is what should constitue inapplicable speculation. Of course any intellectually honest or sound mind immediately recognizes that here is our factual baseline: The papers got away of the owners. The owners assert they were stolen in a computer hacking incident. This is now being investigated. __meco (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the point that the police are pursuing a criminal investigation, which requires a crime to have been committed in the first place. You continue to ignore the point that no party other than the UEA is competent to state whether the files were stolen, and you continue your failure to provide any sources of any kind - let alone reliable ones - to support your position or explain why any such sources would be competent to challenge the UEA's statement. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Police pursue alleged crimes. The existence of a criminal investigation does not necessarily imply a crime was committed, at least not in a free society. This has been addressed before, but Ive seen no coherent rebuttal.--SPhilbrickT 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. There have been multiple coherent rebuttals, but you have chosen to ignore them. Big difference. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that you haven't bothered to answer my other points about the lack of sourcing and why any other source would be competent to dispute the UEA. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, yes this is exactly the nonsensical position which I was referring to and which you and Kim are the most vociferous protagonists of. You obviously do not understand that the police investigate a lot of reported crimes that turn out not to be crimes at all. For the police to instigate a criminal investigation they must find it reasonable that a crime has occurred. That's all. __meco (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There obviously isn't a strong enough consensus to merit an edit of the protected article. We'll have to wait until it's unprotected. --TS 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will ever be a consensus while some editors insist on pushing their unsourced personal opinions into the article. That's an unacceptable situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. On many contentious issues we will get a resolution reasonably quickly by just waiting. Climategate label will either become popular or sink in few weeks, either way it will stop being so controversial. Emails will become matter of public record (and thus linkable) during the very first related lawsuit filed in the US (which is pretty much inevitable). Police will investigate the hacking, and we will have statements on the subject that will feel more trustworthy than that of CRU. Dimawik (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already said (way above in this discussion) that mentioning the "Climategate" nickname in the article is inevitable given its appearance in reliable sources. The article will, however, never be titled "Climategate" since that name would not be compatible with the article naming policy. Copyright policy means that e-mails will not be linkable from Misplaced Pages unless they are released by the content owners. Your opinion of the trustworthiness of the CRU (or I assume you mean the UEA, since it's the publisher of the statements in question) is irrelevant - as the verifiability policy makes clear, it's a definitive source for its own affairs, whether you like it or not. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this and you shouldn't keep pushing for things that violate Misplaced Pages's policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, The only thing I "push" here is to keep the protection, so that the issues burn out on their own; this is no reason to get personal. Now comments on your opinion (which, BTW, according to WP rules is only as relevant as mine): 1) Nobody proposes to rename the article, the fight was going about using the word "Climategate" in the first sentence. 2) During the lawsuit in the US (which will inevitably happen), the proceedings will become public records, so we will be able to link to the most juicy emails legally pretty soon (few years) using the court site. 3) Note that I proposed to add to the hacking allegation words "As reported by CRU" - why do you think this is wrong? Now I have a counter-question: what was your basis for accusing me of pushing for things that violate Misplaced Pages's policies. Please stay within WP:CIV in the future. Dimawik (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an article on this topic?

Copied from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage by - TS 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Misplaced Pages. You seem to have left out the important part, you know, why there is concern over this horrible, horrible crime of stolen e-mails. OK, since you might not actually know, it's because there was a lot of sexy details involving scientists and lab equipment. Just kidding. No, it's because some of the leading climate scientists were exposed as frauds--definitely scientific frauds, and quite possibly criminal frauds as well. It's hard to take Misplaced Pages seriously if the first paragraphs of the article say that Climategate is really just a "hacking incident." "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information," says the article. Oh, really? Just "climate change sceptics"? This is also a deeply important political event, as you can see from all the political commentary on the political scandal, and you don't get to that until very far down in the article. JusDeFax (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The notion that fraud has been exposed has been used to defend the theft since the first days. No credible instance of fraud has emerged. --TS 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's way too early to draw those types of conclusions. More importantly, it isn't the function of WP to draw those conclusions. If reliable sources reach those conclusion, then it can be reported. So far, we have far more heat than light.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually on a climate article the euphemism of reliable sources is used to mean "peer reviewed articles by the very people writing these emails". Sphilbrick, can you assure me that you will allow non CRU peer reviewed sources on this article? Isonomia (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no more power to make such an assurance than you do, but it is not my position that reliable source equates to peer-reviewed by writers of these emails. Roughly speaking all peer-reviewed papers are reliable sources but many reliable sources are not peer-reviewed articles.--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are far, far more scientists (and data) involved in climate science than the few who wrote these emails. The scientific basis of man-made global warming is not in any doubt. Also, don't forget that these are named, living people and so under WP:BLP, like everybody else, they are assumed completely innocent of every crime unless they have been charged, tried and convicted of it. That is non-negotiable. --Nigelj (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Times on original data dumped

{{editprotected}} This should be added to the article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece This loss (destruction?) of data will make it virtually impossible to check the models of Mann et al. If there is consensus on the addition of this fact, I will propose a new paragraph. If not, its just a waste of time, so I wait for the decision. Northfox (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Meets RS to be sure. And since the NOAA data set has "erroneous" data removed, I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg. Collect (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, its twaddle. And its also irrelevant to this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, it is not for us to claim we "know" something -- and asserting this is "twaddle" therefore it should be left out is not in any guideline I can find. WP is to report what is found in reliable sources, not to assert magic expertise on the part of its editors. See Josh Billings. Collect (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Collect on the twaddle comment; the sole argument should be about relevance. People unfamiliar with William M. Connolley might wish to browse here.

On a different issue the editprotected template seems wildly premature and should be deleted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, if you can't read it well enough to know its twaddle, can you read it well enough to know it is irrelevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as borderline. As such a consensus is unlikely to develop around its conclusion. Hope this helps. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the "dumping" of the original data is irrelevant to this page. I think yuo've just answered "No" to my question above William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I suspect that WMC is calls it "twaddle" because it is :) The data hasn't been lost, its just not available at CRU (you can find it at NOAA (see discussion here)). CRU has "thrown" away the data that they didn't use. Which is quite normal practice as long as the original is still available. I haven't checked but i would suspect that it is also documented exactly which station data that was discarded as UHI points. Its a journalist gone overboard from knowing too little, and extrapolating beyond that knowledge which is quite common when regular media reports on science. (to be short: It raises a red flag on the reliability of that particular Times article) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We haven't discussed this yet, to my knowledge, so an "editprotected" tag is premature. Actually there are problems with the above Times report. The author is a journalist, not a scientist, and seems to think that the discarded data is crucial to establishing global warming. --TS 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leake's article is poorly written for our use, however, the information about Roger A. Pielke and his relationship to this incident may be relevant. I also think this might be a good angle to pursue. If, as the article suggests, Pielke is responsible for discovering the lost records while asking for the raw data, that is significant and can easily be mentioned. In other words, we stick to the facts of the matter, and avoid the sensationalistic coatracking. This has the added benefit of satisfying both sides. For balance, we can also mention the opinion of CRU scientists in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Errrmm, yes, but as I've tried to say above, what exactly is the supposed relation between the "lost" records and the email hacking? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leakes "news" is "old news" He apparently cherry-picked a quote from Pielke Jr.'s blog and forgot to mention that it was >3 months old. As WMC i'd like to ask what this has to do with the hacking. (which this article is about (ie. its not a coatrack for whatever things someone wants to blame the CRU for (note: that is a general comment not directed at anyone specific)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a relationship between the dumped data and the leaked e-mails, but the linkage is extremely tenuous, and, more importantly, not for us to make. Someone else needs to make it. Even then, this is not the only article relevant to climate issues, and doesn't purport to, nor should it be a repository for everything on the subject. To the extent that the data dumping is relevant, there surely is an another article where it is more on point.--SPhilbrickT 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Nature is good enough William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've attempted to add a brief summary of this Times article at Climatic Research Unit. Editor Ratel keeps reverting it out. At any rate, that seems the proper place to discuss the issue, and (hopefully) come up with a consensus-acceptable paragraph or two. What's there now is clearly non-consensus. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. 10 Petition

There have been a number of people asking why there needs to be a wikipedia entry suggesting that it is not notable. It is worth noting that the No 10. website petition on this subject has already received 2000 signatures in the first week - which according to cutrent projections of signature growth would mean that there would be around 24,000 signatures in total.

This should be added to the entry! Isonomia (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this refers to petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/. Which reliable source makes the "cutrent" (or should that be "CUtrend?") projections and how good is their global climate popolation model? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan very good! And does anyone happen to know at what point does the petition itself become notable enough to warrent an article - presumably it needs news media coverage and not just numbers of mouse click! Isonomia (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When it is adressed by reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant really, as the UK government just sacks scientific advisers it doesn't agree with anyway. --Nigelj (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the Current status?

I've been going through the comments (with a view to putting together my own article on the subject) and I can see that the whole subject is a complete mess - and unfortunately, many of the comments may now be out of date. So, perhaps it would be useful to hear what people now think should be in without starting more argument so not saying what should be out (put such comments in another section please). Perhaps if we can agree what we disagree on, it would be a start!

My suggestions

• climategate name
• The theft of emails
• the "hiding" of data
• The "can't explain why temperatures have not risen"
• Press coverage
• timing relative to Kopenhagen
• Police being called (what happened?)
• Was it a hack or e.g. an internal disclose?
• Inquiry/petition
• The apparent attempts to block some people from publication
• The attempts to withold data from others like McIntyre
• The suggestions that people intended to prevent FOI requests getting information
• What was lacking (add your conspiracy here)

Isonomia (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick reactions:

* climategate name In

* The theft of emails It's e-mails and other data, not just e-mails. It should be alleged theft until such time as theft is certain.

* the "hiding" of data problematic without good sourcing

* The "can't explain why temperatures have not risen" agnostic

* Press coverage of course, but not as separate section

* timing relative to Kopenhagen in

* Police being called (what happened?) in

*Inquiry/petition Inquiries in, petition, not yet

*The apparent attempts to block some people from publication limited see below

*The attempts to withold data from others like McIntyre limited see below

*The suggestions that people intended to prevent FOI requests getting information In

*What was lacking (add your conspiracy here) not following

* Was it a hack or e.g. an internal disclose? let's wait until resolved, then cite result

By "limited" I mean that there should be a broad survey of the nature of the contents, but to go into details is to rehash the GW debate which belongs elsewhere.

--SPhilbrickT 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By: "What was lacking (add your conspiracy here)" I refer to the quote no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' , no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords., admittedly a rather poor attempt to find some pro-warming elements to add to the article. Isonomia (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "alleged theft" vs. "theft", it should simply be "theft". This is a case where we should generally follow the lead of the mainstream media, and almost no news organizations are using "alleged" with regards to the theft. Not every potential crime has to be charged and prosecuted to be considered as an essentially undisputed fact. Accusations about a person responsible can be somewhat different because of the protections given to accused persons (hence "alleged hacker", for example), but we don't need to append caveats to every description of what facts occurred. Dragons flight (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" is entirely the unsourced personal opinion of a few editors here. I've repeatedly challenged them over the last few days to provide any source to support their opinion but they haven't. That, I think, is a pretty clear indication of why the term shouldn't be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to provide support for "alleged" - it is pretty normal to consider self-reported crimes to be alleged, until there is evidence. A removal of this word, however, requires some proof other than just a statement from the CRU. I would support a more neutral opinion-like "As reported by CRU" if this helps to resolve the conflict. Dimawik (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree re "theft" (This is a change of opinion.) While some sources are taking the more prudent route, many are not. While I think they are wrong, that's not a WP issue. We strive for Verifiability not Truth.--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what Dragons flight has said above. The fact of the theft is virtually undisputed in the mainstream media. Without any source to support the inclusion of "alleged" there is no valid reason to include it. I must say, though, that it's curious that the people pushing for the weasel wording to be included are so eager to declare allegations against individuals as fact when it suits them. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragons flight's assessment seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Isonomia, I find it helpful to try to organize things in a small number of broad categories. I don't know if that's useful here, but one way to categorize the items in your list (organize mostly for thinking purposes, maybe indirectly for article purposes): (1) mechanics of revealing the emails & the ethical/legal implications of that; (2) whether or not the emails & documents show misconduct on the part of their authors; (3) how this might affect the overall controversies about global warming (not how it should but how the politics of this are thought to be affected); (4) what others think about this. I think there's broad consensus that all four of these elements are essential parts of the subject, but most of the tension here seems to be over how much emphasis to give these elements (and the items you mention within them). I find #3 is not worth much space at all, and whatever we have in the article will quickly be overrun by events. I also find #1 is one of the least interesting and least important aspects of the subject -- yet it is emphasized the most, both in the lead and in the placement of the section in the article. But #2 and #4 are the elements that involve why this whole subject is important to the vast majority of the readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For The Record, the use of op-ed pages is valid

After all, the use of Op-ed items is defended by the same users who discredit the use of an Op-Ed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Oregon_Petition#Quote_from_unreliable_source

Unless the use of Op-Ed is indeed bad, and needs to be removed from that article. the Church of Global Warming can not have it both ways.--Zeeboid (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough you seem to have missed that the argument then regarding opinion sources was/is exactly the same as here. Opinion sources are reliable to the opinion of the author and nothing more (and it must be clearly attributed "According to X writing in Y Z). That aside your "by the same users" as well as "Church of global warming" is quite bad form - and i suggest that you try communicating in a civil fashion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw it above. I do find it intrestering however how you spicifically discount op-eds when it doesn't help you. And there is no bad-form about the "Church of Global Warming" intended what-so-ever, as I am accepting of all religious views and do not condone anyone for their beliefs. I would encourage you to be more open-minded, Kim.

So let me ask this question: if "Opinion sources are reliable to the opinion of the author and nothing more" is indeed what you say, and your defence of the Todd Shelly op-ed from the hawaiian reporter is pretty clear, then perhaps to qualm any misgivings about including op-eds in this wiki-article, they should be seperated out into a seperate section within the main article? perhaps one titled "Controversial Email Quotes" or something of the like, as the op-eds in question all seam to be talking about what the emails said?--Zeeboid (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a reactions section where Op-Eds are appropriate. In fact, they're appropriate anywhere where it's approprite to include opinion of others, but it might be too difficult now to incorporate opinions elsewhere in the article. Using language like "Church of Global Warming" is counterproductive to getting consensus on actual improvements to the article, which is our job on this page, so please don't. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's quite helpful when editors self-identify as cranks. That way we know who to ignore. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better not to respond that way, for exactly the same reason I mentioned just above. Restraint all around, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, if only it were that simple! Unfortunately, since Misplaced Pages doesn't have moderators, and admins are reluctant to use their power, the cranks have as much right to edit Misplaced Pages as we do. And it's not just the cranks. We have a few editors who appear to be going overboard in presenting the majority viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all accounts.--Zeeboid (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones stands aside as director of the CRU during investigations

"Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit" (Press release). Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Dec 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-01.

Should probably be integrated into the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the AP as a source, preferred I would think: Ronnotel (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't use Google's hosted news. The links go dead too quickly. This is the same story at CBS. -Atmoz (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Google news can be used, provided that the editor adding it into the article uses a proper archiveurl link to WebCite. See Misplaced Pages:Using_WebCite for instructions. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose an edit appended to the lead section:

"The university announced on 1 December that Phil Jones is to stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the investigation."<ref>{{cite news|work=]|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6703400/Professor-at-centre-of-climate-change-email-row-stands-down-temporarily.html|title=Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily|date=2009-12-01|accessdate=2009-12-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=CRU Update 1 December|publisher=University of East Anglia|url=http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate|date=2009-12-01|accessdate=2009-12-01}}</ref>

--TS 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't we want to reference the actual press release from EAU? It is certainly more straightforward than referencing a US-based news service. Or is that Original Research?? Madman (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources (i.e. AP, Reuters) are preferred over primary sources (i.e. press releases). See WP:RS, in particular the section that describes primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Ronnotel (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. Here's the link: -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with TS's proposed addition. Let's get consensus and get this in ASAP. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree. I think there won't be any argument on this, it is obviously NPOV. Ignignot (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• works for me. I also agree the secondary source is better. --SPhilbrickT 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Looks good but I would also link to the University's statement as a supplement to the AP source. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've added this and reformatted the citation(s). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, but with the UEA wording not that AP version. UEA have been careful to say "stand aside" not "step down". I think we should link to the original UEA press release William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Good point. Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, looking at the coverage, I've decided to replace the AP piece with a Telegraph article that provides (I think) more useful detail relating to the decision than the AP does. See what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Looks good to me, I agree that the primary source should be added as well as secondary coverage. Smartse (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• UEA has a conflict of interest and is not NPoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  And? It doesn't seem of great relevance to a discussion pertaining to mentioning that the Telegraph and multiple other sources are reporting that the UEA have annouced someone is standing aside while investigations are ongoing Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since UEA is not a reliable source on this topic, their press release cannot be cited to support the article narrative, it can only be quoted as a claim. This Associated Press article, at the very least, can be taken as far more reliable and NPoV: "University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change." I'd think readers should be made aware of the allegations as reported by the Associated Press and it should go in the lead. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If we really think that UEA is biased - and I agree, that is a possible opinion, though not one I share - then we shouldn't be using AP or the Torygraph or any of the current crop, because they are all clearly based on the UEA announcement. *If* you really believe this, we should wait a day or two until indep investigations occur William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't be using a link to Andrew Breitbart's site. We may as well use Drudge! ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to wait, on en.Misplaced Pages an AP news story will tend to be taken as thoroughly fact-checked. The lead should also carry AP's reliable report as to the allegations: "...that he overstated the case for man-made climate change." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, WMC, that doesn't follow. We prefer to eschew Primary sources precisely because they may have a biased interest. We prefer secondary sources because they are paid to observe the primary statements, and repeat the ones they find credible, discard the ones they find incredible (or possibly report as a quote, but not as a fact), and wave a coherent narrative from facts from as many sources as possible. If the secondary source repeated the statement of the primary source, we expect that they has done due diligence to determine that it can be reported as fact. Obviously, this is an ideal to which some secondary sources fail to meet, but it is the basis of the polices of WP. --SPhilbrickT 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you haven't paused to read what I wrote. The AP stuff is clearly based on the UEA release, and so if the UEA release is biased (as you claim, not that I agree) then the AP story is unreliable. I don't think "tend to be taken" should carry any weight William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We disagree, I think AP can be taken as having checked the facts and background. I think it can and should be put into the lead now, along with AP's report of the allegations Jones "...overstated the case for man-made climate change." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a little sympathetic to Gwen's point. I read the press release and it does seem to contain a bit of spin on the part of the university to downplay the accusations of wrong-doing. And to be honest, I'm not too great of a fan of using primary sources. Sure, they're allowed, but we have reliable sources to cite so there's really no need for a primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen. That's the very reason our policy says, "Our policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. ..."--SPhilbrickT 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ce) Gwen's right. Not very important. And ChrisO definitely should not be the one adding to the article because Chris is so involved on the talk page. Don't do that again, please. Adding the primary source had no consensus, then or now. Please, some other admin, remove it. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of adding anything to the article while it's protected. I did make one further small change above though, changing "has announced" to "announced on 1 December". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. I agree with adding the date. AP would still be better than the Daily Telegraph. The CBS website seems to be a good link, as noted above. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. My main concern is presenting facts rather than rumors. The AP article says the he stepped down amid "allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change." Who has made these allegations? From what we see above, the allegations have been primarily made by industry-funded lobby groups representing the oil companies, who have the most to lose from the outcome of the Copenhagen summit. If someone can provide me the name of individuals or groups making the allegations, then we can determine if such claims are credible. My understanding is that the AP article is inaccurate. According to the report hosted by Breitbart, "Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change." However, looking at the press release, we see no such claim. The press release says, "Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit." Two completely different statements. In the former, the AP makes a claim about the CRU that was never made by them; In the latter, the CRU explains that a review will take place resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of data. Nothing about overstating the case for AGW, nor do we know who made such allegations. The allegations could concern many different things. I'm more than concerned that the so-called AP article is hosted by Breitbart, who along with Drudge, is quite open about their bias on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The pith would be, AP is taken as overwhelmingly reliable (as to fact checking and reporting on background) on en.Misplaced Pages. Verifiability has sway here and meanwhile, the allegations are in no way rumours, they are notable allegations, being reported as such by AP and they belong in the lead. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, might I remind you of WP:PSTS? Phil Jones is an employee of the UEA. The UEA is the authoritative source for the status of its employees. All the secondary sources that are reporting on this are quoting from the UEA's press release. It is perfectly legitimate to use the UEA press release, a primary source, "to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" as WP:PSTS puts it. In this case, the descriptive claim is exactly what is stated in the proposed addition to the article: that the university announced that Jones was stepping aside for the duration of the enquiry. Differing interpretive claims are being made by the AP and the UEA, but the addition proposed by TS does not address those. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

UEA has a looming conflict of interest and is not a reliable source on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard then. Your objection has no foundation whatsoever in policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It seems to me there's several issues which are all getting rolled into one which isn't a good thing. We need to consider these issue by issue. From what I can see, the main issues are

1. Should we link to the primary source as the main source? I think we have consensus that here the answer is no. In fact I've only seen one person suggest it and that person may not have much experience with that area of policy and hasn't argued for it once it was pointed out why
2. Should we link to the primary source at all?
3. Should we say he stood down or was stepping aside?
4. Should we mention that the AP has said one of the things being investigated is allegations he overstated the case for human induced global warming?
5. Which secondary sources should we use? AP? Telegraph? Both? Others?

I should also point out no one has yet added what we're discussing here to this article. It was added to Climatic Research Unit which is a different page. While it might be useful to have a centralised discussion, there may be difference in wording that arise given the different focuses of the articles so we shouldn't take that too far. Also CRU which isn't protected at all so anyone can add it, remove it or modify it but please don't edit war too much that that article is also fully protected

Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My take:

1. The primary source should be used as a supplement to a secondary source, within the constraints of WP:PSTS (using it for descriptive claims only).
2. Yes, since it's a useful supplement to the secondary source. We should enable the reader to see what the UEA has said, unfiltered by the media.
3. Since the primary source says "standing aside", this is the wording that should be used. We are supposed to be reporting what the university has actually said. It would be misleading to present something they did not say as being part of their statement.
4. This is an interpretive claim which isn't reflected in the primary source - AP's spin, if you will. One news outlet's interpretation should not be stated as fact.
5. I'm inclined to use the Telegraph, since it contains more direct quotations from the principals (Jones and UEA Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton). I felt that it was more directly relevant to the article than the AP piece, which contains a lot of rehashed content; only two paragraphs of the story relate to Jones' standing aside, as opposed to six in the Telegraph piece. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing much of the editing on this topic at the CRU page, and for what it's worth my basic line has been pretty similar to that outlined by ChrisO above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Viriditas makes a good point (00:05). The early AP story seems to have been written a bit sloppily regarding why Jones was temporarily stepping aside (it wasn't for "overstating the case"). Here's a much later, much better AP story. Let's use that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AP editors are known to do that, spinning articles later on, cleaning up, so to speak. The earlier article isn't sloppy and can still be cited. Oh! Have I hinted AP may not be reliable? Nor EAU? Fye! What shall we do then? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a little better but not much, frankly. Compare it with the Telegraph story I used in the proposed addition. AP has three paragraphs covering the UEA announcement; the rest is rehashed background or other related reporting. The Telegraph has six paragraphs with direct quotations from Jones and UEA Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton, which the AP story completely lacks. Here's the link. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this article should be unprotected and edit warriors be handled as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Then let's leave out the reason for the investigation. TS's original wording was fine: ""The university has announced that Phil Jones is to stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the investigation." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving out the reason for the investigation would be highly unhelpful to readers. The reason is thoroughly verifiable: There are allegations jones "...overstated the case for man-made climate change." Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the AP's interpretation. Why do you believe that this interpretation by one news outlet should be prioritised over everyone else's? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:V, y'all, WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. As others have pointed out, the reasons given by the AP and the UEA differ. It's clearly an interpretive claim; I don't see any good reason why one news outlet's interpretation should be prioritised over everyone else's. Far better to keep it simple and stick with the undisputed descriptive claim represented by TS's wording. (Note that the tense needs to change - "has announced" will need to be "announced on 1 December".) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's ok to source sundry interpretive, verifiable claims published by reliable sources, that's what NPoV's all about here. For the editor who hinted Brietbart may have forged the AP article, here it is at CBC. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Further verified by the Washington Post: "...ClimateGate Scientist Phil Jones to temporarily step down... 'pending investigation into allegations that he overstated case for man-made climate change.'" Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is damn strange. This version of the AP story doesn't have the reason at all. That indicates to me that AP doesn't stand by that early assertion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As I said above (more or less), an AP editor spotted it and spun it, AP does that. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that Jones stepped down because of an "investigation into allegations that he overstated case for man-made climate change", and other statements made by the university seem to contradict that. I seriously doubt that anyone not relying on the AP article will be reporting that. It isn't a question of spin. People make mistakes, especially on short deadlines. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's verifiability, not NPOV. Yes, it's OK to source such claims, but it's not necessarily OK to use such claims if they represent undue weight on one viewpoint (which is an NPOV requirement). You need to explain why the AP's interpretation should be used rather than that of any other source - I see no reason to believe that the AP is somehow authoritative. We also cannot state the AP's interpretation as fact. NPOV again (bolding in original): "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." It is the AP's opinion that Jones has stepped aside for this reason. The UEA gives a different reason. We can attribute opinions as required (the AP says this, the UEA says that) but we cannot state either opinion as hard fact. That's a fundamental NPOV requirement. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody's authoritative, WP:V. Give readers the sources, that's what encyclopedias do. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's about viewpoints. I think it's about sloppiness on the part of one source (probably one reporter and one editor) within a short time after the announcement. It happens. AP doesn't seem to be using that reason in later versions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the UEA's press release doesn't reflect the reason the AP gave, I'd guess that an AP editor didn't feel the early assertion could stand up. They're fairly conscientious about fact-checking in my experience. But to be honest it shows why we should err on the side of caution and give the bare facts without disputable interpretations. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More sources are bound to follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why I suggested using the original source: the press release. Certainly it's a primary source, but you all are finding all sorts of problems with the secondary sources. I also think that it's rather USA-centric to use USA-based sources on what is arguably a UK matter.

So, let's us the Telegraph or the BBC, but let's get something up on the page -- we're getting a link from Google News but we're some 18 hours behind here. I'm a bit embarrassed for Misplaced Pages. Hop to it guys and girls. : ) Madman (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

We've spent enough time talking about this, and I think we now have consensus at least for the bare facts.

Thus: append to the lead section:

The university announced on 1 December that Phil Jones is to stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the investigation."<ref>{{cite news|work=]|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6703400/Professor-at-centre-of-climate-change-email-row-stands-down-temporarily.html|title=Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily|date=2009-12-01|accessdate=2009-12-01}}</ref>

I've omitted the UEA reference for now because, although it's obviously impeccably reliable as a source of what the university has said, one or two editors are still objecting and it would be inappropriate to go over their heads while the article is still protected because of editing disputes. --TS 02:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Added I have added the sentence as there seems to be support for including it. I wasn't quite sure about the flow of the text with the preceding sentence though ... feel free to suggest improvements. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the press release after "announced"?

We should of course use reliable secondary sources for the statement, but I think it's proper to include a reference directly to the announcement after "announced" (and of course use Webcitation, so we have a copy of the page on a reliable place). Would this work as a compromise? I think sourcing directly to the source of the info. increase the value of the article. WP:PRIMARY states "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" so it's possible to use the Press Release with care.

I.e. Change from

to

and this in the reference section

I Also suggest that Phil Jones get linked and that the sources is added in the reference section as indicated

Nsaa (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

More outcome

• Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific ‘Conspiracy’ in ‘Climategate’: (cnsnews.com) "...to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming." I think this should go in the lead, as even more reliable than the earlier AP report. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um I have to ask even more seriously this time, what on earth does that have to do with the topic of this discussion ("Jones stands aside as director of the CRU during investigations") given that it doesn't even mention Phil Jones by name at all? Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones is one of "the world’s most prominent climatologists" the article is talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And you know that how? Oh wait you mean WP:OR? Note the article also does not talk about anyone, prominent climatologist or whoever standing/stepping aside/down so again I have to ask, the relevance to this discussion is?Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no. cnsnews.com (aka Cybercast News Service aka Conservative News Service) is not a reliable source. It's been discussed before and rejected on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, did you intend to suggest that this matter be integrated into the page generally, or that it be included into the page as part of the Jone's resignation analysis specifically? Because, as you probably already completely understand, Inhofe's request for an investigation is not part of the investigation at EAU, or Jone's resignation. Evensong (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This source indeed has everything to do with this topic. From the text: "Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal 'possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program' and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." This is verifiable, straight news. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I suggest that it should be grouped with political reactions, of which there've been a few now. It's not directly linked with the UEA announcement - I don't see Inhofe referring to it. But note that you will need to find a better source than CNSnews.com, which is not a reliable source (see above). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about the EAU announcement, it's about the wider topic, of which the EAU announcement is but a small slice. Meanwhile as I said, the report is highly verifiable news. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Scientist Steps Down (wsj.com)

• "...hackers recently stole emails and documents from the East Anglia center that suggested Dr. Jones and other like-minded scientists tried to squelch the views of dissenting researchers and advocated manipulating data."

• "On Tuesday, Mr. Inhofe sent a letter to the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), that called for hearings on whether any U.S. laws were broken by the scientists, or "any taxpayer-funded research deliberately obscured or manipulated." A spokesman for Ms. Boxer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment."

I think most editors would take the Wall Street Journal as being reliable on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we update the item already in the article on Inhofe's opinion to refer to the more recent statements. I don't see a problem with that. --TS 02:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just slightly off-topic, but still GW

If you are frustrated that you cannot edit this article, but interested in GW, and interested in contributing with a NPOV, I need help with this problem. (Admin - if it is inappropriate to direct people to another page, please feel free to delete this section.)--SPhilbrickT 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ordering and weight in Reactions to the incident

So far, the material in this section is very heavily weighted in defense of the scientists implicated in this incident, but what I take issue with is the ordering of the material in it. "Reactions" begins with several paragraphs containing statements about how the leaked emails were "taken out of context", cherry-picked, or otherwise exaggerated, including broadly construed statements calling charges of unethical activity "ludicrous" and part of a "smear campaign." Overall, it begins with a LOT of material haranguing skeptics and defending these scientists against allegations of wrongdoing. However, at this point in the section, the allegations themselves which were leveled by skeptics - the statements that this content is supposed to be responding to - have not been outlined. We've quite clearly put the cart before the horse.

I know the article is in lockdown mode right now, but once it's re-opened for business, wouldn't it be better if we arranged this section as Reaction-Rebuttal instead of Rebuttal-Reaction? Also, wouldn't it make more sense if the "Reactions" section were located after "Content of the documents?" »S0CO 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree the sections are in the wrong order. The "Content" section is probably the meat of the article and for reasons I don't understand, it's buried at the very end of the article. Further, the article is confusing to the reader. We have the reactions to the content before the content. It makes no sense. We should the "Contents" section to before the "Reactions" section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The content section is sparse and doesn't contain much. This could change but probably not a lot. I don't see that ever being the main part of the article, simply because there isn't a lot to write about.

The "reactions" section is full of fluff at the moment and will almost certainly change a lot when we unprotect, simply because most of the early comments were reactions to ridiculously over-the-top statements by a few skeptics pushing a line. Now we're beginning to see a mainstream view we'll want to toss out a lot of stuff and basically rewrite.

The notion that the reactions are primarily to the content, rather than the theft, seems to give far too much weight to fringe views. --TS 00:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Content" section is the main reason most readers will be interested in the article and it should be right under the lead. I'd moved up the comments critical of the scientists above the ones defending them and criticizing the critics, but my move was reverted just before the page was protected. It seems to me that the scientists have received more criticism than defense, but I don't think there is a good way to measure this. I think it's difficult to judge WP:WEIGHT on various points of view on this, and I think therefore we should have roughly equal space for various kinds of criticism and defense of them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

TS: Well, I didn't say anything about the quality of the sections. :) But it is the heart of the controversy. As I already pointed out | here, there are different criticisms. Please don't lump legitimate scientists and other concerned people in with the fringe theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're in broad agreement, really. The content section could come first but it will probably always be rather sparse, dealing with one or two of the more controversial items and ignoring the rest. I don't know why you ask me not to lump legitimate scientists in with other concerned people. I don't propose that--indeed I mention that we've got lots of mainstream reactions now so the reactions section is likely to change a lot.

I still object to idea that the content is "the heart of the controversy." If you look at the coverage there is very, very little about the content. It's about embarassment. --TS 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, the idea that the scientists who wrote the emails were doing some things wrong is hardly a fringe view. It's a view shared by a large number of people in the AGW mainstream. TS, I would have thought by now that you'd stop implying the incendiary, unsupported and unsupportable idea that the non-mainstream view is where almost all the criticism is coming from. Recognize that the criticism has a broader base than among the skeptics. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) TS's statement just above corrects me. Should've read it before posting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the coverage there is very, very little about the content. It's about embarassment. I think this is becoming something like the standard background paragraph in the news articles I'm seeing (although I'm reading more U.S. coverage and that may be why). It's from the latest NY Times article (numbers in parentheses added): The e-mail exchanges among several prominent American and British climate-change scientists appear to reveal efforts (1) to keep the work of skeptical scientists out of major journals and (2) the possible hoarding and (3) manipulation of data to overstate the case for human-caused climate change. Those seem to be the three main themes in the "content" area. I think if you look for similar paragraphs in other coverage, you'll find the same three ideas in a great many of them and very little coverage of the content of the documents outside these three areas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents on the issues. The fringe theorists who claim that global warming is a purely scientific hoax have absolutely no basis in fact.

But there does appear to be other questionable scientific conduct:

• One of the things the pro-AGW crowd keeps hanging over the head of the AGW skeptics is that they never had an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Now, it appears the reason why is because Jones and other scientists colluded to prevent them being published. I'm just a layman, but that seems pretty unethical to me.
• There's also the issue of the fact that Jones tells other scientists to delete e-mails which appears to be a violation of FOI. He might have actually committed a crime, but further investigation is required.

Either one of the above could force the resignation of Jones and other scientists.

• There's also the issue of the lack of transparency. Several respected scientists have talked about this. Scientists aren't supposed to hoard their data and hide parts of their methodology.

To a lesser extent, there's the issue of the lost 5% of data. As an IT professional, I have to wonder who the hell runs their IT dept. Not only should the raw data have not been deleted, they should have backups, including at least one backup at a separate facility.

In any case, these are legitimate issues that need to be discussed in the "Contents" section if they're not already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Of all the concerns that have been raised, the only one that may hold water is the deleting of FOI-related emails. The rest have no basis in reality. This small group couldn't keep articles from being published -- there are too many competing journals and too many different editors for any one group to be a gatekeeper. The best proof of this is that some of the skeptics have published articles (see articles by Michaels, Douglass, Singer, Soon, Baliunas, etc etc). Given that skeptics do get published -- and that there even are journal editors who are avowed skeptics -- if someone's work isn't being published the most obvious explanation is that it's not up to snuff. Also no raw data were lost because CRU never had the raw data to begin with. Archival is the responsibility of the national meteorological centers as specified by the WMO. CRU got copies of the obs, processed them, then got rid of the copies when they were done with them. A few journalists have mentioned these points, but nobody really wants to hear it in the middle of a feeding frenzy. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The discarded (not lost) raw data was apparently dumped in the mid-1980s and comprised mostly plots and charts. No information technology issues were involved, at least in the modern sense. The notion that this has anything to do with this theft seems to be a construction of some confused journalists and skeptics. --TS 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Without a citation your post is meaningless original research and has no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. Are you denying that the data thrown out in the 1980s was largely plots and charts? --TS 03:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Without citations your posts are wholly unhelpful soapboxing. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time, once again, for me to step away from an unproductive exchange with you. --TS 05:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-Write Needed?

The length of this comments page leads me to believe that this article needs to be re-written or deleted.

Here are reasons I believe everyone can agree upon:

• The actual emails, or at the least the excerpts finding their way in the New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and etcetera, or no where in the article. Most wikipedfia article contain excerpts, especially when relevant.
• The article does not use the word "scandal" once. It does not mean that a party to an incident is guilty if they are involved in a scamdal. It is obvious to the casual observer that this article significantly downplays the effects of this scandal on careers and the public counciousness.
• The article uses Real Climate as a source (they are implicated in the scandal).
• The article runs too long, with "reactions" and explanations. It could be trimmed quite a bit.

When the dust settles major changes will be made. But why wait for it?--Wikilagata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilagata (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It just needs to be edited in general. Most wikipedia pages improve organically, but this one has been full protected for awhile now...--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I only agree with your first bullet point. The content of the e-mails needs to be moved up. Many other readers have also mentioned the same thing, but with the page locked down, it's difficult to make changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly I'm the only person who has argued that the Content section should be at the bottom. I don't feel that strongly about it so perhaps we should just check we now have agreement and ask for it to be moved up above "Reactions to the incident". --TS 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

more verifiable allegations

Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say (foxnews.com)

• "They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview...

• Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.

• Many in the environmental policy community are outraged about the disclosure that the data has been lost. "The scientific process has become so appallingly corrupted," James M. Taylor, senior fellow in environment policy at The Heartland Institute, told FoxNews.com.

WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What you quote is the opinions of Willie Soon, an AGW-sceptic activist who claims "he has been victimized by other "ugly" personal attacks from leading scientists in the global warming world." He's clearly partisan (something you forgot to mention perhaps?) Including this would give undue weight to an individual 'sceptic'. It's reasonable to include the reactions by the sceptics camp of course, but I don't see why Soon should be representing them or how these statements could be included in a neutral way into the article. It's not exactly insightful comments either, so it would add little value to the article, except to illustrate that one of the sceptics is upset.

The Heartland Institute quote is just ridiculous.

Fox pretends to be a "serious news outlet" but I still don't think we should use them as a source since they have proven to be unreliable and lack journalistic integrity. Simply calling yourself "news" isn't enough.
—Apis (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This particular "one of the sceptics" that you want to discount on that basis is "a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics." Find relevant reasons for excluding this information. In the meantime I'd suggest you peruse the encyclopedia for some kind of article detailing the negative PR associated with actively marginalizing the inevitably labeled 'sceptics' that disagree with you. This one should suffice...--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Find relevant reasons for excluding this information. He just did. A 'pedia does not need to quote people with giant axes to grind and funding from Big Oil for some of his work, like Mr Soon. ► RATEL ◄ 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP uses WP:RS and WP:V to determine sources. Not editors' opinions on them. Collect (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, since this whole notable topic has to do with widely verifiable allegations that there are those with "axes to grind" in flogging AGW to the world with dodgy science, saying anyone, with whatever outlook, has an "ax to grind" has worn thin. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything we include opinions by Soon, and try to characterize him and balance his comments so the article remains neutral. I'm not convinced he is the appropriate spokesperson for the sceptics camp though. Is that wrong? We can't include the opinion of every outraged sceptic. And we must carefully consider npov and undue weight. I think there should be some motivation on why peoples opinions are relevant before including (unless obvious), and we should limit the reactions to the most notable ones.
—Apis (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that position just isn’t acceptable. If we can pick and choose which news organization are “serious” then this entire WP is in jeopardy. If any one service reports something that is at variance with reality, then we can count on other organizations providing a different view and we can debate how best to present the subject. But to declare that one organization is not on the list just begs for someone else to propose a different candidate. That would lead to chaos. The approach we have now is working. Furthermore, if you have legitimate reasons for singling out a particular service, this is not the forum for that discussion.SPhilbrickT 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SPhilbrick that we can't pick and choose. While FOX news often has a slant, it doesn't mean we can't use it. On the other hand I don't think that Willie Soon's reaction is particularly important. Ignignot (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP decide all the time which news organisations are "serious"? But it's true that it should probably be discussed somewhere else.
—Apis (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We obviously don't want to cover stuff that only one source takes seriously. If we mention Heartland--and I'm not opposed to that in principle--we must be careful to characterize that group carefully. They're very much at the apex of denialism on a number of issues including global warming and tobacco. --TS 15:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is more or less a political lobbying group:

The Heartland Institute is an American libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming

How is their opinions regarding the "scientific process" relevant to this case? This is just noise. It seems like some people aspire to include every opinion ever uttered about this case.
—Apis (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon (TAMU) on Climategate

There's a very interesting horseback analysis of this topic at the Houston Chronicle by John Nielsen-Gammon, a climatology prof at Texas A&M and the Texas State Climatologist. He appears to be an open-minded fellow with good credentials, so his analysis is worth reading and (perhaps) including here, at least as a link.

Here are some samples -- something for everyone!

• "Climate Audit comes off rather well in all this. Issues they had flagged and followed for years show up as issues in the leaked e-mails. If anything, the emails demonstrate that Climate Audit is a reliable site for pointing out problems and issues with a select set of papers. ... Climate Audit is also reliable in the inverse: because the scientific issues in the emails were already known through Climate Audit, it is clear that the errors identified by Climate Audit are not the tip of the iceberg but rather constitute the bulk of the iceberg, as it were."

Re the CRU Climate data-toss:

• "I know this is going to shock y'all, but there was nothing unethical about CRU throwing away the raw temperature data. This is because CRU IS NOT THE ARCHIVAL SITE FOR THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA. The individual nations that collected the weather observations are responsible for their archival. If things proceeded as they normally do, CRU wrote to Burundi, say, and requested copies of their climate of their climate observations. Someone in Burundi made them a magnetic tape or Xerox copies of the data and sent it to CRU. CRU processed the data and got it in the form they wanted. Having no need for the copies of the original data anymore, they tossed them. ... In summary, there's no evidence that they destroyed data. They destroyed extra copies of data that they didn't need anymore. The originals, as far as we know, were and are in other hands."

Have a look. I'm pretty sure Dr. Nielsen-Gammon would qualify for the "recognized expert" SPS exemption for this bloggish column -- but what about his replies in the comments, which is what the second quote is? Opinions from the SPS experts here? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"I have said before that I have found nothing shocking or unethical in that portion of the leaked emails that I have read in full. Nor have I found anything particularly surprising." seems like a better quote to summarize the article. -Atmoz (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted seriously out of context, methinks. But, like I said, something for everyone! Pete Tillman (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Minus the long quote from the WSJ, it's the first two sentences in the article. It's impossible to take them out of context. -Atmoz (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'd forgotten this was the "teaser". Still not good without context. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic sentence seems like a better description. -Atmoz (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy's statements sound very sane and sensible, but much as I'd love to include them I think they're just one guy's opinion and we have far too many individual bits of punditry on this article already. --TS 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UAE now says they threw away original data back in the 80s due to lack of storage (Part II)

First of all, the section which was created just a couple days ago and has activity as recently as yesterday should never have been archived. At the start, we only had one WP:RS that covered this issue: . Since then, a second WP:RS has been added: . Now we have a third WP:RS. Can anyone find any more WP:RS which address this issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the most comprehensive I've seen, at a Nature news blog: CRU 'data loss' claims at The Great Beyond, Nature (magazine)'s science news blog, November 30, 2009.

I'm wrestling with this at Talk:Climatic Research Unit, which see, and which I still recommend as the place to hash this out. In short, it's not clearcut. I may have a new draft to post there tomorrow. Help welcome! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One advantage of automatic archiving which is largely being used here is that it avoids disputes about improper archiving. I set the archiving time to 1.5 days after gradually reducing it from 3.5 days (actually I had set it to 2 days but someone reverse me and set it at 7 days but I set it back to 3.5 days because it seemed fairly obvious that wasn't going to work and indeed I believe someone set it to 3 days before the actual bot run but it was still too long). This may seem short but I felt as the page which was 365k and had 52 topics at the time of the eventual bot run was still way too unwieldy and long. Such a long page causes obvious problems for modem users, and also is likely to frighten away many people from participating and many discussions are just going to be missed anyway leading to people just starting the same discussion again. Letting old posts fester also means people tend to add mostly pointless replies to existing discussions (and yes I'm sometimes guilty of this) meaning they stay around for longer without anything really useful coming from them. This may be acceptable on a short page but is quite problematic here. As it stands, the page is 237k at the moment with 33 topics and I expect would be 275k++ by the time of the next archive run, in other words still rather long. In any case your claim that there was activity as recently as yesterday is rather dubious. The first post to that section (i.e your post) was made at 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) and the last post at 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC). In other words, nearly a full 48 hours had passed since your post here (at 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)) and the last post to that section, not "yesterday" unless you really, really stretch it. It's true the discussion had been archived in-situ by TS at 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC) which usually has the effect of stopping discussion but people could reversed that if they really felt it necessary, they probably didn't because they agreed with the reasoning that it wasn't a useful discussion to be held here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat proving my point on people discussing the same thing in new threads because of unwieldy pages, although the thread you started may have been archived we do have #The Times on original data dumped. In other words, all archiving did in this case was ensured we only had one thread discussing the thing for a few hours until you started another one so we had two again Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nil Einne. If something gets incorrectly archived, it's fine to put it back onto the talk page and continue discussion.
—Apis (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Times says that the deletion was revealed this weekend, and their article is about the email story, so the Times has made the deletion part of the emails story. I think this is old news which the Times is revealing, but the Times isn't saying where it was revealed other than on the CRU web site. And as part of the coverage, Jones said that there were no emails or data deleted. Meanwhile, CRU apparently thinks it's a current event because they deleted the availability page which the Times had read (the https copy is also gone but Google still has a cached copy of that one). Both the Times and Jones have woven data deletion into the current email story. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have (at last) posted a second draft of what I'm calling the CRU climate data-discard controversy at Talk:Climatic Research Unit#Second draft, CRU climate data-discard controversy. Please have a look, comment, criticize, markup etc. etc.

There are also some (weak? blogospheric) indications that CRU didn't toss the raw data after all -- see Talk:Climatic Research Unit#CRU Data-dump faked?. Very preliminary, FYI, not RS etc. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Two articles instead of one

I think it is good to have two articles instead of one, because there are two different issues. One issue is the hostile leakage of emails and data (Leakage of CRU email). The other is the integrity accusations and counter-claims relying on the content of leaked emails and data (also know as Climategate). Two articles should refer to each other in some extent, but they are different issues in my view (as least two subject title means two different things).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea. See WP:CFORK. And as the dust settles, we get a much clearer image and a lot of the now hastily added material will turn out to be unnecessary flutter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I hold my request for this momemnt. However, one point I must clarify. My proposal is not a fork. It is not an attempt to allow both side to express the point of view. I just believe that there are two different subject matter and the current merge article is a source of confusion.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See Watergate scandal for a similar situation with side effects beyond the burglary which first revealed a mess. There's been one ouster (Australia), two investigations, and one legal action. We'll have to see what topics accumulate enough activity to need their own articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable source linking the right wing take-over of the conservative Australian Liberal Party to this hacking incident, please do let us have it. That should go into the article. --TS 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones stepping down over Climategate, this should be included

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html

agree?--Zeeboid (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See #Jones stands aside as director of the CRU during investigations, presently #27, for the current discussion on that matter. Evensong (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is the clear public consensus - please change the name.

Everyone including the very pro-warming BBC are now calling these event "climategate". . "Climategate" (as a single word) now has 1.5million hits on google. In contrast: "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" has a mere 3,870 hits. That is nearly 400:1 against the current name.

To put that in context I wondered what some editors here considered to be "notable" and so googled 'william connolley' (returning any page with these two words anywhere) to see how many google hits warrant the inclusion of the William Connolley article. I found a mere 28,500 hits 3x as many as for the title! (Of which 8830 appear for "william connolley climategate" - which to be honest must be just random noise as there are 9120 for "william connolley bananas"). Isonomia (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That isn't actually noise. His controversial and sordid relationship with bananas is well documented, and attempts to cover it up by Dole and Chiquita have prevented it from being accepted by the mainstream. Ignignot (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly reject, per Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal and WP:GOOGLE. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hip and for the reason he cited. While the term "Climategate" is probably the most widely used name for the subject matter of this page, the subject matter of the page is still rapidly evolving. It simply has not settled sufficiently into the historical record. However, I think it's only a matter of time before someone issues a formal admonition, gets fired, or resigns. Then the argument for changing the name will become more compelling with a colorable scandal to point to. Evensong (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. There is no point speculating. A lot of very excitable right-wingers are jumping up and down with their hair on fire at the moment, but that does not make it a "colorable scandal". Even if any resignations or sackings occur the article is not going to get renamed "Climategate" for the reasons I set out above - it's a violation of NPOV. The policy issue will not go away. When Dan Rather resigned after the Killian documents controversy, our article on the subject was not renamed to the POV term "Rathergate". Likewise when Alberto Gonzalez resigned following the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy we did not rename that article "Attorneygate". -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The rule we've cited is not as absolute as you appear to believe, and, therefore, the future name of this article is probably not as immutable as you predict. However, we can both agree that now is absolutely not the time to change the article to "Climategate", and that is all that really matters when addressing present edits. Evensong (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was responsible for writing that particular policy years ago; it's been stable for a long time and is standard practice now, so I think I'm fairly well placed to say what the policy means. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good of you to tell us, CrisO! Where ambiguities of text abound, documents are construed against the draftsman. Evensong (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not going to be renamed to your suggested title, as it would not be compatible with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Misplaced Pages's requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles. For a point of comparison, the Misplaced Pages article on the "Rathergate" incident is titled Killian documents controversy. That sort of descriptive titling is our standing approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this, I wholly agree with the en.W policy on -gate, I think it's "dumb" how the media is wont to tack on a suffix from a 37-year old scandal onto new scandals (I guess there may be some link to the word watershed and its meaning, thence stemming from Watergate, which makes this so easy for journos to do), I agree nevertheless that the search term is Climategate because that's what most sources are now calling it but meanwhile, Climategate redirects here so I think it highly unlikely many (if any) readers are being lost. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's simply because it's become a shorthand for lazy journalists and it's convenient for use when space or wordcounts are tight. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Even used in HuffingtonPost ... it appears to now be exceptionally common (hundreds of current news stories use the term). Collect (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Exponential growth -- Google now claims 16+ million hits on the single word. Collect (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources use it. "Rathergate" is widely used as well but we don't use it because it's not a neutral or encyclopedic title for an article. Please see WP:GOOGLE. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC radio this morning reported on developments but didn't use it - if it was indispensable they would have. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm dubious about that assertion, but as I said above it doesn't actually matter who uses it. We have a clear policy against using such terms as article titles and our standing practice is not to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Google news searchable stories from the last week on "University of East Anglia", "Climate Research Unit", "Phil Jones", etc. with either +climategate or -climategate suggests that about 40-50% of news stories are using the term right now. So, it certainly isn't an indispensable title. Whether it is the best possible choice of title, I don't know. Dragons flight (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Google News picks up a lot of unreliable sources (blogs, fringe websites, etc) so this is not a reliable indicator of how mainstream the term is. It's been promoted heavily by anti-science activists in the blogosphere (and originated with them); your Google News search will be picking up a lot of that traffic. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this will go exactly nowhere, but I would like to suggest Climate Research Unit science controversy. Surveying the reliable sources and the reaction to date, this story really isn't whether or not the purloined data was "hacked" or not (IMHO, it's far more likely to have been intentionally leaked by someone involved in responding to an FOIA request). The story that is forming is the impact this event will have on the scientific community and what harm may have been done to the scientific process itself. While different sides are saying predictable things about what the leaked information says about AGW, all sides seem to generally concur that the materials are an indictment of the way Science itself was practiced by CRU and others at the center of this episode. I don't think it's at all surprising that the first concrete reactions from this event have been administrative actions taken by CRU and Penn State against the main individuals involved. Clearly, these actions are in response to the perception of poor science. Ronnotel (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

They've neither admitted nor implied any wrongdoing. The investigations are the university administrations covering their asses. Ignignot (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I guess one should say that the title we have, Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident , is indeed unsupported. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to wait to see whether the term catches on. At present the story itself is more often covered by sources like Fox News and is attracting little mainstream media interest. When the term "ClimateGate" is used it is usually in quotations, indicating that it is not yet generally accepted, and may never be. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream media -- as in New York Times "A longtime observer of climate science cautions those on all sides of " climategate" to prepare for less certainty as answers emerge" "as some have put it, 'Climategate'" and so on. BTW, RS/N routinely finds Fox to be an RS, so I am unsure why it is not accepted here. Washington Post etc. Use of a word in quotation marks does not mean anything more than it was not a word in prior common usage. Collect (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, of the sources you cite, two of them say that some people call it "Climategate" while the third source is actually from a posting by a reader of the NYT. So far MSM do not accept the name and imply that it is not generally accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There were millions of Google results for 'Climategate' before this hacking incident took place. The term has been in use for some time. Dynablaster (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was 1.3 million this morning when I first thought of posting, it is now 1,580,000. That's 280,000 hits in nine hours. Isonomia (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I get 21 million. Either something is weird, or google hits are not a panacea for determining such trends. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the only thing which is certain is that CRU and emails were involved. We'll have to wait to see what the last part of the event should be named. It has been widely discussed whether this should be called a hack or whistleblowing event, but one or two small pieces of information are unknown. What else develops is more unknown. At the moment we're watching side effects of the Watergate burglary appearing, without enough information to write Watergate scandal. The Climategate redirect ensures that the web searchers can find this article, and beyond that we'll have to see. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Now in major media sans quotation marks in headers. Kansas City Star. Calgary Sun. Calgary Herald. Boston Globe. Forbes. Atlantic. Telegraph. Even AccuWeather. Collect (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Article naming is determined by Misplaced Pages's policies alone. It doesn't matter how many sources you find - if the name violates NPOV, which it does, it's not going to be used, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Weart interview

I propose that the portion referring to the Washington Times interview of Spencer R. Weart be removed due to its heavy POV. The comparison to tobacco companies only serves to poison the well against AGW skeptics.Chelydramat (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not remove material because someone has a POV disagreement with it. WP:NPOV directs us to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Misplaced Pages is not censored and does not exclude significant reliably published views that someone or other dislikes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want a balancing quote from the recent WaPo interview, by David Freedman (Capitol Weather Gang). Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to that interview. There was no Moonie Times interview with Weart, as far as I know. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to say the Washington Post.Chelydramat (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of editorial judgement. One could of course say the same of comments by skeptics to the effect that scientists have dishonestly manipulated data (and it has even been seriously argued on this very talk page that we should regard all statements by the University as "questionable" and that scientific bodies as far afield as the US should be considered to have a conflict of interest. But in the end what do you do? Everybody has an opinion,and we should continue to discuss our selections to make sure we have the fairest, most reliable representation of the situation. Facts, including facts about opinions, but always careful to avoid stating opinions. --TS 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

IPCC chairman comments

Comments by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri:

• Randerson, James (29 November 2009). "Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2 December 2009.

Some of this should probably find its way into the article somehow.
—Apis (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this reaction belongs. SPhilbrickT 14:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by NOAA head and Presidential Science Adviser

NOAA head Jane Lubchenco:

• Borenstein, Seth (2 December 2009). "Obama science officials defend warming research". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2 December 2009.

Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren:

• Power, Stephen (2 December 2009). "Obama Science Adviser Urges Climate Action Amid Uproar". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2 December 2009.

Both address the wider context and will be useful sources for high-level reactions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I've already agreed to inclusion of statements by Senator Inhofe, it makes sense to concur with the inclusion of this information. Since Obama's staff will be negotiating at Copenhagen I suggest that moderately high prominence should be given. Perhaps it isn't too early to consider starting an "Impact on International climate agreements" section. --TS 03:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The first is weak tea. The second has more meat. I concur with the TS suggestion that a section on "Impact on International climate agreements" is appropriate. One minor concern with the section name proposal-IIRC, the Copehagen meeting is not expected to produce any formal agreement. "Impact on International climate agreement process" might be more accurate, but isn’t exaxtly snappy. Maybe if we are clear that we mean “agreement” in a soft sense, just progress on the path as opposed to formal, binding treaties, the shorter term would be fine.SPhilbrickT 14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a wholly neutral Outcome on international climate talks? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Political reactions", with subsections by continent (Americas, Europe, Asia etc). No one is going to publish, "Those e-mails affected Copenhagen in this way", or "The email about X prevented an agreement about Y at the Z talks", in reliable ways we can use. --Nigelj (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I like most of Gwen’s suggestion, except “outcome”. What about ‘’Impact on international climate talks’’? I’m not sure whether I’m parsing Nigelj’s point correctly, so I’ll make my point, which may or may not be in disagreement: We already have an article on the Copenhagen meeting. This article should not become a repository general evetns at that confernce, it should only be for events at that conference that can be traced to this incident. If such linkages are not mentioned in the article, we can’t use them here.SPhilbrickT 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, outcome only spun up from my own linguistic takes on writing English, also hoping to skirt the "hit" or "blow" metaphor of impact, but having said this, otherwise the latter's no worry at all for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We've probably got enough on political reactions per se (Inhofe, Lilley, etc). The section I propose is more focused, and rather than discussing the inevitable political noisemaking, of which we already had enough in the article over a week ago, it concentrates on actual, concrete effects on policy-making. If for instance the Senate fails to pass its energy bill, that will be a concret effect. The Obama administration's response is not "weak tea" by any means as they're one of the main players at Copenhagen. This is more significant, say, than the actions of a minority Senator, which we already cover.

Not that I dismiss Inhofe's actions as mere posturing--he has some influence still--but we do need to concentrate on the realpolitik and less on the people queuing up to give their reactions. We're not a newspaper (and even if we were we would be doing a poor job if, unlike the newspapers, we gave the hacking the front seat and relegated Copenhagen to the back seat). --TS 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My “weak tea” reference wasn’t commentary on the Obama team response, but on the quality of the article purporting to cover it. The response is quite important, but if you click on the link to learn what they have to say, you’d come away with your understanding not much enhanced. The second link is much better.SPhilbrickT 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama in Copenhagen will have a global impact, Inhofe's influence is limited to the USA. I think focusing on internal US politics seems a bit odd, shouldn't we have more of a global perspective? and CRU is in the UK if I'm not mistaken. I agree with TS, we should wait and see if there is any concrete effect.
—Apis (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My point was, will there ever be many concrete and attributable impacts or outcomes on talks like Copenhagen. Things will go this way or that, but Obama won't say, for example, "I'm not going to agree to that because of what I learned from that CRU e-mail hack", is he? Neither will the representatives from China, India etc. If anybody publishes comments like that, it'll be in politically biassed comment pieces, I guess, that we can't use for much. --Nigelj (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don’t disagree, but so what? If actions taken can’t be attributable to this incident, they don’t belong in this article. Notable actions will occur, and they can be covered in the relevant article. Will there be an attributable actions? Of course. I predict there will be some picketing, and signs related to this incident. They may not pass the notability bar, in which case they don’t belong here. Or they might pass the notability bar, and they can be included. If journalists choose not to ask about this incident in interviews, and notable subjects fail to mention it, then there will be nothing to report, and the section will be quite small. SPhilbrickT 19:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously talking of a "notability bar" with respect to the statements by the President's science adviser isn't appropriate. If the White House is saying something about this incident on the eve of the Copenhagen talks, then it's quite probably the most important statement of intent arising from the incident. We write it up,and I suggest we do so in a new section about the effect on international discussions. Failing that, it goes very near the top of the reactions section. --TS 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"How about "Political reactions", with subsections by continent (Americas, Europe, Asia etc)." I think that would be very difficult to achieve properly. I'm not against it if there are reliable sources. In Europe for example, we would have to comment on different European countries internal political debates and significant opinions... I have no idea how to do with, for example, China... etc. I think it would be very difficult to keep such a section neutral and avoid original research. (But maybe that was the point being made?)

In my opinion it makes more sense to stick to major political "concrete effects". If it's mentioned by the participants of the Copenhagen meeting for example. Or if there is some kind of policy change e.g. regarding transparency of scientific works motivated with any of this etc. But we shouldn't try to second guess anyone.
—Apis (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

More details about the hack(s)

Interesting report in today's Times:

• Webster, Ben (3 December 2009). "Climate e-mail hackers 'aimed to maximise harm to Copenhagen summit'". The Times. Retrieved 3 December 2009.

We will no doubt see more information coming out about the hack(s) in the near future. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This one leaves me cold. Heavy on speculation, short on actual sourced facts. I agree with Chris that we will see more information on the actual hacks, not sure it is helpful to include such sketchy info at this time. The article raises more questions than it answers. If there were hacks in October, why didn’t anyone at CRU know? Or did, they and were laying a trap? I’d like to see a little more on sourced conclusions before incorporating this type of info.SPhilbrickT 14:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

By itself this single story with sources protected by a journalist doesn't mean much (I'd hesitate to call this kind of story a reliable source). Let's bide our time. --TS 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I thought we had a start on this -- must have been archived. Perhaps someone can add a pointer for reference.

At any rate -- a persistent theme in the talk comments on improving the page has been adding more content from the leaked emails. The WSJ published an editorial selection from the emails, without further commentary, that looks like a fine choice for a link, and also a secondary source for quotes. "Climate Science and Candor" -- CRU emails selected by the WSJ, published Nov. 24, 2009.

Another good link would be climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon's column on Climategate, which I previously mentioned above. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest adding The Wall Street Journal Guide to Climate Change, a collection of editorials and op-eds. If there's a balancing collection from the "other" perspective, we should also include that one. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  If we were as an encyclopedia interested in recording the minority perspective, WSJ is what we'd refer to. But I don't think that's what you meant. --TS 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Galileo

A Wall St. Journal editorial stated, "The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims — plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish — evokes the attempt to silence Galileo." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the time-honored Galileo gambit. Wondered how long that would take. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And it's an opinion piece by Daniel Henninger. Can we stop posting opinion pieces here, please? Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor Andrew Watson, a long-term colleague of the researchers at the CRU

This is a great quote to include in the article:

"If this is the most evidence they can come up with of a conspiracy after looking through thousands of e-mails where researchers thought they were talking in private - well, it's pretty pathetic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's from a column, and is Prof. Andrew Watson is notable enough? As I've said before, I don't think we should include every random persons opinion, they have to be notable (eg. their opinion with regard to the incident needs to be notable somehow).
—Apis (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote to include. Any scientist with the courage to stick his or her neck out in such a firm manner deserves to be memorialized in this article. Evensong (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? In what way does defending your colleagues constitute “sticking your neck out”?SPhilbrickT 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. How bold of Prof. Watson, to echo Gavin Schmidt! Unneeded here, imo. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Recall that this is an attack on scientists, an attack primarily political in nature, though crime was also involved. Of course the opinion of fellow scientists is material. --TS 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this quote, but the article has grown quite a bit, we're near that supposed ideal of about 35K length and we don't need to repeat the same thing over and over again. One quote on the idea that this doesn't disprove global warming should be sufficient, followed probably by a list of the most authoritative people or organizations we can find who have said the same thing -- and not a huge, boring list, and that should be enough. We should also add that various sources have said the reason that the global warming mainstream belief has not been disproven by this is that there is evidence independent of anything involved in these emails and documents. Look at what we already have and think about at what point the reader would start to be bored by coming across the same idea over and over:

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

The Union of Concerned Scientists was strongly critical of climate change sceptics using the stolen e-mails to attack climate science, commenting: "Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers' understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change."

Climatologist James Hansen said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" and that while some of the e-mails reflect poor judgement, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.

After this, what does the Watson quote add that we didn't have before, other than some vitriol? I'm actually not opposed to quotes with vitriol, because they reflect the heat of the debate over this on both sides, and it helps the reader to know that that heat exists. Let's pick and choose and only add quotes that actually provide more insight than we didn't have before, or replace one quote with another. If the vitriol is the value of the Watson quote, is that reason enough to add it? (And there's a bit of vitriol in the UCS quote's "conspiracy theorists".) I'm neutral on that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The solidification of the opinions of scientists in the wake of the affair is rather important. One way or another, it shows that they are lining up and taking a position. --TS 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think John makes a valid point. Parts of the article read like a list, not a coherent article. BTW, a list of quotes might a good idea for Wikiquote (but I don't have anything to do with that part of the Wikiverse, so I really don't know). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: move Content back up above Reactions section

I'd just like to check that we have consensus for this and then I'll ask for the edit to be done.

I seem to recall that I'm the only person who has argued for the status quo situation, where the Content section is last. A number of people have put reasonable arguments for the Content section to go back above the "Reactions" section. As I don't feel that strongly about it, I propose that if there are no objections we ask an admin to do just that. --TS 06:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Why was it moved below reactions? That makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be done. The reason is simple. I am a Chinese who cannot watch UK or US TV except BBC or CNN. It really help people (who have less exposure to UK/US media) to understand the matter subject in a logic order: a) What is the leakage, b) How the leakage issue being viewed (response to issue), c) What is the comment over the leaked matter (Climategate), d) What is the counter-claim against Climategate. I think part c) and d) should be put into another article, but if it has to be the same article, this is the order I have proposed. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support per everyone.SPhilbrickT 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support makes no logical sense to have it the way it is at the moment. Smartse (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As there is obviously strong support for this, I now ask an admin to perform the edit. Move the section "Content of the documents" (including its two subsections) between the sections "Hacked and leaked documents" and "Reactions to the incident", so that in the contents list it appears as the second section. --TS 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this talk page semi-protected?

I was looking at this article while logged out, and was surprised to notice that this talk page is semi-protected. I was under the impression that protecting talk pages is something we should do very rarely: as it says on WP:SEMI, 'Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time.' I can only presume this is due to vandalism, but is the level of vandalism really so high in this case that semi-protection is necessary? Especially with the main article fully protected as well, it looks a bit extreme - like we're actively trying to stop people editing Misplaced Pages, which I hope isn't the case. Robofish (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This talk page has been heavily targeted by sockpuppets of banned users, which have caused significant disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the talkpage you'll notice that where these sockpuppets were identified their comments were deleted. It obviously didn't ruin the talkpage.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Patrick Michaels

Dr. Patrick Michaels is not a global warming skeptic or a climate change denier as his alarmist partisans paint him. This article calls him a "global warming skeptic." Dr. Michaels believe global warming is real - though not present at the time - and that humans are contributing to the warming. He downplays the threat of global warming finding that the actual warming will be at the lower end of current predictions. He also questions the reliability of current models. This does not make him a global warming skeptic.

It is really unfortunate that this issue has become so partisans (especially as alarmists circle the wagons on Misplaced Pages) that scientists can’t even question the data without being attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true. »S0CO 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe you should be taking up your issue with the New York Times, not verbally attacking your imaginary 'alarmists' here at Misplaced Pages. The statement is sourced to them, and the source says, "Some skeptics asserted Friday that ... “...” said Patrick J. Michaels, ... who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming ..." That seems pretty clear to me. --Nigelj (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels is not a global warming skeptic? Are you kidding? He's made a career out of it. Have you read his book Meltdown? He's a skeptic if there ever was one.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Michaels is listed at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I don't see why there should be a problem calling him a skeptic. And LVAustrian, please just avoid hot-button terms like "alarmists" because it doesn't help us come to a consenus on anything here, which is the purpose of this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Under the section, "Believe global warming will not be significantly negative". So he does believe in global warming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the article describes Michaels as "a global warming skeptic", and that phrase is linked to global warming controversy. The article Patrick Michaels identifies him as "a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute". I suggest that we replace "global warming skeptic" with "Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute." This is more descriptive and should be acceptable to all. --TS 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, we should also report his former position as a state climatologist. --TS 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But surely, that is your personal synthesis. We're not writing his life story, but introducing a quote from the NYT, which uses the quote as an example of the response that came from 'skeptics'. If we put all that stuff in about his employment history and present job, then both of those will need separate referencing too. We already have his name as a link, does what started as quoting one thing from the NYT need to become a mini-CV for the man quoted, over and above what the NYT said at the time? --Nigelj (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious question: Are there any non-skeptic fellows at the Cato Institute? I would appreciate an answer on this. As far as I can tell, they are all AGW skeptics at Cato. Am I wrong? Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: rename article to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

This incident is similar in some ways to the Killian documents controversy, in that bloggers on the Internet seem to be doing the majority of the work sifting through the data, and mainstream news organizations are picking up their analysis and running with it. While the content of the emails which were leaked in this breach has captured a good deal of media attention, another major component is source code for climate models which was also leaked. With lovely little tidbits like this scattered throughout the documentation and other issues with the code and datasets themselves, the validity of the results produced by these climate models is being called into question as well:

(I don't really care to get wiped for copyvio, so I've only cited two small paragraphs. Believe me, they're no prettier when seen in full context. Google the file - it's easy enough to find copies.)

From HARRY_READ_ME.txt:

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Later in the file:

OH THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

I propose that we remove the qualifier "e-mail" from the article title. This controversy ranges far beyond emails alone. »S0CO 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hacking is an imprecise term, as well. From the context of the documents, it has been suggested that the documents were part of a response to an FOIA request. If that's true, I think the mostly likely scenario is that someone involved in the preparation of that response leaked the documents themselves when the response was denied. In contrast, an external hacker would have to i) somehow learn of the existence of the document cache and ii) devise an exploit against the EAU/CRU infrastructure. Documents of this sensitivity would surely be given a high level of protection, making a successful exploit difficult. All we know for sure is that there was an unauthorized release of documents. If we are really going to change the title to something in line with Killian documents controversy, I suggest (as above) Climate Research Unit science controversy. Ronnotel (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I support a change in name, because the reference to “e-mail” is incomplete. However, I don’t support the notion that the title should refer to “science”. I’ve seen almost nothing on the science itself. There are discussions about the conduct of science, about the process of science, but virtually nothing related to the science per se. SPhilbrickT 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose until the article's content shifts away from a focus on a external email thief. At the moment most sources are referring to the event as an email hack or stolen emails. Either more facts (such as a whistleblower explaining the situation) or a shift in focus (for example, if Australia's government resigns en masse, or a journal publishes an interesting code or data review) will require a change in name. I do recognize that 'e-mail' and 'hacking' are both not precisely correct, but that's what it is being called. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more ambiguous title like "Climatic Research Unit data leak incident" or "controversy" would be more appropriate? The real problem I have is the inclusion of "e-mail" in the article title since e-mails were only one type of data that was released. Really, the nature of the data leak/hack/breach and its surrounding issues and the implications of the contents of the leaked data are two entirely separate topics, but for better or for worse, they're lumped together in this article for the time being. »S0CO 20:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how important this becomes, when the article is more mature it might warrant a split or rename or what have you, but for now it is too early to say. For all we know it might be known as 'Mickey's Baboon Scandal' in a few months. Ignignot (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, why are we specifying "E-mail" in the title? That isn't the only kind of data that was released or is relevant to the controversy. »S0CO 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because most of the discussion, and supporting sources, are discussing the emails. We're at a point in time similar to when the police were holding some intruders at Watergate, but a victim had not arrived to confirm that a burglary had happened. The news coverage maybe talking about a "Watergate breakin" or "Watergate intruders", and only later would the phrasing shift to Watergate burglary and related matters. If a dead body was discovered or it was realized the intruders were authorized to do what they were doing, then the description would be different. We have to wait to see what happens. If the next thing is that reliable sources discuss the data or programs, then we'll see what terminology is being used. If a newspaper publishes a note from a whistleblower then the terminology will change in a different way. Wait several days and see. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The victims have indeed confirmed that hacking occurred. Both the Unit and the RealClimate blog have reported hacking. --TS 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Have the victims confirmed that an external attacker took the material? I'm only aware that they confirmed that the material is from the CRU. They've confirmed that something of theirs was taken, but have they shown how it was taken? The method or intent affects how it is described. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary (and this is in the article) both CRU and RealClimate have independently confirmed that incidents of criminal hacking took place. --TS 02:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please define "hack". -- SEWilco (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the word "e-mail" should be removed from the title, resulting in "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." Not all the material hacked was in email. I don't think there any serious grounds for objecting to this have been suggested. --TS 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What TS said. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "Climatic Research Unit data theft" which brings us close to standard with crimes naming conventions. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if the 'e-mail' part goes since more than e-mails where stolen. I like Viriditas suggestion most though; 'hacking' is a bit vague.
—Apis (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid the "hacking isn't necessarily theft" arguments in discussing this simple change to reflect the inclusion of other documents in the hacked zip file. --TS 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

An article must be named what the public expect it to be named not what some people here would like it to be named in order to remove the sense that there is any scandal ... and afterall if there isn't a scandal, or at least a belief in the scandal, then there would be no article. I've yet to see a single article that leads on the hacking everyone is leading on the allegations of a scandal, and to pretend that this article is about anything other than a perceived or alledged scandal is completely POV pushing. Can we please stop being rediculous, the article should say what it is about, and what it is about is the alledged (not necessarily actual) scandal revealed in the emails. As written the article suggests that the article is about a security breach: a breach that has not been mentioned beyond the word "hack", it is not part of the article, the hack is totally coincidental. We would have had the same article if the emails had been left on a PC on a bus, or if the emails had been released by a disgruntled employee. Isonomia (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The title hardly matters at this point. "Climategate" redirects to the article. There is no universally acknowledged name, on the order of Watergate or Profumo Affair. "Climategate" itself has a POV tinge at this stage. In time, perhaps it will be referred to as "Climategate" by people on all sides of the issue or on no side (there doesn't seem to be another candidate for a name), but that hasn't happened so far. It's a pretty small point, not really worth arguing over. More important would be improving the "Contents" and "Reactions" sections, and by "improving", I mean finding even better sources and rewriting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually see it the opposite. By referring to it as data theft instead of hacking, we avoid the arguments that maybe hacking wasn't involved but instead there was an insider leak. We may not avoid the 'accidental release' arguments but hey, it's some progress Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You say: "I've yet to see a single article that leads on the hacking " Well that may be the problem. You have been selective in your reading. The hackers themselves announced the hacking. UEA confirmed it and numerous external sources have written about it. If you want this article to be about something else then you have to make the case. Don't engage in accusations, give me facts. --TS 01:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you haven't seen "a single article that leads on the hacking" you haven't been looking very closely. A lot of articles say 'theft' or 'stolen' as well.

"if there isn't a scandal, or at least a belief in the scandal, then there would be no article." Not true. That would imply there has been politically motivated theft in order to discredit climate science just a few weeks before the Copenhagen meeting. It would definitely be notable.
—Apis (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Misses out the hacking and emphasizes just one part of the hacked material. --TS 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's my feeling that we cannot even agree on renaming the article. In that case I think not renaming is best. It will cause the least amount of disruption. --TS 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But the majority of focus is on the e-mails, not the initial hacking. Anyway, you're probably right in that we won't get agreement. BTW, I don't really care too much about the title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking controversy. Addresses the illegal hacking and the controversy surrounding the contents of the hacked data. A little bit for everyone. That's the best I've got. :) »S0CO 02:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem there. I think I like that one best. --TS 03:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Define hacking. What is being claimed? Maybe there's a better term to use. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature

Let's ref Nature William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this reference be attached to some specific part of the article? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)An editorial from a journal that was intimately involved in this event (i.e. Mike's "Nature" trick)? Hardly objective. Ronnotel (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Intimately" involved? Don't be silly. They had no involvement whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WMC, it's from a respected scientific journal, commenting on a scientific matter. It's the most relevant editorial so far. If any should be included it's this one.
—Apis (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's from Nature. I haven't read it yet but it goes in. --TS 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am completely surprised by the 180 degrees turnaround just shown by WMC and TS. This is an editorial, after all - the very thing WMC and TS were just fighting against as non-reliable; and the level of discussion is illustrated by these quotes: climate-change-denialist fringe, paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians ..., harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers. This type of language is typically not acceptable in mainstream publications and is never used in comments on scientific matters. This reference is below the blogs in both style and substance. Dimawik (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has argued that opinion pieces need to be covered by a third-party reliable source, I say let's wait until the mainstream media picks up on the Nature editorial. Given Nature's stature, I find it hard to believe it won't be picked up by the media, so let's just wait. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It won't be picked up by the media, and the reasons are obvious. Follow the money. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if someone's already mentioned this (but it's hard to keep up with all the traffic), but Nature has this straight news article here: Battle lines drawn over e-mail leak. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a statement by Nature, the foremost authority on the opinions of working scientists. To argue that we would need some lesser source, such as a newspaper, is to miss the point by a mile. I've been arguing consistently against inclusion of opinions by those who haven't earned a right to an opinion because all they have done is to set up a blog or mouth off to a journalist. Nature's opinion, however, is very important to this story. It goes in. If you think there's a u-turn involved, you're wrong. --TS 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you are a practicing scientist. Do you really think that the ad hominem arguments (indeed, simple name-calling) I listed above have anything to do with science - or any educated discourse for that matter? I have never seen a scientific publication using such foul language before. This editorial is pure propaganda, and quite crude at that. If this is the best that climatic science can come up with, it is in a very sorry state indeed. Dimawik (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The words "I assume you are a practising scientist" don't go well in a statement that also refers to "ad hominem arguments." If you don't like the editorial that's fine. Misplaced Pages has never before considered whether you personally like a Nature article in deciding whether to refer to it, and it's unlikely to start now. --TS 01:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Following up from Dimawik's observation, I have to say this article is an embarrassment to Nature as a publication. Such an unreserved expression of vitriol is unbecoming of a science journal, and really hurts its credibility in my eyes. I'm not saying Nature should not qualify as a reliable source in other instances, but it would be a travesty to make reference to the editorial in question in this article. »S0CO 02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So, let me see if I got this straight: you two think it's fine to include just about any random editorial, until finally a journal actually relevant to science publishes one. Then you don't want to mention it because you don't like it?
—Apis (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't project motives on those you disagree with, Apis. I haven't stated support for the inclusion of the other editorial material. »S0CO 05:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't complain about any of the other editorials so I jumped to conclusions.
—Apis (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Two important statements that need to be included:

1) The fact that Nature has looked at the emails and found that they do not suggest that results have been fabricated. Nature will not invastigatethis matter:

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

2) A claim about harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers:

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

Count Iblis (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nature is hardly an uninvolved party in this dispute. It is partly Nature's refusal to enforce their own published rules, which require authors to archive and disclose supporting data as a condition of publication there, that has led to this whole mess. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• We need at least a reliable source that says that Nature is part of a consipracy to subvert climate science. Nature has a record of wihdrawing papers in case of scientific fraud, so they do act on their policies. Nature is indeed not uninvolved, a priori they are in a position that is opposed to the scientist that publish articles in that journal. Articles get evaluated critically and many papers are rejected. After publication articles can be retracted in case of fraud. If Naure says that there is no problem, then that's like a prosecutor saying that the defendant is innocent. If people criticize such a statement, then they would need good sources that e.g. point out that the prosecutor is corrupt. Count Iblis (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. to quote above: "An editorial from a journal that was intimately involved in this event (i.e. Mike's "Nature" trick)? Hardly objective"--Zeeboid (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature is an unquestionably notable and reliable source for all things science. A statement that Nature is not to be used is prima-facie evidence of disruptive editing. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The current editing climate means we have to be absolutely clear and consistent about what sources are appropriate. I don't disagree with you but want to add some further comments. Nature is a prime example of a reliable source for science articles. This is not a science article but an article about a current news/policy event. So the question is: is Nature reliable for science-related news and events. The answer must again be "yes". Some clarification may be needed about "editorial", especially since there may be differences between US and UK usage. An opinion piece like George Monbiot's column in The Guardian or Christopher Booker's column in The Daily Telegraph is reliable for the views of its author. Editorials by the newspapers are in a different category. The unsigned editorial of Nature is the view of the editorial board of Nature and reliable as the view of journal as a whole. Attribution would be wise. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

Since WP:SEMI states that "a page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time" either the talkpage or the main page should be unprotected now in accordance with wikipedia policy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That policy has purposefully been set aside in this instance because of the sockpuppet problem, as agreed on the administrators' noticeboard. When the article reverts to semi-protection, as it will shortly, it may be worth taking semi-protection off the talk page experimentally. But if Scibaby and the other sockmasters show up again I'm going to ask for the semi-protection to be restored. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please link to this discussion it's not currently on the administrators' noticeboard.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in play. Heyitspeter has participated in at least two different threads but finds it necessary to start new ones asking the same question. We need the protection to maintain some semblance of normality due to the Scibaby infestation which contributed nothing but personal attacks, proposals to violate policy, and "metoos". Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahah not at all. I followed a link from another discussion and found a part of that section that was not being discussed which stated a wikipedia policy that this article is currently in direct violation of. I figured I would bring that out on a different section because it seemed important and unrelated to the section at which I found the link. Apparently, though, some administrators got together and decided that it was okay to violate wikipedia policy in this case because of the alleged havoc that they think seriously hampered discussion. Thanks to ChrisO for bringing this to my attention.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been discussing this in several different threads, and the answer has already been explained to you, but you keep asking the same question and making the same proposals. Traffic stats show this topic has already peaked, so there's no rush to unprotect. And considering the volume of socks used by Scibaby & Co. to disrupt this page, we are all benefiting from having to work closely together to make editprotected, consensus-driven contributions. So, the benefits outweigh the risks. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been discussing unprotection in several different threads. I don't believe I've asked any question twice. 'Traffic stats show this topic has already peaked, so there's no rush to unprotect'? There's a rush to unprotect because this is wikipedia and protecting pages in this manner runs counter to its stated policies. The reason people come to wikipedia is for content that has been contributed to and monitored by huge amounts of people both inside and outside of the relevant field. This 'sockpuppet' rhetoric is beginning to sound a lot like that employed by the Bush administration to justify removing civil liberties (e.g., "we can't afford to respect habeus corpus because terrorists exist"). --Heyitspeter (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, it's well accepted on wikipedia that it is necessary to protect articles and talk pages, both in some instances, when there are too many problematic users. The dispute over habeus corpus and terrorism AFAIK primarily pertains to whether it's ever acceptable to suspend habeus corpus not whether the current threat of terrorism is suffient to suspend it. Also when habeus corpus is not respected, those affected have no choice and can't really do anything about it. We still have means, even if they are more difficult/require more work, for anyone besides those who have been banned to participate in the development of this article. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit protection on this article will automatically revert to its previous state (semiprotected) at 05:31, 5 December 2009. --TS 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Misnamed, or is a new Article needed?

The article is defining "Climategate" as a computer data theft, a hacking incident. However, the media that is reporting on "Climategate" is talking about purported data manipulation, and coercion by some in the academic community. Should we have two separate articles? Should the "theft / hacking" allegations be part of a Climategate (as science misconduct) article. I'm having a problem bestowing so much truth upon the "stolen" accusations. For example, I have read several of the sources identified for those sentences which claimed that the data was stolen. I couldn't find one of them that reported from a first hand source that the data was stolen or hacked, although several articles editorialized/concluded as much. It seems undisputed that some or all of the data that was released was being gathered in responce to a Freedom Of Information Act, under British Law. And such data, assuming it wasn't destroyed, would have been released anyway. We shouldn't speculate whether the release was merely earlier than intended, done so by an anonymous whistleblower, mistakenly place upon a public server, or hacked/stolen. The materials unquestionably are causing an uproar, and wiki should not irresponsibly repeat allegations that they were stolen without some form of proof. So I object to the "stolen" characterization appearing anywhere more than possibly in a "controversies" section. And if one were to consider a criminal aspect of Climategate, it seems that the materials, whose authenticity has not been denied, involved discussions about destroying evidence in advance of an investigation. This is a crime which is colorable. The appearance of data, even if confidential, is not necessarily a crime it could have been mistakenly placed on a public server. Let's at least be consistent. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you're speculating about the theft. Secondly, the theft occurred and we're writing about that theft and the responses to it. Your speculations have been repeated many times but retain no more credibility--in the absence of evidence--than they did at first. --TS 04:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been many different perspectives on this incident, some write about theft, some about whether there are any signs of data manipulation. Misplaced Pages should try to be neutral. If a serious investigation concludes there have been some kind of significant data manipulation it will be reported in many reliable sources, and then it will likely be mentioned in the article.
—Apis (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See the preceding discussions on the article title. The article title either should be obvious from the material, or reflect how the article's topic is commonly known. The title is likely to change as the focus of the information changes. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Stagnation

What about adding the comments made by the head of the IPCC?

This article is in stagnation. I'm doubtful about the reasons to block this article in the first place, and doubtful about the reasons why it's still blocked. What's the concern anyway? What's the worst thing that could have happened if this article would never have been blocked?

I'm worried that AGW cheerleaders are misusing Misplaced Pages, its organization and its policies to further their own agendas and I would like to see all sides on this issue getting an equal voice without facing risks of being reprimanded. Anyway, can you bureaucrats please update this article to include Dr Rajendra Pachauri comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AGW deniers are actually falling foul of wp:FRINGE. They are akin to creationists. They should never, ever get an "equal voice". ► RATEL ◄ 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting POV. Actually, comparing AGW non-believers to creationists might be entertaining for you and others but actually is not consistent in any way. Creationists don't believe in evolution by natural selection but on top of that they also offer an alternative account for the existence of species which involves a super-being. AGW non-believers cast doubt on the processes used by scientists and the so-called scientific consensus but don't necessarily offer any alternatives. In short, you're whining as in "To complain or protest in a childish fashion".

(edit conflict) I agree that the comments by Rajendra Pachauri is notable enough to be included since he is the chairman of the IPCC. See also previous topic #IPCC chairman comments.

If you took the time to read the talk page and talk page archives you will see why the page was protected: mainly because of substantial edit warring and sockpuppet attacks that more or less halted any constructive work on the article. The page protection is currently only temporary. On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. The worst thing that could happen would probably be someone using the page to post libel or threats of violence.

I actually took the time to read the talk pages and I'm still in doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs)

Like you worry about "AGW cheerleaders", I worry about deinalists and lobbyist groups hijacking the page, but everyone has an equal voice on the talk page (of course!).
—Apis (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My concerns are of course validated by the behavior of AGW cheerleaders, like the fact that since this article was protected for various reasons the blog realclimate.org has been treated as a reliable source contrary to wikipedia policy. So, AGW cheerleaders clearly abuse wikipedia policy which validates my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs)

It is blocked because of irresponsible editing. You'll see plenty of evidence in the talk above. Meanwhile, we should indeed report on this new development, but carefully. The BBC seems to have got it wrong. The UN panel on climate change says claims UK scientists manipulated global warming data to boost the argument it is man-made should be investigated. is what they say (and it is what I heard on the radio this morning) but it is *not* what the IPCC are actually saying. RP says "We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail." For example, the Beeb sez One of the leaked e-mails suggested CRU head Dr Phil Jones wanted certain papers excluded from the UN's next major assessment of climate science. What it *doesn't* say is that the paper referred to *was* included in the report. That the Beeb (and the Times, considered a WP:RS by some) routinely make these mistakes is a good reason not to push headlines into articles on the day they are created, just because they appear to support your POVWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Drawing a line under discussion of the scientific status of AGW (not the purpose of the talk page). I think we should turn attention to the sources we are using. We are all agreed that this is not a science article but an article about a media/policy event. Therefore the news reports of the BBC, The Times etc. are among the best sources for the article. (Not their op-eds, except attributed in the Responses section, and then we have to carefully select those responses that are notable/typical; also we may have ongoing problems in establishing where news shifts into comment). The quality news outlets may get things wrong or oversimplify, but we are going for reliability, not truth. Public statements of official bodies, whether parties or not, can also be regarded as reliable for this article. They could under certain circumstances be regarded as primary, and we do not want to go trawling for all official statements to create a synthesis, but I think it's clear that the IPCC's statement is an important development in this story and should not be omitted. I agree with the comment above that we must avoid recentism. "Headlines" are never a reliable source: they are not written by the reporters on the story but by sub-editors looking for effect. Even the news summaries that the BBC uses in its programmes should be avoided in favour of the clearer and more accurate expositions of the body of the story. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not, however, obliged to repeat their mistakes. Allowing time for the stories to settle is a good way of avoiding this mistake (woop! woop! censorship nonsense aside). To be clear: I'm happy to add "the comments made by the head of the IPCC", providing we use his actual comments. I'm *not* happy to add the misdescription the BBC has used in its headlines William M. Connolley (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

“The BBC seems to have got it wrong” Well, William, you could post something on RealClimate then post that as a source of why it’s wrong. I’m sure you would defend that as NPOV. Otherwise Devijivers is right, you don’t see this kind of push for the sake of “Accuracy” when op-eds and blogs are referenced for the sake of AGW Cheerleaders.

I would actually prefer the realclimate.org source in this article remains as is ad infinitum as a testimony to the world of how AGW cheerleaders control wikipedia without having to answer to anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

““AGW deniers are actually falling foul of wp:FRINGE. They are akin to creationists. They should never, ever get an "equal voice".” – Ratel

“You see, this is where the Church of Global Warming comes into play. When people actually say science shouldn’t get an “equal voice”. Shame on you Ratel, people in the past have died because they tried to bring science to the front that others didn’t want shared (Earth being round, Earth not being the center of the Universe… etc)

““I'm *not* happy to add the misdescription the BBC has used in its headlines” – WMC

“William, it does not matter if adding properly sourced (from a reputable news organization) pleases you or not. In fact, I bet we could all care less in your “pleasure”. What is important here is to document this without bias… something that is clearly happening if people here are “not happy” with what the BBC reports. --Zeeboid (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So, sweeping aside all the unnecessary inter-user sniping, we have consensus to add the comment by the head of the IPCC. We will use his words directly, side-stepping the possibility that the BBC has lost the nuances in its desire to simplify, definitely not use any headlines, avoid recentism and not rush. Good. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Addation to that, what the BBC reported should be listed below what the head of the IPCC is saying. something like

The head of the IPCC said this and this and this. The BBC reported however this this this this.

This quote/rebuttel is pretty standard through these global warming articles.--Zeeboid (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter what the BBC reported someone said? This isn't the Criticism of BBC article Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why does it matter what the BBC reported"? Did I read that right? Hey, I am just using the same standards I see in place on other articles on related topics. what does it matter what the BBC reported... thats funny.--Zeeboid (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus the BBC report misquotes or otherwise doesn't provide an accurate picture of someone said, then yes, it doesn't matter. This is the same with all articles and all sources. There's never any requirement to use any particular source in any particular article, many sources, even highly reliable ones do get it wrong on occasion and when we have multiple sources and one is the odd one out, then it can usually be safely ignored. P.S. Many creationists particularly the modern intelligent design type specifically avoid saying anything about god or a supreme being. In fact they like to use god of the gaps arguments and also are proponents of teach the controversy. Something even one former US President advocated. Part of their infamous Wedge strategy of course. This is completely OT so I won't discuss it anymore but if you want to make OT claims you can at least make sure they stand up to scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

moving over. a concensus by other news org, or a concensus by wikipedia editors? is that not origional research?--Zeeboid (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't OR. The BBC is a good source for this article and we should use it extensively. But sometimes we will use our judgement to prefer other sources. For example we already have the New York Times and we should continue to use both UK and US sources. In this case he IPCC's published statement is more direct and therefore more appropriate. One reason we know it is worth including is that it was featured on the BBC. Got it? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't primary sources discouraged? Should we even be using th IPCC as a source seeing as how they are kind of in the middle of this controversy?--Zeeboid (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between discouraged and prohibited. Basically, does mentioning the IPCC reaction improve the article? I think most editors and readers would think so. We're working on an article about an issue in the early stages of development, borderline news reporting on our part. Sometimes there just isn't a good secondary source. If there was one, it would be preferred, but that doesn't always justify leaving it out. Alas, hard and fast rules don't really exist for interesting issues and problems, like coordinating an ad hoc volunteer encyclopedia staff. Ignignot (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition to UCS reaction

After "opposed to addressing climate change" " could we add "the UCS subsequently stated that they were concerned by allegations that emails that were the subject of freedom of information requests were deleted." Union of Concerned Scientists on Climate Scientists' Behavior retrieved December 4 2009 Andjam (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(made ref followable). I don't see that text on that page. What quote are you paraphrasing? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the italics at the top: 'Grifo clarifies in an interview that the group "does have concerns" about the alleged behavior of some scientists in this case. "If a US scientist deleted emails persuant to freedom of information act requests, that's reprehensible," she says. "Ultimately a lack of transparency doesn't work."' - but it is a blog and I don't think this should go in unless someone finds a better source. Ignignot (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I read that, but it was sufficiently distant in meaning from A's comments that I couldn't be sure they were related. Yes its a blog; and A forgot the "If" which is important William M. Connolley (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addation to Reactions to the incident

Acadamy Award members demanding revocation of Al Gore's Oscar for An Inconvient Truth

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Poliwood/Climategate_Hits_Hollywood%3A_Should_the_Academy_Rescind_Gore%27s_Oscar%3F/2780/;jsessionid=abcowwO-8vPzC5mPVAyvs

Also, the reaction section is quite long and unorginized. I also sugguest editing of that section with Subheadings to aid in the ability for the readers to go through the many reactions.--Zeeboid (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

William removed my request to add this as a reaction to the incident. I just wanted that clearly shown here. Acadamy members demanding revocation of Al Gore's oscar is because of this incident. spicifically, as the sources say.--Zeeboid (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Um you do realise that if you search the e-mails, the only time Al Gore was ever mentioned is by climate change sceptics/deniers right? An "inconvient truth" never. Yes I know this is WP:OR but you're linking to a blog and something called Pajamas Media so... P.S. From the sound of it, it's also highly doubtful that the two people even voted for "An Inconvient Truth" Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

um, you to realise that if you read the info and watch the video, the two accadamy members (Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd) are the ones actually speeking in that video right? Oddly enough on wikipedia, when you get something directly from the horse's mouth (esp by way of video or audio) that turns out to be the best source you can get.--Zeeboid (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually primary sources are explicitly discouraged on wikipedia. Video and audio as a source is also discouraged for a number of reasons of reasons including access issues, permanence issues... Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Academy Award members" seems to me as too broad a description for this source, "two conservative academy award members" would be a better description. But then again, is this a relevant/notable response?

do you realy want to play the nit-picking political label game on the topic of Global Warming? perhaps this shoudl apply to all refrences throughout global warming related articles. I sugguest that not be a game that is played here.--Zeeboid (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what the source says, two conservative members. I don't feel I'm nit-picking here. Devijvers (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-added this entire discssion, as removed by WMC. Willaim, I would ask that you not remove discussion pages on a locked topic.--Zeeboid (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally NN. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have your answer - it is not notable, primary sources are discouraged, audio and video are discouraged, it is a blog. Ignignot (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that standard held for all blogs? I keep getting confused by this, as some blogs are included if they agree with AGW, and some are not included when they disagree with AGW, but I am trying to find an actual reason other then who agrees/disagrees to allow/disallow a blog.--Zeeboid (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See the reliable sources guideline for comments on blogs. You can also search the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. We do try to be consistent. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

moving over. Yes, as a techincal writer, consistency above all is what I wish for. thats what this is al about.

""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."

So by that deffinition, this source form the LA Times is valid because it is by two professional writers, and is subject to editorial control.--Zeeboid (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It would tend to come into the category of op-ed, and since we have enough op-ed already, and this did not make the main bit of the paper, and we are covering a news event with implications for public policy, then it is not going to be a brilliant source. RealClimate, for example, is in a very different category because it is a party in the events. Its official statements (but not posts on the blog) are reliable for its own position. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The other thing, which I was sarcasticly/snarkily hinting above is that this has little to do with the e-mail hacking incident. Yes it may have been in response to the incident but the fact that two random people are calling for an Oscar to be withdrawn isn't particularly relevant to the hacking incident. Perhaps it belongs in the article on the movie or the Academy awards but not here. There are plenty more important things to cover then this, I suspect even most climate change sceptics will agree with that. Now if the Academy Award committee (or whatever) annouced they were considering it or if the prize was actually withdrawn, that's another thing entirely but there's no hint of that here. The lack of coverage of course gives us a big clue that this is indeed not pf great interest. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can agree, based on who they are, that they are hardly random people. they are members of the acadamy for which the award is named and like all members, have influance over who gets the award. also its relivence is directly tied to the email hacking incident, as is evident by the first thing they mention in the video.--Zeeboid (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, it's just another chapter in the far right's campaign against Al Gore. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the petty political sniping to a minimum. We're working on an encyclopedia article here. That being said, I fail to see how this is directly relevant to the CRU incident. Perhaps it would be best if this topic were instead proposed at Talk:An Inconvenient Truth. »S0CO 17:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bring in some of the more thoughtful analysis of the politics and sociology?

We're starting to see some more thoughtful analysis of the politics and sociology of this. For example, Mike Hulme, "The Science and Politics of Climate Change," The Wall Street Journal Online, December 4, 2009. Granted, what we see now will be commentary rather than sociological research, but some of it is pretty good and the commentators are getting enough perspective that they're beginning to think through how it may have all happened and what the implications are. It would be important to stick to newspapers of record, clearly identify who the commentators are, and make sure we include a mix that includes all sides, but it could turn the article into something more useful than "he said . . . she said." EastTN (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not really politics (at least not political science analysis) and not sociology. I'm sure there will be sociologists of science poring over this but they won't publish for another six months at least. We're going to have a large number of people invited by good quality media sources to comment - for example Jonathon Porritt was on BBC radio this morning - and have to decide how to deal with all of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I grant that it's not the kind of research that a political science professor would do in an academic setting, but there's a great deal of good political reporting and analysis that's provided by newspapers of record and leading magazines. Those can be as useful for articles on politics as the more academic sources. I think this is similar situation. I recognize how difficult it may be. My personal rule of thumb would be that we'd want to look for reports and commentary in leading newspapers and reputable magazines, articles that are focused on analyzing the debate rather than participating in the debate, and we'd want to bend over backwards to try and report all perspectives in a neutral way. I don't know if we could get to consensus, but if we could I do think it would result in a better article. As an aside, what did Porritt have to say? Was it useful, and is it something we can find in text form somewhere? EastTN (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a "Reaction to the Reaction" section!

All joking aside, The NYT Freakonomics Blog also has a pretty broad look at the reactions and analysis. Ignignot (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that's a nice one. I didn't mention it because it was a blog, but perhaps it could make the cut since it's essentially a standing column sponsored by the NYT. This one might be a possibility as well: Bryan Walsh, "As Climate Summit Nears, Skeptics Gain Traction," Time, December 2, 2009. It will be tricky to get to a consensus on sources, but I do think that we're starting to see some analysis that could strengthen the article if it's handled well. EastTN (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one that, while not quite as much focused on the political and sociological analysis, is pretty interesting in the way it tries to handle things: Peter Kelemen, "What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change," Popular Mechanics, December 1, 2009. EastTN (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, Porritt just said that the global warming scientific consensus held. It was on the radio, therefore ephemeral, and really just an example of how much here-today-gone-tomorrow commentary is out there. The BBC News website is where to look for the main developments and commentary. An article in Time should in principle be notable comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment