Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 14 February 2010

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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.

[REDACTED]

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Lawrence Solomon (2010-01-16). "Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing". National Post. after asking for "climategate" find themselves on a Misplaced Pages page entitled "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the "unauthorised release of thousands of emails

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"? A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails? A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source? A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain? A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person. A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article? A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do? A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content? A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that? A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 2009 (archived) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (Talk:Climatic_Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 14#Proposed page move

RfC on article name change

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: Politics, government, and law Maths, science, and technology Economy, trade, and companies History and geography Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture Misplaced Pages style and naming 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 this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support name change and suggest Climatic Research Unit "Climategate" incident. I believe that this list shows that "Climategate" is now the common name for this incident used in print and video media, by government figures, and by the general public, on both sides of the controversy. The list of sources even shows a couple of major Spanish newspapers using the "Climategate" term. I suggest adding "Climatic Research Unit" at the beginning to clarify the title, and putting "Climategate" in quotation marks (WP:AT does not appear to prohibit using quotation marks within the full title) and adding "incident" at the end to NPOV it. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a second choice, I support any variation of Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Trade "email" for "documents" and I'm game. The controversy covers coding as well.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think a convincing case for a proper name article title Climategate (as opposed to the descriptive article title Climatic Research Unit email controversy) is made here. Let me know what you think, Heyitspeter. As I read the policies, my own feelings towards a proper noun name vs. descriptive name changed (proper noun is preferred when it exists in the RS). Moogwrench (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support change to Cla's version, or perhaps "Climate Research Unit Email Controversy" with Climategate mentioned as aka in the lede. Note that the use of the word "hacking" is similarly unconfirmed, so that shouldn't be there either. OTOH, it's clearly a "controversy" (both the "hacking" and the emails themselves, in fact) so calling it "controversy" should not be a problem. ATren (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose name change until investigation conclusions are known. Oppose anything using the non-neutral terminology "Climategate". Oppose proposal by Cla68 - WP:NPOV violation (not neutral), WP:WTA violation (uses "-gate" construct), WP:TITLE violation (uses "quote-like characters"), unbelievably tendentious given recent discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you could re-evaluate your position re: WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV concerns based on a, I feel, more accurate reading of WP:NPOV and related arguments presented in my Policy vs. Guidelines posting. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming this article until investigation is complete. Support name change but oppose non-neutral "-gate" terminology. Wikispan (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the drive to wait until the investigation is complete before changing the article title. The current article title makes an assumption - viz., that the documents were hacked - whose corroboration requires a completed investigation, whereas the proposed title doesn't have to. So these arguments favor changing the article title now and not later. Reconsider this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A fair point expressed well . I'm striking out my original vote. However, I will continue to oppose any attempt to rename this article "...climategate..." for reasons already explained. Wikispan (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support any NPOV change that removes "hack" from the title JPatterson (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "generic" name change. Oppose proposed non-neutral title. Given the fact that "climategate" titles have been rejected over and over as non-neutral, I endorse Scjessey's comment above. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is part of an ongoing attempt to rename the article from a US conservative viewpoint. Brought to us by people who disbelieve climate science and think this story is the biggest thing since Piltdown man. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "US conservative viewpoint" is news to me. Do you have any reasoning/evidence to back that up and could you explain just what you mean by that? Last I heard, the US president and a majority in Congress were members of a more liberal political party that generally supports the IPCC's stance on AGW. You know, the party of Al Gore? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• There are many commentators, including scientists, who accept the scientific consensus on climate change but who think this is a scandal and call it "Climategate". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as "I don't like the current name, so we gotta change it to something" is an exercise in pointlessness. Also, any suggestion of "-gate" is a non-starter. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Either new name is fine. Both seem consistent with WP:AT. The idea that "Climategate" is biased is founded on the idea that calling this a "scandal" is somehow biased (since "-gate" implies scandal). But it is a scandal, as numerous sources -- not just partisan ones -- have pointed out. For instance, British government investigators have concluded that there were violations of the FOI law. "Scandal" fits. Early on, it was right to avoid calling it a scandal, but now it would be biased not to admit it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)added to my comments -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climatic Research Unit documents controversy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support calling it what the reliable sources call it: "Climategate." Right now, we're calling it some neologistic, hackneyed thing that someone somehow thought sounded "neutral." The current name is like calling World War II something like Global Conflagration of various nations with grievances against one another. It's absolute madness. As a poorer alternative, I support Cla68's proposal. UnitAnode 05:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe Reagan assassination attempt should be neutralized to Attempt to woo Jodie Foster using a firearm aimed at President Reagan? Just sayin... UnitAnode 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe Caution; Dangerous Not-Unsharpened Objects Ahead. Tarc (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe you could deal with the fact that the article's current title is a hackneyed neologism. UnitAnode 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any attempt to change it to the POV term "Climategate" per Scjessey. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any name change until investigation conclusions are known, Strong Oppose anything involving the POV term 'climategate'. Verbal chat 08:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "gate" suffix per policy. Moreover, Newsnight called it "emailgate" (with a scare quotes intonation) only a few days ago, and Channel 4 News has done the same. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to the POV term "Climategate" . Suggest we await the result of the investigation. Lumos3 (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The present title was created on the basis of reliable sources at the time of, and in the few weeks following, the incident. Since then it has stood the tests of time, despite a huge amount of largely uninformed input from the (mainly US) blogosphere. The next time large amounts of reliable relevant information will be available is likely to be when the inquiries begin to report. They may or may not change the landscape sufficiently for a re-name, but it certainly won't be any US-politics-based 'X-gate' format. --Nigelj (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Point me to a couple of "reliable sources" that call this kerfuffle "the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." UnitAnode 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scjessey. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support changing it to something other than the incomplete and very likely misleading title it's at now to something other than climategate, which although it's been widely used and has certain benefits of conciseness and catchiness has the same one-sidedness issues that the current title suffers from. Something balancing the unauthorized release of the information and the controversy would be best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climactic Research Unit documents controversy Arzel (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to Climatic Research Unit email controversy or similar. Calling it just Climategate would be OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support immediate change to *anything* which removes the POV and presumptive "hack" from the title. We now know from the Guardian articles that any number of ways in which the info became available are being considered by police. Additionally support re-naming of article to Climategate as per reasoning below i.e. it's the commonly used name. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support change in main article name to Climategate, per my reasoning here (it is the proper noun name commonly used by the majority of RSs). Please read policy-based reasoning before responding or reaching conclusions, or citing WP:AVOID guideline ad nauseum or the "highest degree of neutrality" title argument (which applies to descriptive article names, not proper noun article names). Moogwrench (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as is due to lack of consensus. Wait six months. In six months it will be a lot more clear how this controversy will be remembered. Compare to the controversy over how to name the article that Barack Obama's birth certificate now redirects to. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not really an answer. We are deciding concensus now. Your response seems to indicate that you have no position either way. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose anything with '-gate' in the title. Neutral on the various other proposed titles - I wouldn't object to a rename to get the word 'controversy' in the title, which it probably should be. Robofish (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Climategate," this name should be in the article but not its title. Support change to "email controversy," because of email content vs hacking, email content was the big controversy. Also support ScienceApologist's suggestion to wait if there is no consensus for a change. MiRroar (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As with SA, that is not really a position to say that you are waiting to see what the concensus is. This to determine concensus. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This article is "Climategate". Whether you want to call it that or not.142.68.220.13 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wait until the investigation is complete?

There have now been several (4) votes to oppose name change on the grounds that we should await the outcome of "the investigation." If you mean the police investigation, this is puzzling, as the current article title makes an assumption whose corroboration requires the completion of that investigation - viz., that the documents were hacked -, whereas a new title can avoid this. The "we don't know the outcome of the investigation" point would thereby support changing the article title now rather than later. If, on the other hand, you mean the investigation by Muir, I fail to see its relevance to a name change. Nothing he decides will affect the appropriateness of the word "hacking," and nothing he decides will change whether the subject of the article is a "controversy" surrounding a hacking incident or a simple "hacking incident" (the latter of which wouldn't be notable if taken by itself).

I'd love to hear any explanation for your reasoning if I'm missing it, or a refactoring of the corresponding comment to weed out that point if I'm not (I hope you'd remove the vote entirely if it's based exclusively on that premise).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all to do with WP:RS. When the incident happened, we had a flurry of statements from involved, reliable people who knew what had happened, and we wrote most of the current article(s) (including what's now in the CRU docs article). Since then, nothing much has happened except a lot of people who weren't there, and know very little about anything, have been talking unsupportable nonsense all over the blogosphere and in a few op-eds and on some TV shows. The next time we get reliable facts will be when someone releases some. Unlike you above, we do not know what the police or Muir Russell will say, nor which will report first. In the meantime, have a look at Hacker (computer security) and some of the sub-articles; it will be useful background when the time comes. --Nigelj (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still confused. The article title is problematic now, even taking account of information now available from RSs, regardless of what happens later. It's been disputed for months. Be that as it may, thank you for the response.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with "hack" is that it is a loose term. As Nigel says, the blogosphere speculation has been uninformed and unpersuasive. The Daily Mail even suggested that Russian students might have something to do with it (yeah, like universities give undergraduates in all disciplines easy access to dedicated servers in research centres). Apart from that, all seems to be framed in terms of "outside hack" versus "heroic internal whistleblower", when the reality does not have to be either of those. While the police investigate, all we know for sure is that a) a lot of computer files intended to be for private consumption were released onto the web for all to read and b) they were not released through any decision of UEA. The release was therefore likely to have contravened one or more UK laws, we don't know which yet. "Hacking", though loose, covers all the eventualities in a way that more precise wording doesn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are lots of names that would pass muster. None of them include the word "Climategate." I look forward to a strong proposal for a name that is better than the current one that is likley to both follow guidelines and policies and reach consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit computer files incident. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero news hits, and potentially even more hackneyed than the current mess of a title. UnitAnode 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither news hits nor hackneyed are an issue. I'm just imagining people sitting around suggesting alternative names for our article on a certain world superpower. "Not' United States of America, puhleeeeeze, that's sooooooo hackneyed!!!". We just need a descriptive and neutral title. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Policies vs. guidelines

• Comment: (sorry in advance for the WP:TLDR)

I don't know if anyone has noticed the following: Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal is a guideline. It says, in part:

The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal).) (emphasis mine)

Now, one can argue that according to this guideline, the title "Climategate" is not used widely enough by reputable historical sources.

However, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is a policy, meaning that it takes precedence over a guideline, per WP:Policies_and_guidelines#Role. Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming states that:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Misplaced Pages takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. (emphasis mine)

Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Descriptive titles, another policy, makes it clear that when articles are given a descriptive title (as in, editors have invented a title because no clear proper noun title existed in WP:RSs) then it must take great pains to be neutral. However, Misplaced Pages:Article titles makes no such pronouncement regarding proper noun names supported by RSs, and in fact states that

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

Those of you who editorialize against "Climategate" as an article name might consider that it follows well at least four of the five qualities of a good title, according to Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title: It is Recognizable (commonly used), Easy to find (readers are most likely to search for it over other terms), Precise (unambiguously refers to subject), and Concise (short ). The last one, Consistent, is open to debate.

Believe me, I have seen this type of extremely contentious fight over at 2009 Honduran coup d'etat and related articles. Some editors thought that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was a "coup", others did not (and felt that calling it that was non-NPOV), however, in the end the majority of the WP:RSs referred to it as such, and as the result of several RfCs and AfDs, such as this, this, and this, "coup" was adopted as the correct consensus name for these articles. If the majority of RSs are calling using the proper noun "Climategate" to refer to this subject, then according to the above naming policies, it should be given serious consideration, and not be dismissed out of hand through a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy.

Again, sorry for the long comment. I saw WP:AVOID being thrown about a lot like an ace card and I think it is important to put that guideline in proper perspective. Climatic Research Unit documents controversy is an solid, acceptable name if we want a descriptive, instead of proper noun, title, because it doesn't presuppose the outcome of the police investigation, and puts due emphasis on the content of and controversy over the documents, not the manner in which they were obtained and disseminated (the amorphous "incident"). However, I would hope that even those who find Climategate to be an anathema might consider the "common proper noun" naming policies I cited above in forming their opinions regarding the article title. Moogwrench (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" is fine for the controversy, but the controversy is only part of the incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to you, what is the "incident", exactly? What does it encompass? Because usually "incident" refers to a discrete event, not an ongoing series of events. If the incident is the removal and dissemination of the information, I really can't see that being the notable aspect of this article. If the incident had occurred, and no controversial data had come to light, do you *honestly* think that it would be notable?

When people think of the Watergate scandal, they don't think primarily about the burglary, they think about tapes, privilege, cover-up, controversy, etc. In this article, what is notable is the content of the documents, and the ensuing controversy, not the "incident" of data removal and release. If anything, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is a subset of Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (or Climategate), just as Watergate burglaries is a subset of Watergate scandal.

Secondly, did you look at my reasoning/citations on proper noun article names (i.e. Climategate)? Moogwrench (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the controversial aspect has been largely manufactured by the skeptics, I see it as a secondary issue. The criminal act of hacking into the CRU server, followed by the criminal act of stealing data, followed by the criminal act of distributing that data - these are far more serious issues than the faux "scandal" that followed these criminal acts. The anti-AGW echo chamber has made certain that the faux scandal has received an enormous amount of press attention, aided by the lack of details about the preceding criminal acts and by inane commentary by clueless politicians in the pocket of the energy industries. With respect to your "reasoning" about the use of "Climategate", I completely and utterly reject it. I find this whole retitling discussion to be so tendentious and disruptive that I find myself disinclined to elaborate any further on it. It feels like I am having to repeatedly explain why it is wrong to purposefully drive a truck into a crowd of schoolchildren. I hate having to restate the obvious, so I'm simply not going to bother anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think my point still stands. The criminal act: very few people (in the media and in the population) care. What the criminal act revealed, and what the UEA is having to defend itself on, even if it is misrepresented and "faux" as you put it, is what is the focal point of this story. To say that it isn't is just ignoring the content of media coverage. Notability is conferred by treatment in RSs, not because an editor thinks that it is more important. And just for the record, I don't feel that it is a waste of energy engaging those who disagree with me. It sure beats edit warring, and people might just listen to what I have to say. I'm not wedded to any title, but the policies seem to lead me in the direction I delineated. I hope that you can understand this, and not compare myself, nor anyone else who disagrees with you to "schoolchildren". Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is an outstanding summation. It's also why I won't be supporting the supposed "compromise", which is hardly better than the current neologistic title. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A well-formed and coherent argument. Well done. Nightmote (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, thank you for these extracts from policies and guidelines. However, you don't seem to have noticed the paragraph preceding the one you quote in Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming, which states that:

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Note that the article titles which are sanctioned in the paragraph you do cite, e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, are historical events or figures covered by reputable historical sources, not current political news stories. "Climategate" is clearly promotes one viewpoint, portraying climate science as a political scandal, and as such fails the earlier paragraph which I cite here. It is not a historical event, so the term has not yet been widely used by reputable historical sources, a point described in the Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal guideline. You're arguing that it's only a guideline, and choosing a part of Misplaced Pages:Article titles policy to claim that as a proper noun name "climategate" doesn't have to be neutral. However, the policy in fact states that

Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave.

For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Another example is that the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology. (emphasis mine)

That policy specifically rejects a common partisan -gate nickname in favour of a more neutral descriptive name. Both "Attorneygate" and "Climategate" are proper noun names, but they are not neutral and are not appropriate. The other points you make in favour of "Climategate" apply equally to "Attorneygate". Your partial reading of policies is inappropriate for this article. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You won't accept this as proof, I'm sure, but the Ghits alone speak to the HUGE difference between "Attorneygate" and "Climategate."

1. Attorneygate = 47,900
2. Climategate = 2,850,000

I think it's pretty obvious which one is a neologism and which one is an actual useful term, employed by scores and scores of reliable sources. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, self evidently "Climategate" is a newer neologism, and it's clearly useful to those opposing action on the scientific consensus on climate change. Many of those ghits will be to articles using inverted commas to denote the artificial misuse of genuine concerns about how science and peer review are to deal with changing circumstances. Almost certainly many more will be used by political opponents aiming to undermine the scientific consensus. . . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, even if you find 500 billion Google hits for "Climategate", it would still violate policy. Why is so much time and effort being wasted on this? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it violates your interpretation of a guideline, but is well within the bounds of our policies on the matter. Are there enough editors who don't like it to stonewall the name change? It looks like it. But that won't lessen the ridicule that Misplaced Pages comes under due to the current tortured and neologistic name. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're asserting that counts of Google hits = reliable historical sources? Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, but that is a convenient straw man for you to knock down. My Ghits comparison was only intended to discredit the Attorneygate comparison. However, a simple news search shows that many reliable sources call it "Climategate." I have no idea what you even mean by historical reliable sources. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness me, UnitAnode. The article has a descriptive name that satisfies Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming and Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Descriptive titles as quoted by dave souza above. If one fraction of the energy going into this campaign against consensus was spent improving the articles (or reading refs or swotting up on the physics of climate change for example), Misplaced Pages would greatly benefit. --Nigelj (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It satisfies neither NPOV or RS, as "hacking" is very non-neutral (and, increasingly likely, false), and no reliable source calls this kerfuffle "the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." Scottaka UnitAnode 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not about to start the whole argument over again from the start for you. We're done here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be "done here", but that doesn't mean we're "done here." It's been clearly demonstrated that a vast majority of the reliable sources call this incident "Climategate." Nothing has been shown to disprove that fact. It has been equally clearly demonstrated that the current term is used by only ONE source -- and that is done in reference to this article, and what a terrible title it is. The fact that a core group of editors doesn't like the term is all that is keeping it from being properly-titled. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My response:

Dave, I did notice that previous paragraph. You have to understand the difference between proper noun titles and descriptive titles. It is only for descriptive titles, not proper noun titles. Let's read it together:

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. (emphasis mine)

The very next paragraph discusses proper noun titles (different standard):

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Misplaced Pages takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. Article structure (emphasis mine)

See the difference? Descriptive titles, combinations of words which describe the subject, have to conform to the highest degree of neutrality, whereas proper noun titles can contain non-neutral terms as long as they are supported by the majority of RS. This argument is supported in Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Descriptive_titles:

Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. (italics mine)

Attorneygate was a nickname that never was extensively used in RS, hence it is inappropriate as a proper name title. Climategate, on the other hand, is an extremely common name used extensively in WP:RS:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

Common names, even if they contain non-neutral terms, have preference over other mere descriptions. Also, the specific deprecation on -gate names is from a guideline (WP:AVOID), not a policy, so the policy take precedence. I really don't think "We can't have an article named Attorneygate, so we can't have one named Climategate" isn't an especially strong, policy-based argument. You can't automatically apply all the arguments against Climategate that apply to Attorneygate, because of the difference in their use and acceptance among RS. Attorneygate was never extensively used by people other than critics of the government, versus Climategate which has been used even by supporters of AGW consensus, and most importantly, by a large majority of the RSs, which is what guides Misplaced Pages. Moogwrench (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article called Climategate - it's a redirect to here. So what are you worried about? People will find this using their favourite POV neologism, and then they will read about it under a neutral descriptive title. Best of both worlds, and it always has been like this. The problem is that some (very few) people want our readers to read the article under a POV neologism for a title, presumably to help drive home their POV. It is not to help readers find the article. That's a problem, and that's the reason why the present set up is the most NPOV we can have. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, like I said above, I am not wedded to any particular title. I did my own analysis and came to my conclusions. Before analyzing it, I thought perhaps as you did, that Climategate was POV, or at least recentism, but when I read the policies well, and thought about it, I came to my conclusion. Proper, common names are better than the descriptions we come up with as editors. My earlier experience in 2009 Honduran coup d'etat with non-neutral titles that accord with RSs helped inform my conclusions as well. I believe we should try to follow Misplaced Pages's policies the best we can, and so we shouldn't shy away from proposing what we feel is in accordance with those policies. I know a lot of people don't like the proper name "Climategate", think it prejudicial to AGW instead of merely the best descriptor of the phenomenon, and that is fine. A lot of people didn't like calling Manuel Zelaya's ouster a "coup", either, and thought that the sun shined out of Roberto Micheletti's butt. However, when the RSs call it something, we ought to follow their lead. It shouldn't be up to our own POV. Hope you understand. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate how you've reached your conclusion, you still seem to be confusing current news coverage of a developing story with detached historical coverage of a historical event in the past, as shown by the specific exempted examples. Also note that Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Common_names cites non controversial examples, "climategate" is being used by reliable sources to refer specifically to the biased and partisan preeentation of this issue, see How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies. Because that's part of a series, other articles in the series with a link to that article will also show up in a google search, even though the term isn't used in other articles, such as this one which calls it "the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November". The Muir Russell enquiry has been requested to report in a few weeks, if it titles its report "climategate" I'll withdraw my objections but it seems much more likely that it will adopt a neutral description. "Climategate" is not a proper common name, it's a partisan nickname and as such is inappropriate unless adopted by historians once the event is over. . . dave souza, talk 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Worse, it is a nickname with a political WP:POINT to it, namely to associate this data theft with another burglary that led to the downfall of a corrupt US government. One notable difference is that those who organised the Watergate break-in were the very ones whose house of cards was toppled by it in the end. --Nigelj (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the Zelaya ouster, "coup d'etat" is a phrase that has a specific meaning in English. So its use is descriptive. Whether something was a coup or not is a debate you can have on the facts, or you can draw your conclusions based on common usage. But there's no such thing as a "climategate", so you can't debate whether or not this was one. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so like I said, Climategate is a proper noun used by the majority of the RSs, with or without quotes or inverted commas.

An analysis of various potential titles by news hits

1. "Climategate"

   1,711 hits in the past month.

2. "Climategate scandal"

   199 hits in the past month.

3. "Climategate controversy"

   29 hits in the past month.

4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"

   1 hit in the past month, and that's from a source mocking the silliness of the title.

I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. UnitAnode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Climategate articles also describe it as scandal or controversy. Ex. Climategate+near+Controversy gives 163 last month. What is good with our current title is that it gives a hit. The old one gives ZERO (all time) "Climatic+Research+Unit+e-mail+hacking+incident" Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Nsaa (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, pointless bit of GoogleDiving to waste everyone's time. There is no notability requirement for titles, and there are no policies that prohibit us from inventing an entirely unique title. As long as it is accurate, unambiguous and neutral we can pretty much have anything we like. Even if you could find 100 million GoogleNews hits for "Climategate" (or variations thereof) it would still fail the neutrality requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It's reliably-sourced, and much clearer than the hackneyed junk that currently constitutes the titling. UnitAnode 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-neutral. Saying it isn't won't ever change that fact. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "non-neutral" to call it what the reliable sources call it. UnitAnode 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most reliable sources use the term in quotes, indicating it is not their choice of word. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Of the top 10 Gnews main results, 6 use it without quotes, and 4 use the quotes. UnitAnode 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which most are blogs/op-eds/opinion pieces. Legitimate reports from legitimate reporters almost all use quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are simply a way of acknowledging that they didn't coin the phrase, not a statement on what they think of it as a neutral term. UnitAnode 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on the "Climategate" name change issue. As a skeptic I would like to state for the record that it's just too soon to re-name this article "Climategate" even though many (every single) reliable source calls it that. For two very simple reasons: 1. It's a violation of WP guidelines (a word to avoid); and 2. We don't know yet whether or not this is a significant event. Someone once opined that everything since the Fall of Rome is current events. I don't take quite such a strict view, but there's no avoiding the fact that this is a developing story. Maybe the term "hack" should go. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to talk about it, especially since it rubs some folks raw (for one reason and another). You know what really would help, though? The whole "assume good faith" thing. The skeptics (and we know who we are) need to stop acting like this was something other than a minor issue of semantics and WP policy. The True Believers (and you know who you are) need to ease up on the stridency and condescension. (tongue-in-cheek) How's about htis for a compromise - if Al Gore calls it "Climategate", can we put it parenthetically in the title? Nightmote (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "Climategate" should be the title, surely the present title is unbalanced? "Hacking incident" implies the controversy was about the supposed hackers; while in fact the main focus of this story has been the controversy about the alleged behaviour of the scientists (revealed, incidentally, by the alleged hacking).--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found:

Climategate in quotes: 11

Climategate not in quotes: 2

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7

I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: and for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

is certainly an apologia for the UEA, while is behind a paywall. How do these show anything other than that Nature.com certainly has their own spin on what happened? UnitAnode 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet is not a reliable source regarding climate change-related issues, then I really, really encourage you to go to WP:RSN and see how far you get with that argument. I think that deserves a *rolleyes*. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't a reliable source, only that they clearly have their own spin on the politics of what's going on in the scientific community with regards to the CRU/UEA. UnitAnode 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concure with SA. Nature is peer-reviewed, academic journal. Such sources are highly prized by Misplaced Pages. Please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints are presented fairly and with equal weight. It present viewpoints as they're presented by WP:RS. Since the scientific consensus is that AGW is the correct viewpoint, we're supposed to repeat that bias here. Maybe AGW really is the greatest scientific fraud since Piltdown man? Who cares? That's not our problem as Misplaced Pages editors. You're just going to have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a pristine reliable source on science takes an unequivocal position on the politics behind that science, we give it no more weight than any other RS on the same political issue. UnitAnode 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you basing this on anything but your own point-of-view? Has any reliable source ever criticized Nature for being political? And since when are there "politics behind science"? Are you referring to the politicization of science, because if that's so then you've got your cause-and-effect mixed up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Read the series of articles by The Guardian that I linked below, and then tell me that there aren't any politics going on behind the "scientific scene." UnitAnode 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I guess the answer is, "no". No, you aren't basing this deprecation of Nature on anything but your own POV. No, you don't have any reliable source criticizing Nature for being political. And you similarly failed in recognizing your premise/predicate problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay cut the crap. I haven't even implied that Nature is "deprecated." They're a great source for actual science, and the fact that they have a POV on the politics behind the science doesn't change that. And I notice how you failed to reply regarding the politics that go on behind the scientific scene. UnitAnode 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Great. Since you admit that Nature is a great source for actual science and global warming is actual science then they are a great source. Whether global warming is a political issue or not is irrelevant to the fact that the source I cited was discussing the presentation, conduct, and application of science (not politics which isn't the subject of either article). Since we need not intuit any political bias when none is explicitly mentioned in the articles in question and since you were unable to provide any source which indicated as much, we rightly rely on Nature for notable commentary on this issue. I'm glad we came to an agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There would indeed appear to be sourcing that calls Nature's editorial independence into doubt. Key quote from Dr. Campbel: "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." Nature's editor forced to step down from climate review panel?? They are clearly an involved party here and should be treated as such. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

False. The editor-in-chief is not the same thing as the publication itself. Nor is there any evidence from that Channel 4 piece that Philip Campbell is somehow lacking "independence". Only spin from naysayers. Removing the appearance of something that would call "into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task" is not the same thing as actually having a problem in that regard. Let me be clear: the panel is going to come to the conclusion that there is no smoking gun in these documents that makes anthropogenic global warming questionable. Similar to the DOE panels convened about cold fusion, for example. This is essentially a nice big fat red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Above, you challenged the notion that Nature had been criticized for being political and asked for sourcing to support that statement. I simply submit the requested evidence in which Dr. Campbell admits he has made prejudicial statements and, quite rightly, disqualified himself from serving on an independent review panel. Is there any evidence that Nature is regarded as neutral in this dispute? Ronnotel (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a "prejudicial statement" at all. He was simply stating facts that should be obvious to more or less everybody. It is hard for anyone to be impartial when the skeptical position is so fringey. In that sort of climate (no pun intended), a reasonable statement can seem prejudicial. I doubt very much the skeptics would be complaining about the makeup of the panel if it included someone like Ross McKitrick, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be clear, marginalized and deprecated sources have questioned the political neutrality of Nature from time-to-time. But their protestations are not things worth considering. Think of people like Young-Earth-Creationists, Big-Bang-Deniers, Einstein-was-wrongers, Cold-Fusion-pathological-scientists, etc. Global-warming-denialists is just another branch on the tree of pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have regularly questioned the political neutrality of Nature Magazine: do feel free to call me a pseudo-scientific denialist, or whatever is the insult of choice these days, but you might wish to click through to my publication record before doing so. Now, can we please calm down and get back to the issues? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Journalists, scientists should cover climate science truthfully

This article Journalists, scientists should cover climate science truthfully (archived) in The State News ("Conservative critics argue that The State News has a liberal lean") by Fred Fico, Michigan State University journalism professor is quite interesting and have some comments about the area covered in this article. He says for example "Related to this, journalists need to realize that science sources, like other sources, can and will spin what they tell journalists, especially when their money and prestige are at stake. Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the glacier gate scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion. The admission of blatantly political motives to influence opinion on the part of the scientist involved in glaciergate should give any journalist pause.". This is maybe to specific to be included in the article? Nsaa (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that tone is called for at all. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be a useful source, though, because the purpose of the article seems to be to warn journalists to take care with spin on science stories, simply using this as an example. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the good old State News. Main issue here: Fico is a journalism professor, not a science professor, so while we should take his advice to journalists seriously, we shouldn't put too much weight on his opinions about science. The State News is an excellent college newspaper, but it's still just a college newspaper. An Op-Ed by an MSU professor probably doesn't receive a whole lot of editorial oversight. After all, the editors are probably his students. It's a reliable source for Fico's opinion, but there's no reason to assume that he's an expert on science. In fact, the page Nsaa linked to says that "is research interests focus on news coverage of conflict". Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: You state that "Well, its wrong, so that is a poor start". What is wrong in what he states in my quote? Just declaring it doesn't make it wrong. The first thing I qoute is "can and will spin what they tell journalists". If you have remotley followed this you know that the Glaciergate exactly revealed this "The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.". The second one is this "the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed". This has been discussed in length. Even we have some of it at Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Trenberth_e-mail_of_12_Oct_2009. Nsaa (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading his comment, I believe he's talking about the article, not your quote from it. And yes, he seems to have gotten things wrong on the science. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what? (this tactic just committing usourced claims make the discussion much harder) Nsaa (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nsaa's saying he/she's not sure what Fred Fico got wrong with the science Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it lacks notability and (honestly) applicability. If the State News article raises public ire and a politician calls for an investigation, the politician's demands, the subsequent investigation, and the outcome are what matters. This seems to be more of a wine-and-cheese college dorm debate than something more concrete. I don't want to be misunderstood: I think that the UEA/CRU scandal is real; that a full third-party audit of their activities is called for; and that identified instances of wrongdoing should be brutally punished. But this news article seems too vague for me. Nightmote (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the article is terrible. I guess Fred Fico believes that journalists should police scientific journals. Maybe they should also police law journals, economic reports, mathematical proofs, and dictionaries too? I guess journalists are the smartest people on the planet and Fred Fico is prepared to use his infinite knowledge to condemn all those who are wrong. Really poor argumentation and essentially a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the glacier gate scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion are both wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: ""The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."". So the last is NOT wrong. I just gave you a secondary source for the second time. You gave me none. The first one is just reading some of the famous emails... that even we quote. Nsaa (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more widely. "Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed." is dubious and misleading, as the published papers included extensive discussion of the precision and reliability, as did the WGI IPCC reports. The spin about "deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion" is silly, as the IPCC itself is about presenting agreed information to influence public policy and opinion. It probably refers to an interview where an unreliable newspaper interviewed a scientist, then, according to that scientist, misrepresented his remarks. We've discussed that on the relevant article talk page. So, yes, there is a need for journalists to cover stories more truthfully. As discussed by a reliable source at Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies. That's an aspect we should cover. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting perspective

Interesting perspective on the whole affair, and an actual argument in favour of "climategate", from John Quiggin Not that it's any less POV coming from the other side. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay, more vague accusations of a vast rightwing conspiracy to read some climate scientists professional email, but I get your point. Ignignot (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm not in favor of the idea that "balance" is what is needed, but there are so many wingnuts parading around conspiracy theories about the activities of CRU scientists even on this page that a little bit of paranoia in the other direction smells of a breath of fresh air. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The line "I'm just not sure whether the whole body of scientific evidence put forward by thousands of climate researchers during several decades of peer-reviewed work is all a vast pinko conspiracy to undermine the core values of the United States of America, or not" is hardly neutral. That is an extreme fringe 'War on Science' stance, as this article says. Such a view doesn't really deserve serious consideration, other than maybe to analyse the damage done by it worldwide in an article like POoCC or POoCC(US). The trouble with the interesting take on the name climategate from Quiggin is that it's too subtle for our friends here, or their readers, who as the author says, have lost their moral and intellectual bearings to such an extent that much more basic points are passing them by, not just the subtleties of who was who in the original Watergate burglary story. So, no, 'balance' regarding such lines is not required at all. --Nigelj (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Duh, it was Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Ignignot (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that is the problem with presupposing that "Climategate" has to mean a particular thing to those who propose it as a title. I just see it as a descriptor of this particular phenomenon, widely used by the RS that are used as references for the article. I know a lot of people dislike it for various reasons, so I won't restate previously made arguments. I would ask you to not suggest that things are "too subtle for our friends here" (which I asssume means fellow editors) to understand, of that we "have lost moral and intellectual bearings"; it is a bit condescending. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to read something totally without any hard evidence. It start looking like Kåre Fog's attack on Bjørn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Or Rajendra Pachauri that say "Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in an interview with Jyllandsposten, a leading Danish newspaper: “What is the difference between Bjorn Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? You cannot treat people like cattle. You must respect the diversity of cultures on earth. If you were to accept Bjorn Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.”"Bjorn Lomborg Is the World’s Most Optimistic Statistician (reported by the danish newspaper Jyllandsposten in FN-chef: Lomborg tænker som Hitler) Nsaa (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages-type IPCC

I'm still reading this article from the CSM, but I ran across an interesting phrase worth sharing:
John Christy, a climate researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, suggests setting up a Misplaced Pages-type IPCC --SPhilbrickT 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Independent Review web page

The Independent Review chaired by Muir Russell now has a web page . Perhaps one for external links? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Added to external links. Clarification/correction of my wording welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Jonathan. I note the title, 'The Independent Climate Change Email Review' - nothing about documents, source code or README files. It'll be good in External links for now; it'll surely have at least its own section one day. --Nigelj (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also interesting: in http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php the word 'hack' is used 8 times and 'steal' is also used. --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is additionally interesting that they use the word ‘Climate Gate’ and say that "‘Climate Gate’ is being used by many people to describe a range of issues, including alleged wider consequences of the leaked e-mails for the fundamental science of climate change." This from the UEA's own independent review. Moogwrench (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't use it, they use it in quotes. Seriously, there's a difference This may help people understand what it means to say something "in quotes" when it's not an actual "quotation" (nothing teaches quite so well as mockery). Either that, or track down this episode of '"Friends. Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The FAQ mentions a separate appraisal of the science being conducted by UEA and the Royal Society. Has that come up here before? Anyone know anything about it? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few details here . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the review's FAQ says unequivocally: "The incident saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online." No "alleged", no "whistleblower" fantasies. It also refers to the affair as the "Climate Change Email hacking incident". Presumably UnitAnode will be now complaining to them about their "hackneyed" terminology. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that an official confirmation when they didn't even complete their investigation? Indeed, is determining how the e-mails were leaked even part of its mandate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OR on your part. The review has said unequivocally that the files were hacked and stolen. We're not in the business of second-guessing how the review knows that. "Alleged" should not be in the lede - it's weasel wording and a word to avoid, and it was clearly added by someone with the intention of casting doubt on the reliably reported facts. Now we have confirmation that those facts are correct. "Alleged" needs to be removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" or "According to the Review" needs to remain. There's still no one investigating without a clear bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

{EC}The fact that the review has not been completed is not WP:OR, it's a verifiable fact: "The University of East Anglia has asked the Review team to submit its report in Spring 2010." That fact that the nature of the leak e-mails is not part of the mandate can be verified here.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)To avoid confusing the thread, I want to withdraw, "According to the Review" as inadequate. What's on the site is a summary statement, not a conclusion. However, I also want to withdraw my accusation of bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Philip Campbell has just withdrawn from the review panel . An inauspicious start. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hounded out due to a "well-organised and highly-motivated campaign by climate change sceptics," it seems. No surprise that skeptics have already trashed the investigation before it has even got off the ground, as this reliable source seems to suggest. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to restore the above comment after AQFK deleted it. McIntyre is quoted in the source attacking the makeup of the panel, so there is no BLP vio in my comment. AQFK's heavy-handedness is quite troubling, particularly for someone who "has no dog in this race". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your WP:BLP violation. The source you cite says nothing about McIntyre "trashing" anyone or anything. I kindly ask that you voluntarily remove your personal attack against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This comment from one of Channel 4 News' interviewees is quite pertinent: ""The Review team need to be fair to all concerned, but they may ultimately have difficulty persuading people to accept a verdict that does not match the conclusions that they have already reached themselves." We will certainly see that on Misplaced Pages. In fact, I'd say we're seeing that already with the wilful refusal above to acknowledge the fact that the review has stated unequivocally the files were hacked and stolen. AQFK may claim to be someone with "no dog in this race" but the reality looks very different. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) (e/c)That is completely out of context - he resigned, providing the reason, "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." McIntyre's quote is only related to a request for review by scientists outside of Climatology. He didn't say a thing about Campbell. (e/c 1 PS) - I am not sure using words with vaguely negative meaning constitutes BLP. Ignignot (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to ChrisO) This is WP:SYN, but it's appropriate as commentary. They stated that the files were hacked and stolen, but they also stated that they haven't started investigating, and that only the contents of the documents are relevant to their review, not how they were hacked / liberated / escaped into the wild / ?? Which document are we to believe? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's WP:SYN, therefore it's not worth discussing. The Review has stated the facts as it understands them. It's not our job to dispute its understanding of the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bishop Hill" is not after 'scalps', but he wants to get Geoffrey Boulton off the panel too. And he wants to influence who the replacements are allowed to be! Maybe we'll need a whole separate article on the review alone if the politicking is going to be this intense before it even starts. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The anti-science activists clearly want to discredit the panel in advance; as the Mann review shows, it's likely to reach conclusions that are not conducive to the anti-science cause. The Penn State review's exoneration of Mann was widely reported in favourable terms. Evidently the anti-science faction sees it as necessary to pre-emptively discredit the Muir Russell review so that it can dismiss the review's findings when they are released. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't be surprised to see more US politics-/mafia-style digging too: finding out that someone once had an affair with a science undergraduate, or exposing that someone else has a gay son etc. Doesn't it make you proud to be a member of the same species? --Nigelj (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone once referred to this style of politics as "the politics of personal destruction". You don't just object to your opponent's views; you try to ruin your opponent completely and destroy their lives. The Clinton impeachment was a case in point. Similarly the deplorable character assassinations and death threats against Phil Jones. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the SYN thing - if they are not a reliable source on what crimes may or may not have occured, then yes we can talk about it. The only real reliable source in that regard is the police and eventually the courts. Ignignot (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Sadly most crimes do not result in prosecutions, and an international crime such as this is even more difficult to prosecute effectively. The UEA is, as has been pointed out on this page many times, an impeccably reliable source as the victim of the crime. It was the UEA's server that was hacked and the UEA's files that were stolen; the UEA is thus in a better position than anyone else to comment on the violation of its rights. It's completely inappropriate for Wikipedians to try to cast doubt on the UEA's statement that it was the victim of a crime. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Not so, I'm afraid. The facts of 'hacking' and 'steal' are in their FAQ - that is not the place such an enquiry would put dubious claims. These are people much more involved than any blogger who tried to spin it as a glorious liberation of the files. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion is getting a touch off-topic? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, some of it is off-topic, I will admit - but we need to deal with this refusal to acknowledge the review's unequivocal statement about the hack and the consequent insistence by a couple of editors on retaining the POV weasel word "alleged" in the lead of this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. This is us chewing over what parts of the article will or may be influenced by the new information that's available. I concede that some threading may be useful. I nearly added a subheading at one point, but the edit conflicts were coming so thick, it would not really have been possible. This discussion will spawn various article edits, probably a new article section, and subthreads here about other article edits. It's not at all off topic, just messy to begin with, till the main threads are clear.--Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(to Nigelj) The Review board says specifically that they're not investigating how the documents escaped. Hence, although it's stated as "fact" that it's a "hacking" incident, it's (1) a statement about their investigation of the incident, (2) their willfully ignorant opinion, or (3) UEA's statement as to the scope of the Review. In any case, it's not a conclusion that they investigated.

(to ChrisO) The alleged victim of the alleged crime is not the best party to deny that they or their agents might be responsible for the release of the data, and that there is no crime at all.

(to ChrisO and Ignignot). It's WP:SYN, we are allowed to interpret statements made by reliable and unreliable sources to determine whether they contradict each other. An unreliable source can cast doubt on the reliability of a nominally reliable source; not to the point that we can state what the unreliable source says, but to the point that we can ignore a statement made by a nominally reliable source if it's not within their expertise, or is totally absurd, even if the only sources that point out that it's absurd are not what we consider "reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you claiming that the UEA is lying? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) (e/c, jesus!)In any case, I think I was being too narrow in my definition of alleged - from the American Heritage Dictionary: Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged. We should probably take the alleged out.Ignignot (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know if their server was even hacked. Early reports indicated an insider as do the latest reports. The fact is that we have no idea how these e-mails were released, and this particular investigation isn't even going to look into the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Early speculation by anti-science bloggers, which was later picked up by some media outlets. But speculation has no bearing on the fact that the UEA, and now the review, have stated unequivocally that the files were stolen from a hacked server. Both parties are in a position to know. Speculating bloggers are not. Speculation and facts are not equal and it is not remotely acceptable to offset statements of fact with speculation from the blogosphere. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the UEA is an involved-party who hasn't finished its investigation and indeed won't even investigate how the e-mails were leaked. At best, it's only reliable for the opinions of itself, just like any other primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(to AQFK) Isn't that UEA?

(to ChrisO, Ignignot) As for "are you claiming UEA is lying", no. At the moment, I'm claiming willful ignorance as to how the information got out, rather than lying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that you claiming willful ignorance would be justified... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not helpful.--SPhilbrickT 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AR: I often find myself skeptical of what I believe - and in cases where something akin to a reasonable doubt is called for, such as making suggestions of criminal activity - the line is very faint. But certainly in this case we can agree that they did not want the files and email available to the whole world, and that someone(s) did so against their will. Now is it absolutely certain that someone hacked in and got the data? No. But is it by far the most likely explanation? Yes. I don't think it is likely at all that a vast criminal conspiracy caused it - but that is neither here nor there. Most likely we will never know who did it, and we will never have a RS to say so unequivocally. Our job isn't to write an article on the truth, just give the most reliable and supportable explanation, with other significantly supportable explanations in a less prominent subsection. Ignignot (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO - "The UEA is, as has been pointed out on this page many times, an impeccably reliable source as the victim of the crime." Even if "impeccably" has, however improbably, been used, it seems likely that here as in some cases of rape, the allegation of crime may be used to deflect attention from the scandal of having been caught in flagrante delicto. Oiler99 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that was just a clever troll and not just an extremely poor analogy. Ignignot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please acquire a sense of proportion. This is not revealed dogma we're talking about here, it's primate behavior. Oiler99 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a poor analogy, but the alleged victim of an alleged crime may not be the best entity to describe what happened. (Even if the police find it was hacked, and UEA doesn't officially have anything to do with it, the hacker could have been one of the participants in the activity, and deciding to personally satisfy the FOIA requests. This statement does not violate WP:BLP, although I don't know of a reliable source that states it as a possibility or denies it as a possibility.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the hacker/s did not have permission to access the network and release the contents, they're still criminal/s no matter what their motives. Not dissimilar from if you murder someone because you know they commited a crime which would have received the death penalty but got away with it, you're still guilty of murder. People don't get a free pass because they took the law into their own hands. In fact it'll often be persued more vigirously to discourage people from doing it Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that the "hacker/s" did not have permission to access the network; we do know that, if they did, they were required by law to release the contents, whether or not they had "permission" to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you a qualified lawyer, Arthur Rubin? If not, I would suggest that you be more circumspect when handing out free legal advice to potentially thousands of random readers of this talk page. Under English law, I don't see how the text of these emails were 'required' to be released. Please explain with reference to the Acts you have in mind, or maybe withdraw the comment. --Nigelj (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking the reference from the article and the Information Commissioner's Office that some information required to be released under the FOIA was not released; I assume it refers to some of the leaked information, as it's in this article. I'm only familiar with US FOIA requests, but, under that law, anyone (at the facility to which the FOIA was sent) who has (legal) possession of the information, and is aware of the FOIA request, is required to release it.

So, I suppose we don't know that the person releasing the information was legally required to do so. But the argument, although it cannot be presented in the article without a specific reliable source, is sufficient to make the self-serving statements by UEA that the server was hacked inappropriate for Misplaced Pages without a disclaimer, or if reported by a third-party source, such as the police. "Alleged" hack(ing) is absolutely required unless a third-party source, such as the police, unequivocally states that the server was hacked.

I'm not going to delete my comments above, although they constitute original research, but the discussion is not necessary to support the phrase "alleged hack", and to note that removal of "alleged" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about US law, where I believe that everything that received government funding to create is automatically in the public domain (or something like that), but under English law, it seems unlikely in the extreme that if a university department has been the subject of an FOI request for temperature data, some of which they couldn't provide because it was bound by commercial non-disclosure agreements created by owners of the temperature data, then every member of public, worldwide, has not just the right but the legal duty to attack their mail servers and release megabytes of correspondence and other files onto the internet. I've heard of conspiracy theories, but that is extreme. The current use of the word 'alleged' for hack now has no justification, and the use of the words steal, stolen and theft should be reinstated elsewhere in the article as per the current reliable sources. No more notice should be taken of such spurious arguments. --Nigelj (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a spurious argument, but it is unnecessary, as no WP:RS has said it was a hack (rather than "reported hack" or "alleged hack") except those quoting UEA, and possibly the Independent Review board, which may also be quoting UEA. As no investigation is complete (and the Independent Review board is not investigating the question), "alleged" or "reported" is still appropriate.

And it's not exactly a conspiracy theory. UEA administration would know nothing about it, if the information was distributed by a single individual with legitimate access. The police might be able to track it down the account used to distribute the information if it wasn't a hack, or an IP address used if it was a hack, but even that might take a few weeks to determine even if the system wasn't used in the interim. However, if the information were downloaded to a portable disk at UEA, and that disk were then carried to the indiviual's home system, and distributed from there, that individual might have committed a crime (not data theft, but possible trade secret and/or privacy violations), but there's still no conspiracy, and the entire UK Internet isn't subject to direct monitoring.

This is speculation, but, in the absence of evidence, I don't consider it significantly less probable that a researcher has a conscience than that a hacker broke in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you seem to be missing the point. I wasn't arguing over whether we knew whether it was hacked. I was pointing out your statement "Even if the police find it was hacked, and UEA doesn't officially have anything to do with it, the hacker could have been one of the participants in the activity, and deciding to personally satisfy the FOIA requests" is somewhat irrelevant since if it was hacked, the motives don't affect the fact a crime was committed (they may affect the likelihood of the crime being prosecuted and of the sentence handed down for the crime although as I've pointed out people rarely take kindly to those that take the law into their own hands). Note that even your claim that they are 'required' to release the contents, is highly dubious (and also completely irrelevant since whatever they may be required to do after they've received the contents, doesn't change the fact they weren't allowed to access the contents in the first place), it implies that the hackers, after having broken the law and hacked into (illegally accessed) a computer network are additionally liable to release contents they shouldn't have in their possession and don't own the copyright for because of some FOIA request they aren't party to. (If they are the ones who made the FOIA request the issue of them releasing the contents doesn't come in to it.) Whether or not it was hacked, or we have sufficient evidence to say it was is not something I want to discuss at this point in time, as I've said I was solely replying to your suggestion that even if it was hacked, the motives of the hackers would somehow come in to it. (I'm somewhat doubtful that even the US legal system will take kindly to a person who hacked into the CIA to release contents that were supposed to be released under the US FOIA) Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:RS: http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php the word 'hack' is used 8 times and 'steal' is also used in the Frequently Asked Questions of the official enquiry website. FAQs are not the place you put dubious claims or subtle points that depend on the outcome of the enquiry or police investigations. These are facts of which these informed and influential people have no doubt. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Platts ED

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

A non public source of news says "Jones has admitted the pressure from the scandal caused him to consider suicide." - can someone find this in attributable media? Ignignot (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in the Times - scroll back above for discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly couldn't find the discussion but went through every times online and NYT link on this page - one of the times online articles had in the related articles section. I cannot think of a more serious reaction to the hacking. Shouldn't this go into the article? Ignignot (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Been discussed over at Jones' article. Think the thread was deleted though. There was a sense, iirc, that someone contemplating suicide is the kind of personal thing that we should avoid. Guettarda (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in some detail here, note that he agreed (presumably with the reporter's prompting) that being plunged into the public controversy was "a David Kelly moment" and "I thought about it several times, but I think I’ve got past that stage now." Very much a personal issue, not something for this main page. However, have a look at the David Kelly page for cultural context. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping up with the investigations/reviews/inquiries

If anyone's having trouble (besides me) keeping up with all the investigations/reviews/inquiries, according to this source, there are five separate inquiries into the climate-gate emails, plus 2 more by Penn State:

1. Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’, commissioned by UEA
2. Royal Society review, commissioned by UEA
3. UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (parliamentary cross-party)
4. Police investigation into the original email theft
5. Information Commission
6. Penn State's review of Michael Mann (Mann exonerated for 3 out of 4 charges, the fourth to be decided by another panel)
7. Penn State's upcoming investigation/review/inquiry of the one outstanding charge.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There also the US Congressional investigation--SPhilbrickT 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You sure about the congressional investigation? There are a few news reports from ~24th of Nov saying Inhofe had launched one, and calls for an investigation on Dec 3, but I don't really see anything since. Can the minority launch a congressional investigation? I thought that was one of the powers of the majority (to which Inhofe does not belong). Guettarda (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No press release from his office. Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's the press release] from the minority on the Environment and Public Works committee calling for the investigation. But nothing in either the minority's or the majority's press releases say anything about going forward on the issue. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct. The New American applied a little bit of their brand of spin to make more of it than it is, but I don't think he has the direct power to launch such an investigation unless it has the support of the committee chairperson (Senator Boxer). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Saudia Arabia asked for an investigation, which will be undertaken by the IPCC - I don't think that one is on the list.--SPhilbrickT 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note also the continuing investigation by Norfolk police of death threats to UEA scientists: this states that after 27 January there had been two more death threats (by 7 February) which the police were investigating. . . dave souza, talk 11:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment on some of the 'independent' members of the Sir Muir Russell lead ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’. Nsaa (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all interesting. A well-known skeptic of anthropogenic climate change doesn't like the makeup of the panel. Big surprise. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this shock, Delingpole draws attention to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Nigel Lawson's crowd of science deniers) the skeptical Bishop Hill blog as his sources. This is the part of the "skeptical echo chamber" I have spoken of before. Of course, the Delingpole piece is just a blog and unusable. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First: Please read WP:RS: "^ "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. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.". James Delingpole is a journalist, he writes on telegraph.co.uk (and is under full editorial control by Daily_Telegraph#Website). The only thing we need to to is to attribute what he says to him. This i Policy. Your statement is just your statement.

And secondly: Why are you using all your space to label him as an skeptic instead of going into what he raises as problematic (you're taking the man, not what he says)? This is very problematic, and make the discussion extremely hard when people don't want to talk about what concerns have been raised.

Lets take a quote then "the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively in favour of the AGW, and which published this editorial in the wake of Climategate: This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill.". Neutral?

"Professor Geoffrey Boulton? Bishop Hill certainly doesn’t think so. He notes that Professor Boulton….

* spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia

* works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team

* says the argument over climate change is over

* tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change

* believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050

* signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity

* could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger

* is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.

" Neutral? Nsaa (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that we can use the piece if we want to say "Delingpole said...," but not for anything else. It is an opinion piece. He is not a legitimate journalist in the sense that he is a climate skeptic writing opinion pieces for the Telegraph to further his skeptical agenda, rather than reporting the news. There is nothing in the piece but skeptical-driven attacks against men of good standing using skeptical blogs as his sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Delingpole's blog is under full editorial control of the Telegraph? I see nothing at Daily_Telegraph#Website that suggests anything of the sort. If his blog is under their control, then all their content is suspect, given his reprint of Solomon's error-ridden piece. Not to mention, I'd be rather disappointed if Telegraph editors approved his post calling William "ugly". Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, what's wrong with "is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate"? If social scientists like Aaron McCright have published about it in the peer reviewed literature, it's more than legitimate for someone to talk about it. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of the ZIP File - hack

This is an analysis of the ZIP file by Guardian and digital forensics experts: Hacking into the mind of the CRU climate change hacker. I've not read the Guardian piece and suspect that this is what we need to use. They state for example "The Guardian’s analysis shows that a small group of just four of the scientists from among the dozens employed at the CRU were targeted in the sifting of email.". Nsaa (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be quoting this Guardian article of 5 February which is perhaps superseded by more recent articles in the series listed above, specifically this article of 9 February which outlines various hypotheses without any clear conclusion. This article from 4 Feb may also me useful. . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that we're not happy with the reliability of that IT-Networks piece: the site is actually a Wordpress blog. They don't give a source for the further info gleaned from date-stamps of the actual files in the zip, but this is at least the second time I've come across it (can't remember where first) and it is not covered in our timeline.

Digital forensic analysis shows that the zipped archive of emails and documents was not produced on a single date. Instead it was created by copying the files over a number of weeks, with bursts on 30 September 2009, 10 October and 16 November. On the last date a folder of computer analysis code by Osborn was added to the package. The digital forensics on the files indicate that they were created on a computer set at some times four hours behind GMT, and at others five hours behind – plants the hacker on the eastern seaboard of Canada or the US.

Can we add something on this? If this source is not sturdy enough, can anyone point to a better one that covers these details? --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Out of curiosity, does the switch from 4 to 5 hours coincide with the switch from EDT to EST, which in 2009 was on November 1st? If so that would tend to narrow it to the US (Canada doesn't seem to switch between daylight savings in the same way the US does). Ronnotel (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement you quote seems to be straight from the Guardian article of 5 February by Charles Arthur, their technology editor, so that's a reliable source. However, best to read it in the context of the Guardian's 9 February article by Fred Pearce linked above. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate data 'not well organised'

Some interesting news here A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another panel member facing calls to resign

More news here A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation that Nigel Lawson set up a few days after the emails were made public, thinks mainstream scientist is biased. News at 10. . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Souza, sarcasm is not helpful. I looked at the Scotsman article. Is there a separate Misplaced Pages article on the investigation? If not, then a sentence saying that one of the investigators resigned after being accused of COI may be appropriate. If more sources pick up on the calls for this other guy to resign, then a sentence saying something like, "Allegations of COI have been raised against other members of the investigative team by critics." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm? It's obvious that a think tank set up on 23 November 2009 by a climate sceptic politician "concerned with the 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' put forward to deal with global warming" is likely to complain about a reputable mainstream scientist taking part in the enquiry. Thanks for the spelling correction, KimDabelsteinPetersen, I copied and pasted from the linked Scotsman article and it appears that they got that wrong. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say this, I'm starting to think that Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ is deserving of its own article. If we don't already have enough content, we will by the time it releases its report. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how there could possibly be enough material for a separate article, even after the report has been released. I can see it eventually needing a paragraph in this article, and perhaps even its own section, but certainly not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have no plans to create one as this is the only article in this topic space I edit, but sure I think that there's enough for an entire article. Off the top of my head, here's a brief outline:

• Summary - Summarize article
• Background - Summarize Climategate controversy
• Mandate - Explain what specific allegations they're investigating.
• Makeup - List of panel members with brief explanations of each of their backgrounds
• History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign
• Conclusions - To be filled out later
• Reception - Reactions to the conclusions, to be filled out later A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be huge redundancy. I think you will find that the entire investigation and its conclusions will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph. I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton). Giving this its own article would be making an enormous mountain out of a tiny molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't be redundant as this article is about the "hacking incident". Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"That would be huge redundancy" It would only be a huge redundancy if the entire contents of the sub-article was included in the main article. Instead, the sub-article should include the important details while the main article only contains a summary.

"I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton)" I disagree. Jimbo has said that Misplaced Pages should be the sum of all human knowledge. A bit grandiose if you ask me, but there's no reason why a reader who's interested in finding out more about the the Russell inquiry shouldn't be allowed to. We're not a paper encyclopedia. We're not limited by the number of pages that can be printed. As long as the Russell inquiry is notable (which clearly it is) and we cite reliable sources (which obviously we can), I don't see a problem at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did toy with the idea of separate coverage for the enquiries, but I quickly rejected the idea when we consider that there are at least seven enquiries in motion (see #Keeping up with the investigations/reviews/inquiries above. Anyway, as always, what we do is start the coverage here in an article section, then, if and when this article becomes too big, we look at which section(s) to spin off into sub-articles, leaving a summary and a {main} link here. No need to worry about it until then. --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the way news is developing, it seems worthwhile moving the various enquiries from the "responses" section into a new "reviews and enquiries" section. As you say, if that section becomes too large, it can be split off in summary style. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature to start an article about the COE. It's currently attracting news coverage, and if the denialists manage to gut it, then it might be worth a sentence somewhere in the politicisation of climate change, but beyond that its only notability lies with its findings and their consequences. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use offensive terms like denialists; it really doesn't help. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is trouble with the science conducted by the scientists, and were it not for tenaciuous people it would never have come to light. It is a bigoted statement to say "denialists", when the facts show and even Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no warming since 1995. That makes the AGW crowd propagandists if they do not show the contrary information.142.68.220.13 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hacked document made public, and other news

Document revealed, and comment on disagreements. . dave souza, talk 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That commentary article is well-written and informative. I liked how he explained the nature of "research science." Is that photomontage a public image? If so, it could be added to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Stainforth's column is excellent, an accurate portrayal of the status of the science and what the real uncertainties are (as opposed to what journalists, politicians, and scientists in unrelated fields think the uncertainties are). It's nice to hear from someone who is an ordinary scientist in the trenches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Blog, Small Dead Animals, contains articles and comments from a Canadian perspective under the heading "Hide the Decline" http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012714.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by On2u2 (talk • contribs)

Blogger, not a reliable or notable source. Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BBC Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

The recent BBC Q&A withe Phil Jones is a useful source: much of it is off-topic for this article but some sections are quite relevant, and it seems one of the better Reliable Sources we have got for his opinion of the incident. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I read this article in The Mail first, which contained this inexplicable sentence: He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.. Then I read the BBC interview, where Jones discusses the same periods, with different answers, so now I'm convinced the Mail reporter just mangled the answers. The BBC interview is quite interesting.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time -- or the second, or the third -- that the Mail has screwed things up badly. It simply isn't a reliable source on anything related to this topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're convinced that the reporter mangled the answers? That is only because the answer Phil Jones gave doesn't agree with your politics. Now for the facts as quoted by Phil Jones GOSH!

Phil Jones' Quotes, Now he is a "DENIER"

QUESTION – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

I guess this makes Phil Jones a denier now. 142.68.220.13 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment