Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Sentence misrepresents source (prematurely archived)

{{editprotected}} See the first paragraph of this section of the article for the following fragment: "and discussions that some pundits and commentators believe advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature".

It cites this article from The Wall Street Journal, which in no way mentions pundits or commentators. The quotes relevant to the sentence in question that are included in the WSJ article are as follows:

"Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications."

"The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others."

"A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view."

Given this, can an administrator please change the fragment to, "and discussions of efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view," in keeping with (and keeping) the relevant citation from the WSJ?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "apparent" and "suggests" is a weasel by the writer so that he can give the appearance of saying something without making a substantive factual statement. You fell for it. --TS 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

a) The point being made is that the WSJ article is listed as a citation for a sentence that it does not support. Please respond to this point if you feel the need. b) Remember you're talking about a writer for the WSJ, not an editor on Wikipedia. If the author reports that these emails "suggest x" or indicate "apparent x", then we can say so in the article. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of a WSJ writer can be reported as fact. If you think our verifiability policy says so, you're wrong. I think the WSJ sourcing is poor for this statement and we can find better sources--I'll do so without delay. --TS 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ article is not an editorial, it is a report on the CRU e-mail incident. He was reporting the contents of the e-mails, not waxing poetical.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have consensus for this proposed edit, so I've demoted the "editprotected". The question of whether the Wall Street Journal piece is a news piece or not is neither here nor there. If it is used, as you seem to want to use it here, to represent the reporter's opinion--which he writes as opinion--as fact, then that's an unacceptable use. --TS 09:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point have we been discussing WSJ's reliability. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. As for the reporter's "opinion," again, the WSJ article is not an OP-ED, and its author was reporting, not musing. The only comments you're making are extraneous to the proposed edit, and none of them have been posed as objections. If an administrator could make the edit so as to keep from misrepresenting the WSJ that'd be great. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an OP-ED, it's a news article in the news section of a reliable source. Do you have another reliable source that disputes the findings in that article? Does the NYTimes report it differently? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The section as written does not factually represent the source. Arzel (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Sources should never be misrepresented, and the added language seems to be someones POV at that. Troed (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Request further clarification of intended edit in its final, proposed form, side by side with current edit. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Given. See opening post.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, then. TS is arguing for attribution. You can't state an allegation as fact. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Qualified Support since that is what the source says (I would however, as an alternative, be ok with keeping the sentence and replacing the source -- which may be preferred as the WSJ article seems to draw a conclusion.)jhe_iv (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed fragment would be more informative than (even a cited version of) the current one. (Incidentally, I'm not quite sure why people have started voting. We're remedying an unequivocal misrepresentation of a source, not making a decision on the article's title/style.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems it was me who started "voting". I just saw TS claiming we had no consensus in correcting a wrongful citation, which I wanted to express dissatisfaction with. There's no need for "consensus" in making such a correction. Troed (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Keeping a misrepresentation in the article is improper. THe above wording is an accurate paraphrase of what the source says, and no alternative source or phrasing has been suggested. Let's make it happen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done I find consensus for this edit and have made it so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The source says that the e-mails suggest that it has been going on, but we now claim that it has. Seems to me that we are stating it stronger than the WSJ journalist has and there are people of the opinion that it suggests nothing of the sort. So at least change it to "suggests discussions of efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view" in line with the source. Although I would much prefer that something more in line with the previous version was restored, seeing as not everyone agrees whether it actually does something like that, but that would require a different source. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Title Suggestion V23.0 Sarcasm Edition 2010

My next experiment in trying to promote useful discussion will feature Post-it notes and some darts. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It really felt to me like we were getting somewhere, especially with my last comment to Simonmar, but I am a new Wikipedia contributor. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we name the article based on 10 individual letters which we all vote on from greatest to least. Here are the letters: H, G, F, R, T, O, S, A, P, L. I vote for 'T' - Gunnanmon 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnanmon (talk • contribs)

Might I suggest a moratorium on all naming proposals until at least the end of February, when the report into the incident is due to be published? There is no pressing need to change it now, particularly as the facts are so thin on the ground. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care anymore. Whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue to care. WP looks ridiculous on this issue. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't your moratorium step on the toes of the majority consensus already reached for renaming it to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy? There are ample facts that the CRU data was controversial in that repeated FOIA requests were denied, we can compile lists of those who were denied FOIA requests as well as similar denials for transparency, the need for peer-reviewed journal oversight, and the burden of new science to accommodate data for peer-reproducible results - this is the measure of real science. Additionally, there are ample facts about the resulting controversy of the CRU data being released anyway, without permission. These are both controversies about the Climatic Research Unit data being released, and that alone is the only proper scope of this article until more information presents itself. Both elements of this controversy are irrevocably linked, one with the other, and shows the natural evolution of the dispute and resulting release. I move to honor the majority consensus which has already been reached, to rename this article to the far more neutral name of Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(moved comment up to the proper tree Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

ChrisO, no. There is clearly no consensus on the current name of the article, and while you might possibly like the current one better than the brewing consensus over a new one, that in itself is no good reason for a moratorium. Troed (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we may have consensus. The problem is you set up a !vote with 7 or 8 proposals, none of which included a very popular one (Climategate) that is not going to get consensus, and without the option to keep the present "hacking" name, all without a ranked preference system. That's like juggling two chainsaws, three bowling balls, a teacup, and a rabbit. I think there is a consensus, and near unanimity, that all of the names you proposed are an improvement on the current one. So I would go with the dart approach. Maybe be bold and just do it. Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do concede that Wikipedia will not use -gate in a controversy's name even after it has become well established to refer to it as such. Considering there are two valid sides to this controversy which are both covered under the name Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, and considering this serves the Wikipedia guideline of NPOV, it seems by far the best option the article has ever reached consensus on. I don't see a reason to delay the renaming of the article any longer, yes? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. See my comments above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No to what, Boris? Yes there is an overwhelmingly majority consensus reached for renaming the article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy, and yes this properly reflects the full controversy regarding the release of data from the Climatic Research Unit. If you're referring to anything else I've said, that is clearly a matter for when/if specific material is discussed for inclusion or omission, this is really only about renaming the article to reflect the Wikipedia policy on NPOV, this is why an overwhelming majority consensus was reached to rename the article. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've asserted "an overwhelming majority consensus." Being a data guy, I'd like to know the actual numbers for and against. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

11 users FOR Climatic Research Unit data release controversy and 4 users AGAINST, 5 if you count Nightmote.

For: Scjessey, Itsmejudith, Jheiv, Adam.T.Historian, Garrettw87, Wikidemon, Sphilbrick, Jc-S0CO, Troed, DGaw, A_Quest_For_Knowledge

Against: Nightmote(under the belief it will ever be allowed to be called Climategate), Gandydancer, ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris

Nightmote is still unaware that Wikipedia never names articles -gate, if you'd like to make it 12 v/s 4 then we can talk to Nightmote about this, but being from a democratic society I do consider 11:5 an overwhelming consensus. Our presidents and senators are often elected with near 1:1 results, heh. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Boris, your strong oppose still only counts as one vote. And I see no reason why we shouldn't now proceed to finally rename this article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy in order to respect the Wikipedia NPOV. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Five hours is much too short to declare a "consensus". Give it a week and then see where things are. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree ChrisO, unless you care to cite a Wikipedia policy stating a vote to gain consensus on renaming an article should last at least one week. You had your vote, and think that means your only recourse left is Wikipedia policy? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been an editor for 24 hours; I've been around for six years, so trust me, I do know how things work around here. Move requests are not actioned for seven days after they've been proposed - and you're so new as an editor that you're not even eligible yet to request a move. See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Nothing is going to happen here for at least a week, probably longer given that we're in the middle of the holiday season. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as we all understand the derision, insults, bullying, and article-hijacking that have long plagued Wikipedia Climate-related articles is coming to an end, I'm happy. I've been following the ludicrousness for some time now, can we all say winds of change? Yes we can! Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

←Let me again reiterate that I started the V22 thread in the hope that we could have a discussion about words and elements that were common to both "sides" of the debate. It was not my intention to advocate any particular position, and I am unhappy that my initial comment was misconstrued. That is largely my own fault, as I made the mistake of choosing one of the generated list over the others because I believe it would be better than the existing name. Let me make it perfectly clear that my absolute preference would still be Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy (I believed all the objections to the use of "data" are invalid, because I see "data" as being anything existing on a computer/server). Since there has been an objection to "theft", I was willing to see "release" used until a "theft" had been positively confirmed - in which case I would've expect the name of the article to change again. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We had that discussion, so far 11 people have voted for Climatic Research Unit data release controversy - am I to take this as you retracting your initial vote? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I read, Scjessey is in agreement with the name change to "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy"; it seems very reasonable. - Gunnanmon (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A theft has already been positively confirmed by the university. The sensible thing to do would be to wait until the official report has been issued in February and then decide where to go. There are unlikely to be any new developments between now and then, unless of course they arrest the perpetrator in the meantime. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you many times, the University does not yet know how the info was released. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The university has made various statements, the one featured prominently in the opening para of the article itself says there "äppears" to have been a theft. But, whatever, ordinarily the allegation of a crime by the victim is not taken as proof of the occurrence. This point has been made again and again. The birth of the baby does not prove rape. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True Psb777, and not only that, but even if it is proven a theft it doesn't make the lack of NPOV for this article go away, the majority consensus proposed Climatic Research Unit data release controversy can of course mention theft, but it is more important to show the full controversy if we hope to maintain NPOV, the controversy began with the repeated refusal to release data for peer-review worldwide. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We seemingly have enough consensus. Personally I see no real difference between "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". Data/documents are interchangeable, the release of such is implied by the article about it and controversy being the important word (and please, stop with the silly claims by some editors that there's no controversy. I've properly sourced this enough, as have others as well. It probably needs to go into the FAQ even) Troed (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose (Particularly to "Climatic Research Unit data release controversy"). In general, 'data' may include e-mail messages and source programs etc. But, in this case, the phrase 'CRU data' has a well known meaning to a population of people (mainly those who want to assess impacts of climate change). It means files containing numerical values of climatological variables such as temperature and precipitation which are products of climatological and statistical analysis of the CRU staff. Also, since the 'CRU data' have been officially released by CRU, the sequence of words 'CRU data release' sounds like something different from what this article intends to say. Masudako (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're factually wrong about the CRU data having been released though (and here I use what would be included in a FOI request as basis), although I understand and support your comment on what the phrase "CRU data" would mean to many people. Good call. Troed (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a constructive suggestion about the title. I think that everyone here can agree that an unauthorised release occurred. But this phrase sounds too long for the title. Could you move out of the dichotomy of hacking vs. leak and agree that the word leak can be used neutrally to whether or not there was a criminal intrusion to a computer system? That is, adopting the word leak does not imply no hacking. It does not imply that the incident must be whistle-blowing by an insider either. Then we can replace hacking in the title with leak. Actually I want to avoid the word hacking because of a different reason. I believe that there was a criminal intrusion at least to the RealClimate server (I trust Gavin Schmidt in this context), though the situation at UEA is less clear. But I belong to the crowd who want to say 'we are hackers, not crackers.' I do not propose changing e-mail, but I admit that it can be document. It should not be data because of the reason I mentioned before. I do not propose changing incident either. Whether it should be replaced with 'controversy' depends on points-of-view (though I do not mean WP:POV issue here). Maybe we can get rid of the term which categorize the affair and call it just Climate Research Unit e-mail leak or Climate Research Unit document leak. Masudako (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you in support of one or two articles? The leak of documents from CRU is what we're currently describing, mostly, but the fallout from that leak (or even beginning with the FOI requests) is a different matter. It has some bearing on what would be the most suitable title. As sourced above, there's no doubt in WP:RS that there is a well known controversy/scandal that goes beyond the "incident", affecting the scientific community. Troed (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to go back to two articles. The Climategate controversy (under whatever name found acceptable) must be documented at WP. This article can remain about the "hacking incident", as per the title. We'll remove all the info not about that directly to the new article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two MMs

At one point, it was defined in the article who the two MMs were, but looking now, it is not. This leads to some awkwardness as MM is used twice. Does anyone have a good cite for this? jhe_iv (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre and McKitrick. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boris but I'm suggesting a citation for the article -- it looks like there is no longer one there (I could be wrong). If not, how about:

jhe_iv (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the WSJ one; using an opinion column to support a factual matter sets a bad precedent. It may not need a reference at all -- is it really controversial who "MM" are? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, there were several possibilities but nobody was able to establish it definitively; therefore the statement that "MM" referred to those two individuals was removed as original research, since there was nothing to back it up. I'd suggest looking in the talk page archives for the discussion, which would have been a few weeks ago now. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure its controversial at all, but its unclear (well unclear to someone who is reading the article without the background editors who have been involved have) -- could we come up with some phrasing, like:

The scientists have historically used MM to refer to ... --or--

As noted on RealClimate, MM refers to McIntyre and McKitrick.

Regardless of the phrasing, I think its a pretty innocuous change and would aid the average reader, IMHO. jhe_iv (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the change is not only innocuous but makes the overall scope of the data presented more comprehensive. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your source for that? I've not seen any source cited. Without a source, it's original research and unverifiable. That's why it was removed in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Well, there's no question this is what MM means but I'm not willing to take the time to look up something so trivial. Somebody else will have to go out there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you can't have it both ways, either RealClimate is a verifiable source or it isn't, if it isn't then we can remove it from the main article. Personally I believe RealClimate is one of the reasons there is COI and the Wikipedia NPOV has been compromised for many climate-related articles for so long... Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that MM could mean something else seems a little disingenuous, I'm hoping more people will chime in and be a little more reasonable about this so we can clear this up in the article. jhe_iv (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of arguing what it could mean, it's a question of whether you can reliably source it. Can you or can't you? The previous discussion on this issue was here: Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 9#Removed per BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This one is actually interesting. As it turns out, Jones referred to "MM" (M&M) meaning McKitrick and Michaels (Climate Research 2004) when many of the leaked email readers assumed he meant McIntyre and McKitrick. It's thus of interest to make sure we're referencing this correctly. Wrong M&M. (No, I'm not suggesting this as a reference for the article, I'm merely supporting the need for clarifying what MM means here). Troed (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat presenting the asked-for sources for M&M being McIntyre & McKitrick [1] [2] (esp. since that's how they refer to themselves) - but at the same time I must stress what I wrote above. There's already been confusion when reporting about the CRU emails since Jones DIDN'T refer to McIntyre and McKitrick in one of them even though he wrote "MM". Thus, we're possible going to create confusion if we just source "MM"/"M&M" and then be done with it. My own preferred solution would be to try to source a clarification of the Jones' MM-confusion itself. Asking for input. Troed (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on names used in other Wikipedia projects

I looked through all of the projects that use the Roman alphabet + Russian (from dim memories of HS Russian), from 12-29 through 12-30-09.

These Wikipedias currently use Climategate as the main article title:

These Wikipedias use some variant of "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident":

The Czech Wikipedia, interestingly, uses both titles:

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

-- we might profitably consider this solution, which might make everyone happy, or at least equally unhappy....

The rest of the Roman-alphabet projects don't seem to have an article on this topic yet. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And how is any of that in any conceivable way relevant? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Climategate is the WP:COMMONNAME, however "-gate" is a word to avoid per WP:AVOID. We have to pick something else. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any myself, but are there any articles that have two names with 'AKA' in the title? - Gunnanmon (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but Matiu/Somes Island comes fairly close. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(Personal reflection follows, I agree that this list is somewhat irrelevant) .. Being Swedish, but never actually using the Swedish Wikipedia, I must say that was a refreshing read (article as well as talk page). My my us Swedes must be very civil and NPOV from birth I guess. I especially liked the one question + one answer consensus on that it's premature to state "hacked" as a fact at the talk page. Troed (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted the list because:

a) It's interesting what the other WP projects have done.

b) This list rather refutes the argument that "Wikipedia can't use Climategate as a name" -- since 7 other WP's currently use it, and we all operate under similar ground rules.

c) The Czech example suggests a possible route out of our current deadlock re a name-change. Call it both names -- both sides then declare victory and move on. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

b) Other Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines. Most do not have the equivalent of the English Wikipedia's words to avoid list - the French and Spanish Wikipedias are the only European-language ones other than English to have WTAs. The English Wikipedia is bound by the standards of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not those of the non-English ones.

c) We don't use double or segmented article names. See WP:NPOV#Article naming. This has been tried before (e.g. "Gdansk/Danzig") but has been such a failure in practice that it is now specifically prohibited by the NPOV policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, WP:NPOV#Article naming says, "Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names..." So discouraged but not forbidden.

Worth thinking about, imo, since we seem to be at a dead-end otherwise. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for change - mostly copy editing

Statements from the IPCC itself, or from lead authors appear in five paragraphs in three separate sections. I do not propose to remove any of the substance of these paragraphs, simply reorganize to match the existing structure. I would leave the statements of the climatologists in the climatologists section, leave the statement of the IPCC itself in the scientific organizations section, and move the statements of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who is speaking on behalf of the IPCC, to the scientific organizations section. In addition to improving the flow, this would allow the poorly named "Other Responses" to be renamed as "Pennsylvania State University response", parallel construction to the prior sections.

Specific changes proposed:

Other responses -> Pennsylvania State University Response
First paragraph (starting with "Dr. Rajendra Pachauri") moved
In Climatologists section move sixth paragraph (starting with "The IPCC's head")
In Climatologists section leave seventh and eighth paragraphs (Raymond Pierrehumbert and David Karoly).
In Scientific organizations section, rewrite first paragraph to pick up the two moved paragraphs.

Proposed new paragraphs:

bg

Scientific organizations The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements explaining that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group to manipulate the process. The statement noted that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".^[1]^[2]

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC that he considered the affair to be "a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."[^[3] He later clarified that the IPCC would review the incident to identify lessons to be learned, and he rejected suggestions that the IPCC itself should carry out an investigation. The only investigations being carried out were those of the University of East Anglia and the British police.^[4] Pachauri, declared his support for the scientists involved: "The persons who have worked on this report and those who have unfortunately been victims of this terrible and illegal act are outstanding scientists." He commented that he could "only surmise that those who carried this out have obviously done it with [the] very clear intention to influence the process in Copenhagen."^[4]

--SPhilbrick T 15:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment (As most know, the whole global warming editing brouhaha has been proposed for ArbCom actions here and/or discretionary sanctions here. Wouldn't it be nice if we were to show that we can make proposals for changes, debate the issues and reach a consensus without the need to modify the usual procedures?)--SPhilbrick T 15:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change task force

I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. Please consider joining up. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea that is long overdue. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out (again) that the main problem with this article is NOT the typical case of AGW skeptics attempting to push their POV. Sure, that's a problem, but there's another problem. This is an article about the controversy. In an article about a controversy, we have to at least explain what the controversy is about. There are edits which appear to be so overzealous that the edits remove what the controversy is about. So we have POV-pushing coming from two different directions. What's more, some of the criticism is coming not from AGW skeptics, but from AGW proponents such as George Monbiot [3] and colleague Michael Mann [4]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Chris cannot be saying that those who disagree with him are thereby disruptive. This is not a partisan ruling, it applies to all. I'm sure ChrisO posted the above as much as a personal reminder to himself as much as he posted it for anyone else's benefit. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a general notification with standard wording used in previously applied general sanctions in other topic areas. Please don't read anything into it regarding my own views. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorised release / theft / hack / leak

An ongoing dispute has been the use of "theft" or "hack" to refer to the unauthorised release of the CRU info. Again and again we are told that "theft" is correct because we must reflect what reliable sources say. I agree, we must. The sources favoured by those who advocate the use of the unadorned word "theft" or "hack" are the UEA/CRU, the police, the newspapers and RealClimate, a blog.

Firstly, it is evident from the statements of the CRU/UEA, their spokespeople and others affiliated that none of them *know* it is a theft. They allege theft, they say the documents "appear" to have been stolen. Other spokespeople say stolen but they are not claiming any extra knowledge or insight. But the CRU/UEA can't be used as a WP:RS anyway, they are the victim. "Oh, yes they can!", says ChrisO and some others. I cornered ChrisO on this, the only support he would give me for his argument that they can be considered a reliable source on the theft/leak is WP:SELFPUB, a part of WP:RS. It is unclear that WP:SELFPUB caters for the current situation at all. If it does not ChrisO has provided no support for his argument. But let's consider it does apply. WP:SELFPUB reads (my emphasis):

        Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about
        themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that
        they be published experts in the field, so long as:
        1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
        2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
        3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
        4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
        5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

We see that condition 2 fails - they allege some third party committed theft. Condition 4: There is considerable doubt as to whether the unauthorised release was a theft and not just a leak. I say condition 5 also fails: The theft/hack/leak/release is the primary focus of the article so SELFPUB cannot be relied upon. There is no other WP:RS for the allegation of theft.

Unless the police are that WP:RS. No they are not, they are investigating a crime; that's all they say. The police do not (yet?) say the crime occurred. WP can say the police are investigating a crime, therefore, not that the crime happened. What about the newspapers and the blog? They too claim no extra information other than what the CRU and the police say. All we can say is that The Grauniad or The Torygraph say that the CRU says there ("appears" to have been) a theft, and that the police are investigating. The blog is in the same position. The national newspapers are reliable sources in some circumstances but WP would not repeat their headline "Rape!" if the person accused had not been convicted. Here, remember, no one is yet saying for sure that there was a theft.

So, the CRU says there was a theft, the police are investigating a theft, the newspapers report a theft. That's what we have. And that is all what WP can say.

SIMILARLY THERE IS NO HACK, yet.

What we do know is that the release of the information happened, and that it was unauthorised. (We can trust "unauthorised" from the CRU because it does not violate point 2 of SELFPUB.)

Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is completely nuts. Your comments are nothing but original research and your own personal opinion, completely unsourced. The FAQ provides a neutral summary of the statements that have been made by the university (NOT THE CRU), RealClimate and the police. Can you get your head around the fact that the UEA and the CRU are distinct entities? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal for you: let's take this to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask for uninvolved third parties to opine there. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, "completely nuts"! Why didn't you say that before? Now I'm persuaded :-) Why is it you interpret the rules liberally how you would like to see them and that is allowed. I interpret them literally, as they are written, and that isn't? I do however take very careful note of every sensible thing you say. The issue has been at WP:RSN since the last time you suggested it. The CRU is a part of the UEA, Chris. You're not redefining "distinct", are you? Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Sources for information on the theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Chris has written elsewhere that I wish to suppress entirely what the UEA/CRU has to say. This is completely false! I just want what they say to be attributed to them, like anybody else. "The UEA/CRU say the information was stolen..." would be fine. "The information was stolen..." is different. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So, let me try to understand this: What you're saying is that the CRU management intentionally published these e-mails, and now their rogue spokesperson has published this denial, by saying they were stolen, which in turn has misled the police. You want to make it clear that they were intentionally published by their legal owners, and that the statement they were stolen is dubious. Is that right? --Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, you make a logic error. Should I deny that A implies B this is not equivalent to me saying B implies A. If the information were deliberately or accidentally released by an insider this would not have been a hack. We don't know. The UEA and the CRU are investigating what happened. They make various statements, "appears" to have been stolen does not imply hack. In the interim "hack" is going one step too far. I am sure you and I could agree on "leak" or "unauthorised publication". I think the focus on "hack" is to make the possibly criminal nature of the leak the focus of this article, whereas we know the controversy is about the contents of the material leaked. Perhaps we should have a separate article about that. What say you? Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, moving the goalpost. Apart from you saying "SIMILARLY THERE IS NO HACK, yet" above, we were all discussing use of the words 'theft' and 'stolen' until now. --Nigelj (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully sourced suggested change to article introduction

I suggest that WP should consider this edit:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident came to light in November 2009 with the unauthorised release of documents, possibly obtained by the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich. According to a CRU press release of 11/24/09 "thousands of files and emails [were] illegally obtained from a research server at [the] UEA [and] have been posted on various sites on the web". [5] Subsequent reports have stated that Police are investigating this as a crime. [6] [7] This episode has variously been described in the media as a "leak" and as a "theft".[8] [9] [10] [11]

The title of the page, if changed, could also be modified from Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident to something else. My suggested post is intended to focus not on the name, but on the other parts of my suggestion. 7390r0g (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the neutral backgrounder on how it is described. However, inasmuch as the lede is normally an uncited summary of material from the body, maybe put it there, or even a footnote. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First thing that jumps out at me is "possibly obtained" - I think "reportedly obtained" would be more in keeping with what sources have (broadly speaking) said. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree "reportedly" would do fine. 7390r0g (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this change, hopefully with a different article name, but in any case with (most likely) adding "aka Climategate" after the Wikiname. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important enough to bother with editing through protection? Or are you discussing this for post-prot? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is important, that isn't proposed, yes that's it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Reportedly" seems fine and I think this is a good introduction. jhe_iv (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There are problems, I'm afraid. "Possibly obtained" is weasel wording when we've been told unequivocally that the server was hacked. Reliable sources do not express doubt on the issue. The only doubt is coming from climate-sceptic bloggers, but since they're not reliable sources we can't take their views into account. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that ChrisO is misrepresenting the state of WP:RS above and that his comment cannot be taken in good faith. This has been discussed extensively at this talk page, for those wishing to verify. Troed (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that some spokespeople of the victim have used the word hacked. Other spokepeople have said the material appears to have been stolen. The victim is not consistent about this and that should be good enough, but were they consistent the victim is not a WP:RS in this respect. The police investigate currently. There is an internal investigation also. One day we may know how the material was made available. All we know for sure is that the leak was unauthorised. Until then "hack" is pure speculation. "Possibly obtained" is correct. ChrisO is wrong. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and implement the change you suggest. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I support this change with the same caveat as expressed by Guettarda and jhe above, "reportedly" instead of "possibly". Troed (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to FAQ Q5

I intend to replace the answer to Q5 with this

Despite widespread reporting of a "hack" and a "theft" neither has yet been established by the police. A Norfolk police spokesman said: "This matter is being investigated as a potential criminal offence. An inquiry team has been established under the leadership of Det Supt Julian Gregory and the investigation is being supported by relevant experts from other organisations. We are currently investigating the exact nature of the alleged breach and the content of the data that may have been accessed. It would be inappropriate at this early stage to comment on the exact nature of the investigation or speculate publicly on the person or persons involved."

Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is your own personal commentary. Please get rid of it. The FAQ is not the place for individual Wikipedians' commentaries. Also, deleting any reference to the statements by the parties reporting the hack and theft is unacceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will do as I previously suggested and add the above to the existing answer. My first sentence was written by me, but it does not follow that everything written by me is "personal commentary". You cannot just assert such a thing, you have to say why you so think. Much of the rest of the current FAQ is written in a style which suits answers to a FAQ, is all that personal commentary too? I'll hold off a few minutes for your reply, you're obviously lurking. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The "despite" bit is the personal commentary - you're casting doubt on the multiple reliable reports. That simply isn't neutral and therefore isn't appropriate for the FAQ. It's also an unsourced assumption on your part that the police have not yet established the facts. After six weeks of investigation I bloody well hope they have, otherwise they're wasting a lot of taxpayers' money! You have to state the basic facts without passing opinion on them or introducing your own personal assumptions. I would be happier if you changed that first sentence to: "Many reliable sources have reported a "hack" and a "theft" in relation to the incident." -- ChrisO (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't do that as they only know what you and I know, and you don't know there was a hack because the spendthrift police have not yet got around to confirming your prejudice. A secondary source which incorrectly reports the primary source is not a WP:RS. The UEA/CRU is a primary source, not a secondary, so not the best (as per policy), and even they do not yet claim to know - there are conflicting statements by them, yet the current Q5 answer seems to ignore that. I'll have another go. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just cannot see it! Why is "despite" wrong? I cannot replace it with "also". Maybe I'll try "But" - the police do contradict the ansder to Q5. How about something like: "But a Norfolk police spokeman did not confirm this: ..." ? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've re-read the other FAQs again. If you criticise me on style then the rest are wrong too. So I think by Occam's razor, it's you who's wrong. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Give me an example, please, and don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Catch 22! I am asked for an example which, if it is persuasive, you will disregard as per WP:ABC. Am I wasting my time, Chris? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm simply asking you for an example and to bear in mind that just because one FAQ is done one way that does not automatically mean that this FAQ has to be done exactly the same way. Not every article or FAQ is of equivalent quality, as I'm sure you've noticed. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, it's just a FAQ! It's meant to explain to editors why it is that something is so here at the article with the strange and factually questionable name. It is *not* article space. The same criteria do not apply. However, that doesn't mean it is a free for all, either, so don't think I am saying that. The answer to Q5 is not satisfactory. Are you suggesting that the FAQ hide the mini-controversy over whether we should be saying there was a theft or an alleged theft? That there was a hack when the police have not yet said? No and no, I believe you have conceded that already, thank you. Q5 could be better answered. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not conceded anything. Where are the reliable sources about the "mini-controversy" of which you speak? Bloggers are stirring controversy, as they usually do, but we don't take their views into account because they are not reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer to the on-going discussion here! And to the facts! That a blog agrees with you or with me does not destroy our argument! And if you did not concede improvement to Q5 was possible then you were not being quite straight with me when you said that two POVs could be reflected in the answer to Q5. An (a) and a (b), one written by you and the other by me. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources? No evading the question, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources for what!?!? You want to say there was a theft. And a hack. It is for you to find your sources. You say you have found them. No, I say that those you quote either (1) are not reliable as per WP:RS or (2) do not say what you say they say. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, why are you quoting the police statement of 1st December and not the more recent statement of 6th December? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me out. The best I can find from the 6 Dec statement is three words in quotes. Is there a link? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the current Q5. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You agree, just a few words in quotes? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant yes, there is a link. Here it is: [12] The relevant paragraph states: "A Norfolk Police spokeswoman said last night: ‘Norfolk Constabulary can confirm that it is investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia (UEA)."

"It is investigating criminal offences" does not mean a crime occurred. And, while we're here, "data breach" does not mean "hack" and nor does it mean "theft", necessarily. So, the answer to Q5 has a POV, and not a neutral one. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it states that the UEA and RealClimate have both "reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair." The FAQ does not endorse or reject those reports. It describes what the parties have said. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of that description? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article saying that "X said A". But the article must not say "A" when "A" is not established. We report that the ruskies and the turks say they were hacked. Fine. We report the one UEA spokesman says "hack", anther says "stolen" and another says "appears there was a theft". Fine. We do not say so "A" until a WP:RS says so. A victim is not a RS. The police have not said there was a hack or a theft. They are investigating. Yet the title of this doc says hack. You know damned well that if you concede here, on the FAQ, you'll have to give ground on the title, and before long you'll have an article at WP which deals with the allegations being investigated by the Universities concerned that certain behaviour revealed in the docs was, err, unscientific! In the interim you (plural) make WP a laughing stock by pretending there is "nothing to see", while holding up the gatekeeping screen thus continuing WP being held in disrepute. I just want what we say to be the undisputed truth. I want the valid criticisms (there are a few) being levelled at us to no longer be true. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Last sentence amended Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

"A victim is not a RS" is not a statement that you will find anywhere in Wikipedia's policies. If you think it does, please show me where that's stated. The title of the article says "hack" because reliable sources say "hack". We follow reliable sources. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>WP:101 a victim is a primary source of its own allegation. A RS is not a reliable source always or never: When the Torygraph or the Grauniad say "hack" we know that is speculation. Both newspapers say lots of things which we do not report becuase they are crap. The police have not said it was a hack. The UEA is investigating the means by which the info was leaked, they don't know it was a hack. But we can say hack because others say so. No we cannot. We do not report speculation as fact. If you want to say "widely reported to have been a hack" then you have my support. If you want to say "it was a hack" then not. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the UEA doesn't know it was a hack, why has it referred to "the hacking and publication of emails from the [CRU]"? [13] I note that on his own web page one of the CRU's three academic staff refers to "illegal hacking of our webserver".[14] One would think they would be competent to know what happened to their own server, no? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When an academic speaks (s)he is not held to be speaking for the University unless (s)he makes it clear they are doing so. It is plain that no statements on the web page you ref refer to "hack" confirming one occurred, the closest you get is speculation they may have been hacked like other bodies have been. AFAIK no official communication from the University (someone authorised to be speaking on its behalf and who is plainly doing so) says "hack". If you want to say "several staff members refer to leak of the info as a hack" that is fine by me. The term hack is poorly defined and variously used and ought to be on some list like ~gate IMO(!). What happened is subject to an ongoing investiagtion. When that says hack we say hack. Until then we, they and you have no idea worth putting into article space. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement I quoted that refers to "the hacking and publication of emails from the [CRU]" is from a UEA press release, therefore an official statement. Are we reading the same sources here? -- ChrisO (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you make a good point and I can see why you are frustrated. But, the entire quote you refer to is a summary of a section of news and even with that, it's vague "[u]ntil the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails..." and on top of it, notice that the word "allegations" is there. My one suggestion was to say "possible" and others suggested "reported". I think "reported hacking" makes good sense. It was reported, but has yet to be proved. It's not as objectionable as "alleged" might be, but also makes clear that as of now, it's not confirmed. What do you think? 7390r0g (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to Q5

Current FAQ 5

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 ?

Current answer

Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" [15]. Both the University [16] and a science blog, RealClimate [17] [18], have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".[19]

Proposal for new answer

The article has taken the point of view you describe. Possibly the material was released accidentally or possibly the material could have been deliberately leaked rather than hacked. This has been discussed at length here at this Talk page. Whether you believe WP should say "alleged theft" or "theft" before theft has been established, and whether the word "hack" should be used in the title of the article itself when the means by which the documents were taken is not yet known, is controversial here at WP. Whether the most recent statement by the Norfolk Constabulary that they are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" [20] should be taken as confirmation that a crime has taken place seems to be a matter for debate. The University and some of its staff members have variously said the documents "appear to have been illegally taken" or that they were "stolen" [21].

Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm...no. That's not an answer to a "why" question. We should aspire to write professionally, at least for the FAQ. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do so aspire. Any copyedit you would care to suggest? The proposed new answer does answer the questioners question. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Because the article has been taken over by raving communists like this Boris fellow who has a picture of Lenin on his user page" would also answer the questioner's question, but it wouldn't be a very useful answer. I suspect that Guettarda's concern is that the response is wordy and rather pointed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris, that's an accurate description of me. Please say how I can improve it but still answer the questioners' FAQ. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedits can't solve muddled logic. If you're answering a "why" question with a non-why answer, it suggests that you haven't thought it out clearly. If you focus your answer, then I can figure out what I think of it. As it stands, I don't quite know what you're getting at. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do more than a copyedit. I just dispute what you say. The questioner asks why do we behave in a certain way. I say we have chosen a particular line but it remains controversial. I could say "because users X, Y & Z are crowding out other opinion". Indeed, that is what I am saying. You don't like my answer. Fair enough. It's not article space. I'll add it to the current answer. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've improved it, I think. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. The question says "why." The answer should either say or make sense with the word "because" in front of the key sentence. In the current answer, "Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources," can be fronted with "Because," and it's true. What sentence in your proposed answer can be fronted with "because?" Hipocrite (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me out, then. "Why is the moon made of cheese?" How do I answer that starting with "Because"? My answer to the FAQ could start, "Because it has been held by some that in so doing we are following WP policy, others disagree." And then I could continue from there? Or how about: "Because Wikipedia policy is to say things that are not known to be facts as if they were facts." Except I don't think that is WP policy. Another: "Because WP policy is being interpreted incorrectly at this article. The truth is that the suggestions you make in your question could well be true, the information could have been released accidentally, initially. The information could have been deliberately leaked by an insider. But we present as fact, here at WP, that the information was hacked and stolen. The justification given for this is is that we must uncritically accept the victim's own word, and that an investigation of a crime means that a crime must have occurred." There you go, that starts with "Because". Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to edit the FAQ to win the "war" over the content is backwards. First convince the editors, of which I don't intend to be one, that reliable sources say whatever you claim is true. You do that by finding a reliable source that says what you think is true, and pointing that out here. Then, having convinced the editors that a reliable source says whatever you think is true is true, you edit the article to reflect that. Having done those two, the FAQ would no longer be asked, and I suspect it would be easy to change. Hipocrite (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder that the onus is not the other way around. A number of things are possible. Prematurely we have excluded those possibilities taking as authority what some newspapers have said. BUT WE KNOW THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT CONCLUDED. In the interim we should say "the Telegraph reports X", we shouldn't say "X" when we really do know that X is not yet established. The point being WP should be cautious about saying things which might be false. Say them! Just don't state them as unadorned fact. Say who said them. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should present the story as represented in mainstream media (MSM). It may be that MSM has incorrectly reported the case, but it is not the role of WP to correct this. The same arguments have come up at articles about 911 truthers, birthers and other similar theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well those are not good examples. Here I am not suggesting some crank idea be presented as if true without substantiation. The MSM refers to "hack" discursively only. The MSM does not say it has been concluded that a hack occurred. Nobody says that yet *except* WP. We cannot allow ourselves to be ahead of the game. Similarly we could say the sun comes up rather than the earth rotates because, discursively, that's how the MSM handles the issue. NO SOURCE CONCLUDES THE HACK OCCURRED EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. Why don't you open up a new section to discuss your concerns with the article text. Hipocrite (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly I overstepped the mark a touch in tone, and I should have empasised only the word CONCLUDES. The investigation has not concluded. Therefore all reports as to how the information left the UEA is speculation. We should treat reports of the hack as speculation, for the time being. We do not have to parrot the newspapers uncritically. I am simply saying at WP we should reserve our position thus avoiding being wrong and not yet say the hack is a fact. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also my suggested edit is not to Article space but to a FAQ on a Talk page. I am not trying to settle the dispute, but to describe it so that it may be understood. The FAQs are meant as shortcut entry into how the article has become what it is. Q5 currently ignores an unresolved debate here as to the supposed hack and alleged theft and how we should report it. This change to the fAQ is meant to frame that debate. It is not a proposal to change the article, although it may contribute towards that indirectly. This is a FAQ on a Talk page. Not all WP policies apply, so please stop trying to apply them like you would to Article space. I am of course intent on being fair minded and accurate, and that's why we're all here? Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out where you see the debate ongoing? I'm specifically looking for more than just editors asking the FAQ and getting responded to with the FAA. Hipocrite (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It underpins the article renaming question and thereby the content dispute which is this: Should the article focus on the "hacking incudent" (two words in the title) or on what is popularly known as the Climategate controversy. Some here say the controversy is the hacking incident, making WP look ridiculous! A content fork was prevented by those who said it was a POV fork ("our" POV being that that the controversy is not just about the hacking, "theirs" being that there is no other controversy) but now we are here, at the only place allowed us, trying to document Climategate. The article needs renaming. "They" say the name is accurate. "We" say that no, what we are documenting here is not the hacking incident but the controversy over what the leaked material, going back for years, contained. First step is to change the name. The name is wrong - no one yet knows how the material left the CRU. That's still being investigated. "Hack" is not known! How can it be in the article's name? Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The material released was not classified, but all stuff that should have been released under Freedom of Information Act requests. Nor was there any personal e-mail. So it was probably released by an insider who understood FOIA, aka whistleblower, not by a hacker. Surely it is the content of the e-mail that makes this incident notable. To put the word "hacking" in the title makes it seem like CRU is the victim and misleads the reader as to what the issue is actually about. Kauffner (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another go

Proposed answer to this page's FAQ Q5 i.e.

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?

The article says "hack" and "theft" because at WP we must follow WP:POLICY. It is true that the initial release of information could have been accidental. Possibly the information could have been leaked by an insider. But here at WP we are not interested in truth but in verifiability. Policy tells us that the repeated use of the words "theft" and "hack" by the victim of the alleged crime means that the information was hacked, stolen. Policy tells us that, despite the fact that police have not concluded their investigation, the main stream media's use of the term "hack" and "theft" require us to parrot this uncritically at WP. It would be wrong to use the phrase "alleged theft" instead of "theft" and "reported hack" instead of "hack" because of WP policy. (Note that not all think that policy is being correctly interpreted in this instance, but that's where we are on the issue at the moment.)

Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this is all a huge waste of time, I removed FAQ #5. Please, lets talk about the actual article. Thanks. Prodego ^talk 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. We have only one person complaining about this question. Are we to remove questions every time someone objects to the answer? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have voiced my discontent with Q5 to ChrisO on several occasions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Remain civil. Chris, please remove this comment and yours. Hipocrite (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactored. It's an important point. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"One"? That's a huge misrepresentation of the current state of discussion at this talk page. Troed (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have my own reservations about this item, I just haven't said much about them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that that's fine, but having now been through this a few times, the suggestion to add all this stuff to the FAQ is a frequent drumbeat. I am concerned that by removing FAA to FAQ's because some editors are looking at the process backwards (first convince people to change the article, then change the FAQ), or because some editors are looking at the FAQ as a "settle items" section, it's going to harm editors ability to get out of the circle of the same thing over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to argue this point, go ahead and put it back - I have no objection if someone actually wants to argue over it. Removing it is just symbolic of how little it matters. It being there or not has absolutely no impact on the article. So why argue? Prodego ^talk 06:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't. I want others to top arguing about it, and instead focus on the article. I've tried to incorporate Paul's concerns into A5 (which someone re-added - I had no intention to). Hipocrite (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's more to do with the fact that the same questions keep being asked over and over and over again. The purpose of adding the statements of the various parties to the FAQ was to say "this is what the parties have said, see #5". The FAQ is there to serve a purpose, not just to look pretty (or be fought over). Psb evidently disagrees with what the sources say. That's his business, but surely we can't let that stop us from reporting neutrally what they say in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not dispute what sources say. I dispute that some of them can be considered WP:RS for some of the things they say, things which are not known yet to be true. There may have been a leak, not a hack. An insider's leak is not theft necessarily. We cannot yet parrot some peoples "theft" and "hack". Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So lets stop beating the dead horse here. If its been discussed before (and I'm sure the use of 'theft' has), then what would be nice is to add links to these prior discussions in the FAQ. Then people can be directed to that, and we can stop beating the dead horse. What I'd really like to do is get this article unprotected so it can be improved. Prodego ^talk 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussions are extremely long and rambling. Anyone trying to get anything useful from them is going to end up very frustrated. Tony Sidaway wrote the Q5 reply to distil megabytes of discussions (I'm not exaggerating) into four sentences. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I find it a bit unusual - typically we always use alleged unless there is confirmation that something actually took place. However, it is vastly unlikely to be anything but a hacking + theft. Prodego ^talk 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now we are in the realms of speculation. That doesn't allow us to make things up. There is no conclusion yet of the investigation. Theft is alleged. Hacking is suspected. But FWIW I will give you good odds on real money it was an inside job, the server is reported to have been difficult to access from outside. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious. What confirmation would you look for? Bear in mind that the institution which owns the server in question has said explicitly that it was hacked. If a bank said that it had been robbed, would you not take it at its word? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to get upset at this repeated assertion of yours. The institution has not said it was hacked. Some people who work for it who were not speaking on behalf of the institution have used the word hack, but it is plain from context they have no idea how the info was released, the term is very loosely used by them. Chris says that again and again as though repetition will make it true. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you call this then? That's an official statement by the university on its official website. Are you suggesting that someone hacked the UEA's website too and posted that there? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just an intro to Phil Jones' stepping-aside statement, not an official statement of the University's position. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And that argument is a pretty good answer to FAQ 5 isn't it :). Prodego ^talk 07:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If a bank is robbed it is robbed. If information is made available without permission is it is not necessarily theft. The police are investigating. If one of the insider scientists/programmers posted the info on a USB stick to Russia and to Turkey then that may not have been criminal and it certainly was not a hack. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how it wouldn't be criminal - even in your example it would be stealing data. But I think ChrisO's answer has pretty much summed this up. They say that they were hacked, there is no reason to doubt them. We won't say 'alleged bank robbery' until the thieves are caught just in case it is actually insurance fraud. Prodego ^talk 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But not all crimes are theft! Unauthorised access, copyright violation etc. Theft is a particular crime. But it may not be criminal as a public interest defence could be successful. Let's just be safe, and say "alleged theft". Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is with a misrepresentation of the available sources. The correct representation of this incident both from the police, the involved parties and the MSM reporting involve "alleged", "possibly stolen", "leaked" as well as "stolen" and "hacked". There's absolutely no reasion for us to only report half of everything because someone wants to go WP:OR and say that it's "obviously a hack". See this discussion (amongst others). Troed (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we say "alleged" when the university in question says definitively, on its official website, in an official statement, that the material was hacked and stolen? Why would we want to cast doubt on that? Why would we not take their word for it? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we are to report what WP:RS are saying about the incident. Not just some of it. We are not casting doubt, we are reporting. If we do NOT report what WP:RS are saying we are however in effect making an unsupported conclusion. Troed (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not really responsive to my question. Why do we want to cast doubt on what the university has said? Which reliable sources are doubting or disputing the university's account? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if the hacker is an insider or an outsider. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't change things. It is still hacking, and material was still stolen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if words mean what you want them to mean. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not casting doubt on what the university has said. We should absolutely mention their claim, the claims in MSM as well as quotes from the police. There's no reason why we would want to select, ourselves, only a few of the available reliable sources. 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troed (talk • contribs)

If we're not casting doubt, then don't use "alleged". If we are casting doubt, then find a reliable source that casts doubt, and explicitly say that x says so. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying the whole time, and such WP:RS have been linked to numerous times. All I've ever proposed is that we should quote all parties of interest (CRU/Univ, police, media) and qualify who says what. If the sources say "alleged" then it must be included, due to WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Troed (talk)

(ec and unindent) I find FAQ #5 unconvincing in substance, tone, and as a process matter per its editing history. Just reading it without the background of edit warring, it is an argumentative claim about a speculative subject and it looks rather defensive. Asking for neutrality in the description of the data disclosure is not a matter of casting doubt on the university's veracity. Questioning the reliability of the university as a source does not require producing a reliable source in opposition to prove in the negative that the university is wrong. A press release by a party to an incident is simply not a reliable source as to the truth behind the incident. Here we have an institution embroiled in international controversy over an embarrassing disclosure, issuing statements without citing its basis that the disclosure in question was illegal. No doubt some press releases in defense of organizations accused of impropriety are in fact true, neutral presentations of the facts. But there are also plenty of cases where the target of a leak, whistleblowing incident, expose, investigation, what have you, makes allegations of illegality as a smokescreen to divert attention away from its own misdeeds, or to intimidate those who would come forward. It makes a big difference whether the accusations are true or not - is this an honest beleaguered institution dealing with a smear campaign, or is this an academic bully engaging in further bullying? An FAQ is a good way to deal with perennial proposals when there is firm, lasting consensus on an issue. It's not a proper way to stifle debate on a fresh issue where consensus is far from clear. A number of serious editors have questioned whether juxtaposing the presumptive and claimed, but unproven, illegality of the disclosure with the fact that secret files were disclosed without permission, is an appropriate thing to do in the lede and article title, or even in the body of the article. On the other side one editor in particular who has reverted changes to the FAQ perhaps 10 times in 3 days is pointing to the FAQ as a demonstration of consensus. The article is barely a month old. It would be good to have a resolution to this, sure, but we're not there yet. The simplest approach would be to keep things neutral for now, neither asserting nor denying the illegality of the data disclosure. Wikipedia has no deadline. As events unfold it should become clear who did it, and the legality issue will be decided. Or it will never be decided, in which case the long-term version of the article will simply state that. Meanwhile, no need to write the article from the side of one of the parties. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to discuss the legality of the data reveal except as reported in RS. Among authorities on the law, there is not even agreement about which country the incident occurred in and whether or not it was illegal where it was done. All such speculation is completely immaterial and not helpful to resolving the disputes in this article.Jarhed (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(I apologize, I confused two different blogs.Jarhed (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Deletion of Q5

Given the very apparent controversy over the answer to Q5, can we please delete the question entirely until we reach consensus on its answer? Its current form has been broadly rejected.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tabula rasa on the "theft" issue

Could someone concisely lay out exactly what change they would like made to the article, and what sources support that change with respect to the "theft" vs "alleged theft" vs "leaked" vs "insider," or whatever? I'm having a hard time following. I would really appreciate it if the format of the change include the current text and the prospective text, along with the sources that are used, and the sources that will be used, along with the specific part of the to-be-used sources that justify the changes. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggested change is that WP does not conclude a "theft" has occurred until a reliable source preferably the police confirms this as a result of investigation. Until then WP should call it an "alleged theft" or the article should say "X says there was a theft". And the same for "hack". There are no WP:RS sources which confirm theft or hack. There are no sources saying there was no theft or no hack - nobody has come forward to own up to releasing it deliberately or by mistake. But I am not saying we should say there no theft and no hack, so I need not provide a source and I cannot: At the moment no WP:RS definitively says anything conclusive about the manner of the unauthorised publication or that this would amount to theft. Readers of WP must not be led by WP to think things which are not established facts. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV reasons that "theft" is an issue is because editors on one side of the issue see it as unfair that the emails were likely obtained or revealed illegally, and thus focus more on the possible crime involved in that. Editors on the other side of the issue see possible or likely illegal behavior in the emails themselves and are not concerned about whether their revelation was a crime. I think it is obvious that both sides have important points to raise and I wish everyone would just raise them and stop it with the POV pushing. As far as authoritative facts on the theft itself, there is no single person on the planet that can ascertain that, and the facts might not be known for years if ever. Of course we can stick to published facts that are known and move forward.Jarhed (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this again. "I would really appreciate it if the format of the change include the current text and the prospective text, along with the sources that are used, and the sources that will be used, along with the specific part of the to-be-used sources that justify the changes. Thanks!" Hipocrite (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Title, Hopefully Neutral Enough

Unable to form supermajority. Proposal fails. My deepest thanks to those who somehow managed to avoid commenting. My deepest scorn for those who lacked restraint.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Following the discussion initiated above by SCJessey, and keeping in mind the criticisms leveled against the word "release", I would like to propose "Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy". *I* like it because I proposed it and I'm enormously self-centered. Others may like it because it avoids any reference to "hack/theft/release". I am proposing this in no small part because Wikidemon asked whether there would be *any* title I would support over "Climategate", and I began to feel some small hint of shame that I may have been an impediment to progress. So.

If a supermajority (>66%) of editors agree to this title, it is my intention to request that an admin make the change. I would like to close this section on Tuesday the 5th of January. Nightmote (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea. A move discussion that lacks discussion is pretty much worthless. Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Without comment, "Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy", yea or nay, and my sincere apologies if I have seemed an ass as opposed to an honorable foe.

yea Nightmote (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

nay - to begin with, abbreviations in articles titles are a bad idea. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Big yea for Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was being lazy and have changed CRU to Climatic Research Unit. I removed the 2009, as well. Nightmote (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yea for Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (comment moved) Troed (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — Troed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cs32en 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en please revert that silly attempt, false as it is, at discrediting me. Troed (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at your contributions before making such claims. Cs32en 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're purposely trying to create a revert war due to your obviously (for anyone clicking that link and bothering to go back to 2007) false accusation and from the discussion at your talk page. I have no intention in going down that path. Troed (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down (though I appreciate your thoughtfulness) Nightmote (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Full support. In fact, I proposed this very same title 11 days ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nyet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down.Nightmote (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Non --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
aye 98.220.51.203 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 98.220.51.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. whoops, Textmatters (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
yea --Pevos (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
nein. Let's stop wasting time talking about the article name William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yea. --DGaw (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
無. In fact, double-plus 無. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Plus Good Arzel (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No Cannot agree to any change without discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No A furore by some bloggers does not a controversy make. Lumos3 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down. Nightmote (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes The current name is incredibly stupid, plus it was not an e-mail hack :) mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — Marknutley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cs32en 16:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down. Nightmote (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that at all in keeping with "voting is evil" principle? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed yet again when an earlier proposal to do exactly the same thing has just been closed for lack of consensus? (#Requested move, above.) This is a waste of everyone's time. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no comments. Just an up or down.Nightmote (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — Adam.T.Historian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. New account with advanced editing skills. Cs32en 12:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It's an "e-mail incident", not a "documents controversy". Cs32en 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Neigh. New accounts used for voting, noted. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No Gandydancer (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No Even if the contents of the documents may be controvertial, the focus of this article should be something that has been called an incident. Masudako (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Full Support: Lets get this over with.jhe_iv (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
NO Data is the CORRECT description - Gunnanmon (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
NO Bertport (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
YES That title makes much more sense due to the fact that most of the files released were actually documents unrelated to emails. Of course, Climategate makes more sense, but I guess that's already been shot down for some silly reason.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information released where emails, the rest were miscellaneous files; data is appropriate. - Gunnanmon (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I actually downloaded the files, I know what I'm talking about - there are far more documents (nearly 4 times) than email text files.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR? Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You do use google right? The # has been mentioned in many sources - also, WP:OR is specifically stated not to apply to simple things like "counting." TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes pretty pointless though since this obviously isn't going to achieve consensus or a super majority or whatever (which in itself is a recipe for disaster). I'm also not sure why we don't follow the WP:RM process even if it isn't required since this even if did achieve anything is a recipe for disaster. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) No Opposing on principle. I see a similar proposal following WP:RM just closed which I would have supported had I noticed but would have still failed I'm sure. I don't see why we're having this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No Time to stop the naming nonsense and move on. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that the overwhelmingly vast majority of contributors to this topic think the existing title is bad. This large group has, thus far, been unable to come up with an alternative that wins a majority of support. If a !vote were to be taken on the existing title, it would receive far less support than many of the other alternatives that have been put forward. It is for this reason that the discussion on the title must continue. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Answer (1): Yes! This article is not about just another "hacking incident", it is be about the ensuing controversy over the revealed material. We are going to fully document the Climatgate controversy here and the controversy is not the release of the material but what is revealed in the material. OR, if you don't like that, like this:
Answer (2): No! There is a separate Climategate controversy under prep in user space. This article is only about the incident. This leak is but a little footnote in history. Climategate will be discussed fully elsewhere. You can't have it both ways. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, unless Climategate controversy is split out, in which case the current title is probably fine. Oren0 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Jarhed (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Support--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll: How much support does the existing title have?

Oppose -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - actually, the current title goes squarely against WP:NPOV and should thus be edited for neutrality without the need for votes/consensus, although it would be preferred if there could be consensus on the new neutral version. Troed (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this in an absolute sense, or a relative sense? If we want a straw poll, my suggestion would be to use one to find out which alternative wording has the most support, and then use that as the basis of a move request. That would allow us to investigate and a variety of possible wordings. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create a table of all possible (reasonable) title examples and then have vote. How about something like that? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your continued effort to improve the title! I think this attempt to demonstrate there is consensus for some change is valuable. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Prefer Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy. As someone completely uninvolved coming here to look into this I find this to be the most neutral title proposed so far. I also want to say that the whole "Please no comments. Just an up or down" attitude is not going to make the discussion any more productive. We should not me just giving a thumbs up or down, but should be making cogent and convincing arguments. We don't vote on things here, we do poll to check the status of consensus, but those polls should include reasoning that attempts to convince others of your point of view. We are run by consensus, not majority. A "vote" that has no reason or justification behind it means pretty much nothing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Faulty question - even if no support is shown, all you will have demonstrated is that there is no general support for any title (which i suspect is true), it is time to leave this question, since continuing is futile. Once there is more development about this case (which there will be in February/beginning of this year), there will be plenty of opportunity to take this up again.. Imho most people are trying to "jump the gun" in this case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not follow that because there is no consensus that the current title is the best. Another will find more consensus, I am sure. In particular losing the word "hack" when even the victim's own spokespeople are unsure as to whether a hack is concerned, to the extent that they have set up their own enquiry to determine how the leak occurred. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support in preference to the alternatives that have been offered. Cs32en 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Title reflects the view that the controversy is the unauthorised release of the material. No, this type of leak happens every week: A bank's database is released, etc etc, and we rarely document that type of hack/leak here at WP. What is noteworthy is what is revealed in the material. That is the controversy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Be careful when going down the road of "let's dogpile on the current title", as when so much opposition piles up, it can lead to a change just for the sake of changing, because people get it in their heads that something simply must be done. This is exactly how Israeli apartheid got watered down to Allegations of Israeli apartheid which was further neutered into the current Israel and the apartheid analogy. If a change is to be made, then make it solely for the sake of the new term being acceptable, and not for any shortcomings of this one. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't be saying that if the title of this article was Anthropogenic Climate Change is bullshit, would you? To some, the current title as almost that bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose current title as watered down and missing the point. Oren0 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
awful, a bunny died in heaven for that title - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support per Tarc and everything I have said on the matter during these almost daily polls for weeks now: Let's wait until we have some information upon which to base a meaningful (not simply POV) change in the title. --Nigelj (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- current title is POV, misses the point, and is just awful. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- Jarhed (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- If the article were about the hacking alone, as the title currently suggests, it would have been deleted or merged into another article long ago. The notability of the event rests, instead, in the controversy surrounding the contents of the emails.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, current title is an embarrassment to anyone who cares more about WP than they care about the CRU. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jones email 19th take two

editing for clarity: apparently my sentence could be misread. this proposal is about REMOVING the current link to a blog, REPLACING it with a link to CNN. A slight rephrasing is also necessary due to the new source, but the meaning is the same as the one currently in the article and thus this should be a trivial change to enact in the spirit of making the current article better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troed (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the archives it was brought up that the current source for a statement in the article could be seen as unreliable. I believe sources have been found that we can agree on are more neutral and reliable. I'm thus proposing making a change to that effect.

The last paragraph here should be changed from it's current wording and link to McIntyre's own blog to the following:

Stephen McIntyre claimed that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted of not showing that the tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century, and that since it's unknown whether this unreliability of the proxy compared to the temperature record also exists in earlier periods the most reasonable interpretation is that these particular records can't be used to estimate temperatures in the past. [22]

There was a discussion as well in the archive on how to reference McIntyre here. If we feel we need to, I'd suggest using the same source and simply adding that he appeared in a panel on the subject at CNN since he's named in the emails in question. Troed (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people say lots of things. Why is this notable? Hipocrite (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's notable because this is the Climategate controversy which some here prevent being documented at WP. McIntyre has been questioning the research of the CRU and some of his criticisms are seemingly acknowledged by Phil Jones in the e-mails revealed by the "hacking incident" (unauthorised publication of the CRU e-mails). Phil Jones admits in e-mail to the "trick" of "hiding the decline". The trick is this: The tree ring data is used as a key plank in the argument supporting conclusions re ancient temperatures, yet when recent tree ring data is shown to be a most unreliable proxy of recent known temperatures that part of the tree ring data is ignored, instead of questioning whether tree ring data can be used as reliable proxy for ancient temperatures. More honest, says McIntyre (and so says the scientific method) would be to discard the tree ring data completely. But that would remove a pillar of the climate change argument. Phil Jones elected not to do that. Why? asks McIntyre. That is why this is notable. McIntyre essentially says Jones is not acting scientifically. The best response Jones has is that McIntyre is an idiot. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of the trick is noted, but conflicts with reliable sources. In one figure for a report, a graph showed the climate changes found by three different studies: one, which relied only on tree rings and temperature readings unlike the other two which also used other proxies, was according to its authors to be disregarded post 1960, and the post 1960 part of it was not shown in the graph. The scientists concerned were already openly questioning the cause and implications of the divergence problem causing the problem, and had published on the unreliability of the tree ring proxy [as shown by post 1960 decline in tree ring density correspondence with temperature, as I understand]. That's a paraphrase of Phil Jones's response, which includes the statement that "As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report." As for discarding the tree ring data completely, that is indeed shown in this study published at the start of 2008. Whether that makes McIntyre look an idiot is a matter of opinion, but it does clearly suggest that gullible people have been misled by McIntyre disregarding other proxies and published scientfic studies. Maybe that's an aspect of the "controversy" that we should make explicit. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of that aspect and all aspects of the controversy being made explicit. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, McIntyre is being asked to reflect upon this by the media in relation to this event, and is an involved party since he's named in the emails. Looking at the article, McIntyre is thus more notable than the Real Climate blog entry we're currently reporting from. Troed (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. What are we using the blog to say? Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest another section if you want to go into notability of Real Climate, which was not my intention. I answered your question about McIntyre's notability above. I'd also like to clarify that I'm simply trying to correct a source that was contested by someone else, in the spirit of making the article better. Troed (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> There's the question of the self published source of McIntyre's blog being used without any other source that his minority, and in scientific terms fringe view, is notable as an opinion on this specific issue. That he's notable in other areas of this controversy doesn't mean that we should cite his blog opinion on every email. There's also the question of giving undue weight to his minority view by presenting it as the last word on the topic: McIntyre should know that the unreliability of that specific proxy was already known at the time of the email, which was discussing how to avoid presentations being skewed by that unreliability, and that there has been subsequent research comparing its outcome with alternative proxies. However, as a published expert on fringe science notes, a common theme is the "zombie argument" which ignores further research. The research in question is referred to in the Real Climate quotation in the article on the "divergence problem" — "see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper" which refers to this 1997 paper on Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia which concludes that "Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats." Regardless of whether or not we quote McIntyre's opinion, we should either quote or summarise that 1997 research. Must pause now, will aim to produce suggestion for a suitable summary. . . dave souza, talk 13:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that my suggestion above solves the problem that we're currently linking to McIntyre's blog without creating other changes to the article as it stands? You were the one to originally bring it up after all, I just went looking for WP:RS to that effect. Troed (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't very clear from the above, but now looking at the link I see you're citing the CNN transcript of a broadcast from December 7, 2009, to cite McIntyre as one of those selected for the program. If we accept that appearance on a CNN "special investigation" as the story was developing has sufficient significance to appear in the brief summary in the article, then the timing and content of McIntyre's views would fit best as an expansion of the sentence that "Some critics cite this sentence as evidence that temperature statistics are being manipulated." The program also includes releveant points from Mann, the "fact that these data shouldn't be used after 1960 because of this divergence", and from Michael Oppenheimer that other research data and analyses showed the same conclusion. That's a fairer representation of that particular source, but it's not an ideal source for a scientific issue. So, simply changing the paragraph to your draft doesn't solve the problems. . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your points, but I must stress that I'm only trying to fix the sourcing issue here - not to make any larger changes to the article as it stands. Reading the archived discussion, and the fact that no other replies were made, had me believe there was indeed consensus as to both notability and the quality of the CNN panel source. When the article is un-protected I suggest we bring the section up for discussion again, with your points above in mind. Troed (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri>The problem wasn't with the source, but rather that we can't use a blogger to analyse science. We use scientists to analyse science. We use climate scientists to analyse climate science. Guettarda (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I read the archive. McIntyre is a published scientist in the area, is being asked for his opinion by reliable media and is also a named party in the emails in question. The paragraph thus has three valid reasons for being included, and all three of them together is a very strong argument. It would not be prudent of us to start validating scientists, it would border on being WP:OR when we have WP:RS arguments for inclusion. Troed (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is a very respected scientist, guettarda. RealClimate, on the other hand, has showed to be a tool to push the AGW through. The emails show time after time the involved scientists always offering to use the realclimate to attack the skeptics. Either way, realclimate is referred on this article, and been McIntyre involved, I think we should point to his explanation on this issueEchofloripa (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your skepticism is showing, but respect in science relates to published work in the field. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntrye has been published in the field. He is a reliable source, and he has been contacted multiple times for his perspective. CNN and FNC have both talked about this. Just last night FNC ran a report on Climategate and had McIntrye on. Mann would not respond to calls to appear. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific papers, not TV appearances. --Nigelj (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> From what I've seen, he's published on statistical analysis and his expertise relates to that specific aspect of the studies rather than the field as a whole. His remarks in the CNN source fail to acknowledge that the 2001 study was based on more proxies than the tree rings, and his views seem very much to be a minority view among experts in the field. While we can describe such opinions as minority views, we must also show the context of majority scientific views and show them as such. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop us discussing proposals and hopefully reaching agreement as to what's to be implemented. The sourcing does show how the controversy was presented in the news as it developed, and as such may be useful for describing the controversy rather than the science. Note that McIntyre is introduced as "one of the skeptics who was named in one of those e-mails" and, after the break, as "slammed in a number of those e-mails for questioning global warming". The discrepancy is prsumably due to the first intro using the singular by mistake, but the point that he's a skeptic questioning global warming is essential context for his remarks. The paraphrase of his claims looks a bit incorrect to me, will think more about that. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The paraphrase comes from two quotes, and I feel I'm accurately representing them: "The tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century. [...] they didn't show the decline." and "No one knows why it became unreliable or whether the unreliability existed in earlier periods. The most reasonable interpretation of it is that you can't use these particular records to estimate temperatures in the past." Troed (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to use McI? The meaning of the phrase is clear - the person who used it has explained it. Second-hand commentary from McI adds nothing useful. Moreover, the second sentence (No one knows why...) is straying off into another issue, which is the divergence problem, which we already mention. The existing text from McI is also irrelevant, and straying off - McI's opinion that all the tree-rings are useless doesn't have a place in this article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the tree rings aren't reliable since 1960 why should they be reliable for any period? The CRU is using the proxy when it suits them and not when it's not. That seems unscientific to me, and you don't have to be an expert in climate to know so, that's just basic scientific method. The unreliability of the tree ring data makes relying on it non-sensical, it's circular, fallacious. McI points this out: "Hiding the decline" (a phrase from Jones' e-mail released in the docs) is dishonest, and would remain dishonest no matter what language Jones used. It, and McI's opinion about it, deserves a place in the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that I remain unconvinced that that appearance on a CNN "special investigation" as the story was developing has sufficient significance to appear in the brief summary in the article, McIntyre does seems to be a published critic but that doesn't mean we have to give his views a prominent place on every issue. If we do find that his views on an issue have been published in suitable reliable sources to the extent that they're notable as an aspect of the "controversy" rather than the science, they remain minority scientific views and have to be described as such, as my comments below. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the leak of emails from CRU. Mainstream media is reporting on the controversy, and when doing so they consider the views of McIntyre to be important to report due to his status as a published scientist who's involved in the controversy. It's not up to us to judge whether they are correct or not in doing so. WP:NPOV. Your comment would be more correct if this article was about the divergence problem. Troed (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a point that's coming up in my examining the proposal. Per WP:WEIGHT, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> Troed, comments on your proposal. As you say, you've sourced it from two well separated statements. The first, in the context of being asked if he thinks it's an attempt to shut down criticism, is to agree, and state that the trick was not disclosing in 2001 IPCC report that the "tree ring records" went down then immediately somewhat contradicting that by stating that the email was about the 1999 World Meteorological Report and that "they simply substituted temperature information for the tree ring information to show the record going up when it went down." While the above proposal is undoubtedly a good faith paraphrase of these points, I think it misses the important context that it's about two specific reports. The second part responds to a question as to whether he agrees with Mann's reported statement that the data became unreliable in the 1960s for reasons other than that a temperature decline, and I think your summary there is reasonable but it's a separate issue and should not run on from the previous question. So, accepting that a modified version can accurately reflect McIntyre's claims, that minority view has to be shown in the context of the mainstream view and must not obscure the mainstream view. The logical way to do that is to show the "trick" aspect in the context of the mainstream statement about it, with clarification of what is meant by "decline" as that's a bit unclear. Contrary to the impression he gives that the "divergence" was not disclosed, the issue was discussed in a previously published papers cited on the 1991 diagram. As to his latter statement, the mainstream view is that the divergence should be investigated, the tree ring record compared with other proxies, and evaluation done with the tree ring record omitted. See the paper I've referenced above. Given that McIntyre seems to still be producing information in more reliable sources than a few words on a TV show it would be helpful to find a better source of his views to avoid any misinterpretation. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"The article is about the leak of emails from CRU" - we aren't using McIntyre as a source on the theft, we're using his opinion on the science. We're using a blog post of his as a source on the science. A blog post. He's not enough of an expert on the science that a blog post of his counts as a reliable source. Ask yourself this - would you use a blog post from Stoat as a reliable source for this article? After all, William has a PhD in the field, and he has several papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Stoat is a far better source on the science than is Climate Audit, per our policy on self-published sources. If you aren't comfortable with using Stoat, you can't seriously be suggesting that Climate Audit is a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This story is controversial enough without arguing over sources. Let's stick to reliable ones--no blogs.Jarhed (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. This whole section, my proposal, is about CHANGING the current sourcing in the article from a blog, ClimateAudit, to a reference on CNN instead. In my mind it's a trivial and obvious correction to make that only makes the article better without any other changes and I don't really understand why it got to be such a huge discussion. Troed (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The rewrite so far is an improvement on the current situation, but continues to give undue weight to the fringe view of one of those interviewed in the TV program, and should it also show the mainstream response. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't change my main point. McIntyre is not an expert on the science, so regardless of who a CNN producer decided to interview for that segment, we aren't interested in his analysis of the science any more than we're interested in any other well-known non-scientist. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is a published scientist. He has a maths degree, and has been a postgraduate student. He has caused/forced the global warming stats for N.America to be revised downwards significantly. This work here is universally accepted, not disputed: He was instrumental in causing a highly respected climate research body to revise its model, and he was thanked for it. If you do not know this, fair enough. But it is very widely known. McIntyre is an expert in the statistics and modelling of climate science. Several mainstream climate scientists have said that McIntyre has interesting things to say, that his criticisms deserve to be addressed. To say otherwise simply betrays your POV. Paul Beardsell (talk)

Who can speak for who?

The CRU can speak for itself.
Imagine if the CRU were a person and shouted on the sidewalk "Help! I've been robbed!". That makes it a report of robbery, right?
The CRU is free to say "hack" or "theft" if they so choose - but if we quote them, we need to source them to news pieces which actually quote them.
If we source any quotes to the CRU press-releases hosted on their website, are those valid sources? Are they primary sources or secondary?
Those associated with or work for the CRU, can offer personal opinions, but unless those statements are definitely being made on behalf of the CRU in a spokesperson role, then they do not speak for the CRU and are therefore not an authoritative source for the CRU's positions.
The police can speak for themselves
The police can assert they are investigating.
Direct quotes from the police, reported via valid news sources, are the best source for what the police are actually saying and have said.
The police can say if they feel/suspect/think a crime may have been committed.
In absence of a criminal conviction, only a reasonably comprehensive post-investigation report is a valid source for the conclusion that a crime has been committed.
Until such time that authoritative formal conclusions that crime has occurred are released, an unqualified use of "theft" and "stolen" - from an official standpoint, would be presumptive.

It's not for us to say it's "true" that a crime has been committed. Rather, it's up to us to report what those in authority say about this - and the authorities have not released any conclusions yet. This means that until then, any source which makes a conclusion by using an unqualified "theft" or "stolen" is definitely a POV source and makes the article POV. We can avoid this by saying what I suggested - that this episode has variously been reported as a "leak" and a "theft". By this means we acknowledge both sides, without taking sides.

When you add all these up, I think this issue is best resolved by the suggested edit I offered here Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Fully_sourced_suggested_change_to_article_introduction, with the exception that "reportedly" be used instead of my suggested "possibly". 7390r0g (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually a determination that a crime has been committed is made before the investigation, but individuals are presumed innocent until proved guilty. If someone breaks into your house, your local newspaper does not call it an "alleged burglary" and opine that you may not be telling the truth. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a "determination" (ref dictionary), you mean "assumption". Yes, maybe, but: (1) WP does not make these assumptions or report them as if they were fact. (2) In this case this was not a "burglary" (ref dictionary) but the unauthorised publication of information, and that may or may not be theft. It could have been released by mistake. If released deliberately this could be a breach of the civil law, not the criminal law (and theft is a criminal offence, not a civil one). Taking without permission is not necessarily theft, neither is old fashioned copyright violation. Unauthorised release of info has a public interest defence, potentially. There are many reasons not yet to conclude theft. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "for whom"? Guettarda (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again - the press releases are issued by the University of East Anglia, not the CRU; they are posted in the Marketing and Communications section of the UEA's official website at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements . They are corporate press releases of the university, listed on its press releases page at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press . The branch of the UEA issuing them is the Marketing and Communications division of the UEA, not the CRU. The CRU has a separate website at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ . Let's please try to get this right. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A careful newspaper would use a qualifier like "reported", "alleged", or the like, to cover most any police investigation or crime report. Quite a few of them turn out to be mistaken, false, or even fraudulent. We aren't the police so we're the last people who should be deciding on the accuracy of an apparent victim's account of a purported crime. If the weight of the high quality third party neutral sources are reporting the incident as a crime, hack, or the like, then I think it's fair that we should drop the qualifiers and attributions and simply report what they say. Without that certainty we should qualify it in a neutral way, respecting WP:WTA, with an attribution like "X said that Y". We shouldn't base that distinction solely on a logical analysis made here among Wikipedia editors. We can look to the sources for guidance here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Turning to my copy of the Associated Press Stylebook, it says: "The word [allege] must be used with great care ... Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it. Do not say: He attended the alleged meeting when what you mean is: He allegedly attended the meeting." In this case, there is no dispute among reliable sources that the reported event occurred. The unknown factor is who did it, not whether it happened. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO. Your line of thinking is sound, but I am unsure if I agree with your point. It's undisputed that the email/documents have been disseminated. It's undisputed that the CRU, as the keeper of the records, is in a position to say that they were released on an unauthorized basis. But it's not unanimous in the media that this is a "theft". There are a number of reliable sources using the word "leak". What's in contention is not that something happened. Rather, what's in contention is how to most neutrally refer to what happened. If some reliable sources say "leak" and there's no conclusion from the authorities that it was "theft", then as per my suggestion, we should say This episode has variously been described in the media as a "leak" and as a "theft". This is the most neutral way to describe it. As I see it, for us to say "theft" is like Morty Seinfeld saying "My wallet's gone! My wallet's gone!", when he's missing his wallet at the doctor's office. Later, the facts come out - he had actually misplaced it. Similarly, it may very well be that legal officials will eventually determine that this was a "theft", but they haven't done so yet and until then, current sources support both "leak" and "theft". And please take note that my suggestion completely avoids using the problem word "alleged".7390r0g (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it." So who was the hacker? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know, obviously. But the fact of the hack is not in dispute in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then what was the point of citing the Associated Press Stylebook? This particular argument seems invalid given the fact that the dispute over who participated in it is not over. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Our guidelines take a similar approach. It also says: "Alleged (along with allegedly) can also be misused to cast doubt on a statement, and should not be used as a routine qualifier". If we have reliable sources that question the "fact" of the hack, the way to deal with it is to say "but xx questions whether it was a hack". Simple enough. But make sure that the dissenting view is notable enough that we aren't creating problems by putting undue weight on minority opinions. Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. The WP page you point has notation on it as an example of "Acceptable use" of the word "alleged": O.J. Simpson was charged with murder by the State of California after he was alleged to have murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994." [In the context of a legal action, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by a privileged source such as a prosecutor". Note how the sentence attributes the allegations.] This clearly supports the use of the word "allege" but I recommend against it - we can edit around that word by using my suggestion (see above). In that manner, we remove an impediment to consensus. 7390r0g (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it says that the state alleged that he committed murder. It does not say that the state charged him with an alleged murder. Despite the fact that Simpson was acquitted of the crime, it's still correct to speak of the murder (not "alleged murder"). Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. Bearing in mind that I feel we can still be effectively NPOV even without the word "alleged", I think you are misunderstanding the word usage. However, since I am not a linquist, I have not much to offer other than a few examples. If this helps, good. If not, please feel free to offer other examples. Any of thse would be fine examples of criminal allegation related edits:

1 Joe Blow has been charged with murder. It is alleged that he shot Tommy Tudly."

2 Police are investigating an alleged robbery of Al's pawn shop. Al called the police last week and reported he was robbed.

3 This controversy arose in Nov, 2009, after reports that the CRU email system was "hacked" [direct quote source]. According to [source], information was "taken without authority" [direct source quote] and released on the Internet. According to the CRU, the electronic records in question "appear[s] to have been illegally taken" [direct quote source]. One source close the the CRU, Professor Trevor Davies, characterizes the materials as having been "stolen", though some sources in the media report that the emails and documents were "leaked" [sources]. Police are investigating this as a possible crime [source].

My point is, instead of fistfighting over one or two words, let's see if we can craft sentences that helps get both supported views into things. Of my three examples, #1 and #2 both show correct usage of "alleged". But #3 is better because both views of "leaked" and "hacked/stolen" are represented and the bugbear word of "alleged" is avoided. I hopt this helps. 7390r0g (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarity: 73's example (3) above would satisfy me completely. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO and Guettarda, I think there's a misunderstanding here. You're correct in that Wikipedia should not add qualifiers as "alleged" since that would correctly be weasel wording, possibly changing the effect of statements etc. However, this does obviously not apply when quoting them from reliable sources. Then they're there for a reason, and us dropping the qualifiers would - just as if we added them - change the contents of the statements. That we must never do. Troed (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Words to Avoid has a special qualifier for "alleged": "...the use of 'alleged' as a verb may be appropriate in a legal context..."--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. So which sources use "alleged" to imply that there is doubt? After all, we don't copy formatting for formatting's sake. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And if some sources are using "alleged" to imply doubt, then we document the differences of opinion. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. We've moved past the problems with the word "alleged". The best solution seems to be to craft the words in such a way as to make both views clear and not side with either view, while at the same time citing everything back as close to it's original source as possible. This avoids trouble and yields a good result. What do you think about my #3 in this section? Would you support that? 7390r0g (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need the verbal gymnastics in 3, because 2 is already wrong by the WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS. Where are the main sources saying 'alleged theft'? Where are the sources actually saying that the owners of these emails and docs (i.e. the management of UEA or of the CRU) knowingly and intentionally published these emails onto the internet, and that only roguish sources within the UEA are pretending this was a theft? I have not come across such a theory in print yet. The fact of the theft is in no doubt. Even if some politically motivated member of UEA staff copied the data onto an internet server and told his Russian friends the URL, that was still a theft unless he was instructed to do so by his employers, the rightful owners of the files. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

see this and this for such examples of "alleged" from WP:RS Troed (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, you need to correct CRU to UEA in #s 1-5. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP banner on this talk page

Editors here are concerned that no slanderous or libelous information should be introduced into this article. I think we can all agree that this should be the case. That said, I want the BLP banner taken off of this article. This is not a bio and should not be treated as one (except for no slanderous or libelous information, of course). This article is about an ongoing controversy, and it is impossible and idiotic to write intelligibly on this subject without referring to aspects of the controversy that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. I say for the third time, no slanderous or libelous information of course, so please do not use that as an excuse for keeping the banner on this page.

I would like for us to discuss this and if no adequate justification can be given in the next 24 hours (except for no slanderous or libelous information), then I intend to take the banner off. Its presence on this article is absurd and it can be perceived as POV pushing, not (4th mention) protecting the article from slanderous or libelous information.Jarhed (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the BLP tag relates to the fact that stating there was a theft is making accusations against persons unknown who are presumably living persons. That does not really make sense to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, so the banner doesn't matter. Prodego ^talk 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does not matter and should come off.Jarhed (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the emails suggest criminal behavior on the part of the individuals named in the emails. The point of the banner is that the people in the emails are innocent until proven guilty, and acusations can harm them.Jarhed (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP banner is there supposedly to stop us documenting the conduct revealed in the content of the unauthorised publication. I.e. to prevent WP documenting Climategate. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the same feeling and I would like for it to stop. I am not yet convinced that it is impossible for us to come to agreements on this article.Jarhed (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all biographical information regardless of the topic. In this particular case, we have 3 or 4 scientists who might have broken the law or engaged in unethical behavior. The WP:BLP need to be there as a reminder that we have to follow this policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that the banner is there to remind people of WP guidelines. Instead, BLP policy is being used to prevent the inclusion in this article of data about the controversy that is being reported by reliable sources. I note that virtually every controversial article in the article space has this banner on it. In other words, it is used by some editors to push POV. I think it should come off.Jarhed (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, the banner could be perceived as some kind of threat, kind of like posting the city noise regulations outside a nightclub. But I think there are worse things to worry about around here than a proliferation of talk page header banners. We may disagree on specific applications of BLP but for the most part we all believe in the policy and want to follow it, right? I think it cuts both ways - there are lots of people of different political stripes mentioned and they all need to be treated with the respect accorded them by BLP. In fact, I think it is the researchers themselves who we need to be the most careful about because their reputations and life work are under assault. Unnamed lawbreakers really don't have BLP protections, not if their identities are unstated. The banner itself is neutral, so any implication that the banner itself is being used abusively is a bit of speculative reasoning and perhaps an expectation of bad faith. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then why is the banner there if everyone is supposed to be assuming good faith?Jarhed (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The banner isn't the problem. It's the invalid use of WP:BLP that's the problem. In most situations, as long as we follow WP:RS, it's not a WP:BLP violation. The few exceptions that WP:BLP adds (such as sexual orientation) currently don't apply to this article. This is the only article that I edit in this topic space, so I can't speak definitively about the others, but if WP:BLP is being misapplied, I suggest that you point this out. We also have a WP:BLPN where (hopefully) uninvolved editors can offer their opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the invalid use of BLP is the problem. I have been involved in disputes on BLPs over this very issue. It can be argued that unproven allegations should not be put in a BLP, even if properly documented. However, I will say this for about the 18th time, this article is not a BLP, and there is no justification for trying to keep out reliably sourced investigations and allegations using BLP policy.Jarhed (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"In most situations, as long as we follow WP:RS, it's not a WP:BLP violation" - if that were the case, then we wouldn't need a separate BLP policy, we wouldn't have a Foundation declaration on the topic. Our policy on biographies of living people holds us to a far higher standard than our guideline on reliable sources. (Please note that WP:BLP is policy, while WP:RS is only a guideline.) Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what I was trying to say. I agree that we should not put libelous information in this article. However, if an investigation or allegation has been reported in a reliable source, it can be used for this article, even if such inclusion is not necessarily appropriate for a BLP. I would like to know if anyone disagrees with this, because it seems as if I am merely restating WP policy.Jarhed (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP is about much more than just reliable sourcing. An article may be completely compliant with WP:RS but still be unacceptable from a BLP perspective. Please see WP:BLP#Criticism and praise for a key set of criteria that apply to this article in particular. WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy is another important criterion, especially: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization [of someone who is the victim of another's actions]". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying and I agree with it in principle. However, I know from experience that what you are saying is in no way some settled fact that everybody agrees with. I have had the exact opposite argument with people on other BLPs and they are just as adamant as you are about putting in reliably sourced data. As long as you understand that what you are saying is your opinion only and is open to interpretation, then we agree. If we must go for arbitration to get a source in, we must. However, generally speaking, editors should be able to include data in this article from any reliable source. The repeated notion that BLP somehow applies to this article is flat wrong, except (for the 20th time) no slander. Finally, I feel that your lecturing tone is condescending to me, and I will thank you in advance for civility toward me going forward.Jarhed (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No condescension was intended and I apologise if my comments came over that way. The scope of BLP is defined by the very first sentence of WP:BLP, which defines it as "information about living persons [on] any Wikipedia page." In other words, not just biographies. Material that violates the BLP policy does not somehow become excluded from BLP by virtue of being posted on a non-biographical article. Please note also that the presence of the template has nothing to do with whether BLP applies. The policy automatically applies to any Wikipedia page that contains information about living persons, whether or not it has been templated. The template is just a courtesy to editors to make them aware that they need to follow BLP in editing that article. This expectation exists by default; the template is merely a reminder. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that clarification, that certainly explains some things for me. However, you should know that some editors on this article, including myself, feel as if other editors are attempting to misapply BLP to this article in an attempt to push POV. I agree with you that the presence of the template has nothing to do with whether BLP applies. So do you agree with me then that the banner should come off?Jarhed (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It serves a useful purpose by informing editors who are not aware of BLP of the requirements. What purpose would be served by removing it? Surely more guidance is better than less? If you feel that editors are "attempting to misapply BLP to this article", how would removing the template help, considering that BLP is applicable by default whether or not the template is present? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is so ignorant that he thinks he can put slander in a WP article, I doubt such an editor would be bothered to read the banners at the top of the talk pages. On the other hand, over the last few days I have been told repeatedly that properly sourced mentions of the investigations and allegations surrounding climategate are prohibited in this article by BLP, which is false and nothing but POV. Removing the template would be a good start in ensuring that everyone understands that its presence on this article is controversial, because it is being used by some editors to push POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarhed (talk • contribs)

The problem you allege is not with the template; if BLP is cited to reject a particular piece of content, it can be cited whether or not the template is present, as BLP applies to every article whether or not it's been templated. It seems to me that there are two issues here. First, you appear to believe that BLP shouldn't apply to this article. You are welcome to query this at the BLP noticeboard, although I should add that the editors there will tell you what I've said here - that BLP applies to any article where information about living persons is included. Second, you object to BLP being used to exclude particular items of content. Again, I suggest you should seek advice from uninvolved editors at the BLP noticeboard, where they will be able to advise on whether a particular item of content meets the requirements of BLP. Don't forget that the onus is on you to prove that it meets BLP requirements, not on others to prove that it does not. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I allege is with certain editors who want to exclude properly sourced negative information about individuals, despite the fact that such rejection is against BLP policy. The only interpretation I can find of your statement is that you refuse to discuss any compromise position, and if I don't like it I can seek arbitration with a bunch of other editors just like us. If that is what you mean to convey then that is how it will have to be. I just expect a little bit more cooperation among good faith editors.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole discussion but as the editor who originally (I think) put the BLP template wanted to say a few things. The template should definitely not come off. BLP issues have to be considered in all articles. However it's of particular relevance here since there are several controversial claims about the people involved, particularly the reseachers so it serves as an important reminder. The fact so many people seem to think BLP doesn't matter here further proves the point. (It also categorises this page so it can be more easily monitored.) Yes the BLP template when appearing in non biographies likely shows up most commonly in controversial articles (or articles concerning controversial subjects). This isn't surprising or indicate of nefarious purposes. It happens because controversial articles are those where there's most likely to be contentious details of living people added. There's not that likely to be contentious details of living people added to Devil facial tumour disease but 2009 Richmond High School gang rape is quite a different matter. This isn't to say it's going to happen in all such articles. For example Global warming obviously a controversial article but doesn't have a BLP tag and is unlikely to need one since mentioning individuals should be rare and hopefully always in a clearly non controversial fashion (and if it is controversial it's probably more likely to be about whether they should be mentioned at all because it gives undue weight to their views which may raise some BLP issues in the talk pages but not much in the article). P.S. I should add that IMHO this discussion is a pointless waste of time. The BLP template is not going to be coming off so don't spend your time arguing over it coming off. If you believe that BLP is being misapplied then you should discuss that. Trying to remove the BLP template is just going to make people ignore you because they think you either don't understand BLP or don't care about it or perhaps even questions your motives. I should also add that I'm a fairly regular at WP:BLP/N so IMHO the inclusion of the template is completely uncontroversial (in fact, it rarely is, the issue that does arise is whether BLP applies to a certain case). Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said that BLP doesn't matter here?Jarhed (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many, but e.g. "The repeated notion that BLP somehow applies to this article is flat wrong, except (for the 20th time) no slander." (from this very discussion) & However, (please forgive me if I don't say this right) BLP stands for **BIOGRAPHY** of a living person. Inclusion of the BLP warning on this article seems absurd to me, it not being a BIOGRAPHY. (from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 15#Biography of a living person) et al. I would note that recently you've been primarily the one who's been arguing that BLP doesn't matter here or only matters for slander or some odd notion like that but I WP:AGF you've realised you were wrong and have simply forgotten that you were doing that a couple or more days ago. I appreciate that the notion BLP only applies to slander or biographies is unfortunately a fairly common one so I'm not blaming you for being under that impression for a time, but I do think it is unfortunate it took you so long to realise these notions weren't correct despite repeatedly being informed by other editors and think your example amply demonstrates why the BLP tag is quite important here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference IPCC WGI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference IPCC RKP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference BBC 4 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Age Dec 10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[IPCC_WGI-1] Cite error: The named reference IPCC WGI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[IPCC_RKP-2] Cite error: The named reference IPCC RKP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[BBC_4_Dec-3] Cite error: The named reference BBC 4 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Age_Dec_10-4] Cite error: The named reference Age Dec 10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]