Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Lede revisions and "global warming conspiracy"

I removed this assertion once again -- please see extensive discussion upthread. Please don't ropen this!

Also, my recollection is that Dellingpole credited someone at WUWT with coining the term "Climategate" -- a minor point, and I don't think this needs to be in the lede anyway. I also CE'd to supply a neutral description of Dellingpole. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, the sources support the addition of GWC and there hasn't been any evidence-based discussion on its removal by you and Arthur, only "I don't like it", and that won't fly. Also, you and Arthur have been repeatedly reminded that we don't edit based on your personal "recollection", so I'm astonished that you are once again appealing to your memory rather than the sources in the article. Is there a good reason you and Arthur don't use sources? For the record, Dellingpole describes himself as a libertarian conservative, and that is as neutral as you can get. Additionally, regardless of what you remember, the sources credit him with coining the term. Please don't make me remind you to rely on the sources again, and please don't remove sourced material without a very good reason. Unless you have something valuable to add based on actual reliable sources, I will be reverting your edits in the next few hours. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The current conspiracy bit is at least defensible, but it's drawn from a column (by Ravi Somaiya [1]), so needs to be clearly identified as his opinion, if we keep it. WP:Weight -- do we really want an obscure columnist in the lede? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Tillman, it is properly attributed to Newsweek. That's just one of the references that appears in the article. You know perfectly well and you've been reminded again and again that the observation is widely supported, including Efstathiou (2009), Pearce (2009), Venkatraman (2010), Goertzel (2010), and Winterton (2010), among many others. This is not just Somaiya's opinion. Further, it should only say global warming conspiracy, and the quote should be removed. For some reason that you and Arthur have never been able to communicate, the both of you keep removing the link and reference to the term. Why? I think I deserve an explanation as to why you and Arthur dispute the use of this term when the sources support it. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
V., you might want to reread the voluminous previous discussions on this topic, and then ask yourself why your proposed addition of global warming conspiracy has not (iirc) attracted support from other editors . We can't always keep going in circles here.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not how we edit articles or use the talk page, Tillman. Feel free to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you have some free time. If you object to material in the article, then you need to briefly explain your objection. If you can't do that, then you have no business removing or arguing for the removal of material. As I just finished explaining to you above, the addition of the term global warming conspiracy to describe the allegations and claims made by so-called "climate skeptics" (really deniers hiding under that fake term) is fully sourced, with only a few samples including Efstathiou (2009), Pearce (2009), Venkatraman (2010), Goertzel (2010), and Winterton (2010), Somaiya and many others. If you can show something wrong with these sources then do so, however, the fact that the allegations and claims are referred to as a "global warming conspiracy" is not in dispute by any source. Unless you can show such a dispute, or find something wrong with the term, then you have no business removing the material. The climate change literature is in agreement that climate skeptics/contrarians/deniers make use of conspiracy theories as a foundation of their rhetoric, and we that in the manufactured controversy at hand, and the highest quality sources confirm it. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who coined "climategate"?

Reliable sources generally give credit to libertarian conservative blogger James Delingpole for coining the term "climategate". There is at least one source that claims Andrew Bolt coined it, but Delingpole and Bolt published their respective articles on the subject on the same day, although without a timestamp from Dellingpole[2] it's not at all clear if Bolt was taking his lead from Delingpole or someone else. I say someone else because Tillman is partly correct, in that Delingpole admits he got the idea from a comment made by an anonymous blogger.[3] However, this is true with most things, in that the person who gets credit for something often draws on the ideas of others for inspiration. Nevertheless, Delingpole receives the credit for coining and popularizing the term per Booker et al. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- you have it wrong. See this article, which links to a summary of a MA thesis on the topic, and has a very detailed timeline. Just as I recalled, D. picked it up from WUWT.
The thesis might be a worthwhile resource, assuming we think its a RS.
Why don't you also address why you think this should be in the lede? It's getting pretty big.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the sources you just linked, and I'm not seeing what I have wrong. Can you specify? Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience -- several busy days in RL! I CEd to credit D. with popularizing CG, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That looks fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I've had to remove it because it introduces alliteration, which is a big no-no. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox coverage notable? Six investigations? Consensus unchanged?

Is there some particular reason to single out Fox's coverage? Removed as arguably a borderline NPOV problem, though I left the ref there. And these Wall of Text ref-farms in the lede are getting ridiculous! On my screen, footnote #7 is now 9 column inches long!! Good grief.

I tagged the "6 committees" bit as dubious -- didn't we decide to go with the 4 principal ones? Which are the other 2? List of the six??

Note that the "scientific consensus that global warming is occuring" is misleading, as none of the CG investigations actually addressed this. It is true that lots of RS opinions re this were published, but the fact that all of these are op-ed stuff (arguably, spin) needs to be addressed. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not understanding your objection nor your removal of this material.
  1. It is an established fact that the "climategate" controversy was covered more by and promoted almost exclusively by right-wing, conservative media outlets, with Fox News leading the pack. This isn't a matter of dispute. In fact, several conservative news outlets made it a matter of pride to note that only Fox was promoting the story for the first several weeks after it broke, playing into ye olde Fox effect news cycle that we know so well as true and tried: blogger break a a non-story, usually manufactured; Fox covers it and bloggers complain that other news outlets are ignoring it; mainstream media outlets begin covering it; it is later found out, weeks to months later, that the subject was completely manufactured. This has happened so many times now, that one would expect you to be familiar with it. In any case, the reliable sources on both sides of the political spectrum indicate that Fox News was instrumental in promoting the story. If you have good sources that contradict this fact, you are welcome to remove it, but you can't keep removing material that you personally disagree with due to your POV. We edit based on the sources, not on you memory of the event, nor on your beliefs. Please remember this. A NPOV problem exists when there is a disparity between the sources and the topic. When news sources on the left and right both agree that Fox News was the leader on reporting this story, there is no dispute. Although I have access to many more sources that support this material, it is, as the footnotes indicate, currently supported by Mooney & Kirshenbaum 2010; Boslough 2010; and Goldenberg 2010. I will add more right now.
  2. As for the six committees, that is completely sourced, and I encourage you to do the research. Please refrain from adding any more maintenance tags until you have a reason to add them. When you add a tag and say "didn't we decide to go with the 4 principal ones" you are admitting that you are editing from your personal memory and not from the sources. I've repeatedly asked you not to do this. If you had bothered to read the source at the end of the paragraph of that statement, you would notice footnote 11: "The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US)." When you ask "what are the other two" you are indicating that you are not reading the sources in the article. Please stop removing material because you don't have time to review the sources. Feel free to review our policy on WP:V and become familiar with it.
  3. The statement that the "scientific consensus that global warming is occurring" is not misleading in the slightest, and the sources in the current article as well as many other sources, directly address this fact in relation to this topic. This is because the entire manufactured controversy of "climategate" was designed to cast doubt and uncertainty on this statement, and this effort has been shown to have failed completely and that is exactly what the sources say. We cite the sources and they are not "op-ed's" in the slightest, they are straight news stories published by the highest-quality sources.
  4. Tillman, if you don't have time to do the research or read the sources, then please don't remove material. I have repeatedly asked you to stop doing this. If you have any further questions, direct them specifically to a particular source or statement and then please find sources of your own that you feel present a different view on the matter. I'm going to restore the previous version of the article because you have removed reliably sourced material once again for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
V, I see you restored the clause beginning "one of the research centres that constructs various global..." to the lede. Why do you think we need this? CRU is wikilinked -- this just looks like excess clutter to me. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
And now I see Arthur Rubin has tag-temed and removed it for no rational reason.[4] This is not "excess clutter", Tillman. This is how we write articles. Please familiarize yourself with the fundamental concepts of WP:BETTER, WP:AUDIENCE, WP:TECHNICAL, WP:SUMMARY, WP:LEAD. When we write articles, we write them from not from the perspective of editors who know the subject, but from the viewpoint of readers who are seeing this article for the very first time. In this example, you and Arthur have violated the trust between editors and readers by disinforming them of the subject. You and Arthur argue that the lead should say

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

instead of this:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), one of the research centres that constructs various global temperature and precipitation analyses.

Good article writing dictates that we explain the subject, including introductory material that would help contribute to the basic understanding of a technical topic. You and Arthur have both removed this information, in violation of our most basic writing guidelines. As editors, our task is to use the lead section to introduce the topic, (WP:BETTER) and make our articles acessible. Per WP:AUDIENCE:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully.

Per WP:OBVIOUS we want to convey who the CRU is (a research centre) and what they do as an organization (construct global temperature and precipitation analyses). Further, per WP:LEAD, this information is important enough to explain and include: "where uncommon terms [Climatic Research Unit] are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." That is exactly what was done per best practices and you and Arthur Rubin had no good reason for removing it. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Your "six committees" reply above is unresponsive. Again, please list them. Body of the article lists the four official investigations, as I indicated above. Please avoid adding material to the lede that isn't already in the body of the article -- please see WP:Lead. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If you define "unresponsive" as directly answering your question with the information you specifically requested, then I suggest you need a new dictionary. Why have you asked me to "list them" when I did that above at 22:10, 27 July 2011 in direct response to your previous request and I showed you where they could be found listed in the footnote. So, once again, you are asking the same question even after the answer has been provided? The body of the article only lists four, Tillman, and as the talk archives show, I've repeatedly asked for help expanding the section. Perhaps you will now do some research and help expand that section? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, your reply above fairly reeks of condescension -- which is something I and other editors have asked you to avoid. Please read (and heed) WP:Civility. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been perfectly civil, Mr. Tillman. Please acknowledge that questions have been answered instead of ignoring my answers and asking the same question over and over again. Am I being clear, Mr. Tillman?
  1. You asked for the names of the six committees at 21:02, 27 July 2011.[5]
  2. I responded with the names of the six committees sometime after 22:10, 27 July 2011, responding with, "If you had bothered to read the source at the end of the paragraph of that statement, you would notice footnote 11: "The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US)." When you ask "what are the other two" you are indicating that you are not reading the sources in the article. Please stop removing material because you don't have time to review the sources. Feel free to review our policy on WP:V and become familiar with it."[6]
  3. You responded saying my response was "unresponsive" and requested that I list them again at 18:51, 28 July 2011.
Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies re asking twice for the 6 committees.
Nevertheless, the last two two aren't in the body of the article, and as has been pointed out to you many times, it's poor practice to add material to the lede that's not yet in the article.
As for your comments re ID'ing CRU, do you really suppose any of our readers don't know how to click on a link? And please cease your repeated accusations of "tag-teaming:, which are false, against WP:AGF policy, and tiresome. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that is completely wrong. You and others keep repeating that false claim, but it has been repeatedly pointed out here that the WP:LEAD guideline allows for "specific facts [which] will often appear only in the lead...This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text", and that is what we have here. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Climate sceptics

The addition of the clause "a group opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change" is both unnecessary and inaccurate (climate sceptics is not a "group"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate skeptics, sceptics, denialists, etc. are in fact treated as a group, because they are all opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change. Do you have sources saying otherwise? Furthermore, it is necessary, because the term "climate skeptic" is inherently misleading. All climate scientists are skeptics, whereas the term "climate skeptic" implies that those who deny the evidence for anthropogenic climate change are somehow taking a wait and see attitude, a higher ground of sorts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've even transcribed an interview with a climate skeptic in the archives of this talk page just to follow their argument and the entire thing consists of moving one goal post after another, denying the evidence, and promoting alternative discredited theories. It's climate denial with lipstick. It is important, necessary, and accurate to state that the "climate skeptic" in its natural habitat is at odds with the scientific consensus to avoid any unintended misinterpretation of the term. I've got sources, what about you? Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Calling them a group is ungrammatical. You can rewrite the sentence to make them a group, but it's still unnecessary. Just click on climate sceptic, and you should be able to see what we think they are. If they're defined as something else here, we shouldn't link to climate sceptic. Furthermore, climate sceptic and climate denialists are different concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you actually throwing trivial objections at me again? Why did you add a {{content}} tag to this article, Arthur? Obviously, you realize of course, that the content maintenance tag has nothing to do with any of your objections. You do realize that, don't you? Please remove it immediately. Only climate denialists claim climate sceptics are defined differently, and they do so to try and reinvent their image. So tell me, Arthur, what is a climate sceptic, and what source are you using to support your definition? <crickets> Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Our article climate sceptic redirects to global warming controversy, and our article climate denial redirects to climate change denial. As for the source, there is no possible source which would make the clause both correct and necessary, and have the link climate sceptic be appropriate. This is not a matter of sources, but of simple logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. You've fixed the grammar. There is still no possible source which makes the clause correct and necessary, and have the link climate sceptic be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I only changed it because you were harassing me. The original wording was accurate according to the literature.[7] Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We write articles for the general reader who may not be familiar with the jargon. What is a climate skeptic? In order to help the reader along, it is best practice to briefly illustrate a concept. While we could certainly write, "Climate sceptics alleged that the emails revealed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics", that leaves the general reader wondering what is a climate sceptic? By adding, "Climate sceptics, who challenge the scientific consensus on climate change" or some variant thereof, we are prompting the reader with information about the subject under discussion to help them understand the topic. As for your wild and crazy claim that "there is still no possible source which makes the clause correct", there are probably several hundred sources available. Here's one that actually asked climate sceptics what they believe. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote. There is no possible source which makes the clause correct, necessary, and have a link to climate sceptic. (In fact, there is no possible source which has the clause correct and necessary, and no possible source which has the clause correct and link to climate sceptic, but I originally only meant all three were not possible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
What you consider "necessary" is not under discussion. We write from the sources, and we are expected to use them judiciously with attention to accuracy. That is the only thing necessary here. Again, what is a climate skeptic? Please answer the questions with sources. If you can't provide them, I'll de-link the term. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial currently. 99.181.157.254 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
List of climate skeptics currently redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. 99.181.157.254 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Climate denial earlier today redirected to Climate change denial but now gives a list to choose from ... the dark magic of wp-land. 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Of interest to the "skeptic vs. denier" ... see Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 27#Add article Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers by David Brin in the current issue of Skeptic (U.S. magazine) Vol.15 Number 4. ... Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers by David Brin in Skeptic (U.S. magazine) Vol.15 Number 4. The article differentiates between a reasonable earnest authentic skeptic and a Denialist (Michael Specter "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives" ISBN 978-1594202308 Publisher: Penguin Press HC, The October 29, 2009). 99.155.159.131 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is one from earlier: "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" by John Cook in the Chicago Tribune, and [22] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 99.109.124.167 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Brin has his article (or at least an article with the same title ;-) up on his website: http://www.davidbrin.com/climate2.htm --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thank you Stephan Schulz.  :-) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Stephan. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It's an interesting article. However, it supports a different distinction between "sceptic" and "denier". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"Different" how, exactly? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I can explain it to you, with your limited knowledge of English, and my virtually nonexistent knowledge of your native language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Inarticulate answer Art. It doesn't sound like you can explain it to the general public; with references, please ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
My guess is English is not Art's language of origin, that is why he has excessive pride in it. Just sayin' ... 99.181.135.177 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note that #BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science independent report by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, p. 67 onwards discusses "putting the mind‐set, and the tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into context.
    They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism, for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided with evidence. A denialist is not." . . . dave souza, talk 09:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some editorials removed, may belong elsewhere

I've removed the following accounts of comments about the Muir Russell report in editorials. Let's stick to the facts. We have a section for the media coverage.

The Economist said the Muir Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics." The magazine said the recent inquiries "raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere." (ref name="Economist-7-8-10">"Science Behind Closed Doors". The Economist. 8 July 2010. Retrieved 11 July 2010.)

A Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the Muir Russell study as "a 160-page evasion of the real issues." The newspaper said that "the review assumes the validity of the global warming 'consensus' while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic." (ref name="WSJ editorial">"A Climate Absolution? The alarmists still won't separate science from politics". The Wall Street Journal. 16 July 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010.)

We shouldn't be confusing facts with opinions expressed by journalists. Let's put the media coverage, which is itself quite a big part of events, in its place. 18 months ago before the facts were known we could excuse the occasional editor falling back on some bit of editorial. Now we have no such excuse. --TS 04:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. Those should go somewhere. Viriditas insisted that they don't belong in the #Media coverage section (although, I think he was objecting to my including the WSJ editorial countering the misstatements in The Economist editorial). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, could you please briefly explain why "they should go somewhere". Why are they important? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The WSJ editorial constitutes notable criticism of the report, although I strongly suspect there's better and more notable criticism in the minority report(s) of that and other investigations. In particular, (a) minority report on the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry seemed quite relevant when I read it last year. The Economist editorial may be needed to balance the WSJ editorial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
What is notable about the criticism contained in the WSJ editorial? Have other RS referred to it by name? In other words, why should it be included? What does it add of historical value to this topic? Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The opinion that the report has no value seems notable. Even if I'm wrong, you've used editorials to support your position on some of the issues, and those also need to be excised from the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You have not answered any of the questions about your comments. Again, why should the WSJ editorial "go somewhere" and why is it important? I have not "used" any editorials to support "my" position anywhere on Wikipedia. What I have done is I have supported a few editorials with secondary sources supporting and bolstering the opinion of an editorial. This appears to be a continuing theme with you, Arthur, such that you are unable to differentiate between an opinion or a position held by an editor and an opinion or position held by a source. We always write from the POV of the latter, never the former. Now, what needs to be "excised" from this article? Please don't engage in holding this article hostage until your "demands" are met. Engage directly in a discussion about how to improve this article. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Verdict

I put caveats on the verdict; however, further caveats may be necessary. According to the article, (in regard possible violations of section 50 of the FOIA), "[t]he ICO would consider whether the e-mail disclosures indicated that any further action was appropriate to ensure future compliance." Doesn't sound like full exoneration to me. It also reports, in regard the alleged section 77 violations, that the ICO could not investigate, and there's no mention of any of the other committees investigating. Nobody really addressed the question of whether a timely investigation would have uncovered violations of section 77. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The responsibility of any alleged violations of the FOIA have fallen on the university, not on the CRU or its scientists, nor does it reflect on the quality of its research, which is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence. We generally don't edit Wikipedia articles based on editorial interpretations of primary sources because editors are likely to misinterpret them based on their own POV. Please provide good, reliable and current secondary sources reflecting your edits. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You're assuming that only CRU and the individual scientists were accused of wrongdoing. If that were the case, my caveats would be sufficient. Even so, the alleged section 50 violation was withdrawn, rather than anyone being "exonerated". We can fail to quote reliable sources to the extent that they are objectively wrong.
And, as well, the "verdict" (and, in fact, all 6 investigations) deal(s) only with wrongdoing, not any questions as to the "quality of ... research", so that clause in your statement is completely irrelevant.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Care to site a single reliable secondary source supporting your viewpoint? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hacked

Previous consensus, to avoid inclusion of reliable sources which stated that the data was almost certainly released by a person with legitimate access to the data, was that only reliable sources with actual knowledge could be used for that datum. This means police reports only, and possibly the person who actually uploaded the data. Any statement from or authorized by UEA, or quoting UEA, is not reliable for "hacked" vs. "leaked". If you want to revisit that consensus, go ahead, but be assured that the reliable sources which question "hacked" will also be added to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We never use primary sources like police reports to write Wikipedia articles, as they are subject to interpretation. We rely on secondary sources to avoid editorial bias, like the kind you are displaying above. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this matter. The majority of secondary sources describe the breach as a hacking. Whether taken literally or figuratively, the concept is the same. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 37#RFC: Speculation on the source of the data leak. That seems to be the last consensus on "hacked" vs. "leaked". Since then, you have edit-warred to insert "hacked", and at least 3 editors have opposed the change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You're not actually pointing me to a discussion from almost a year ago, are you? Yes, in fact you are. Amazing. Well, Arthur, feel free to start here, as Karatzogianni documented the source coverage of climategate as a hack. She even collected and named the sources in that paper. Please do not point me to another old discussion from a year ago. Please make an effort to start doing actual research and reading the sources. Wikipedia editors cannot write articles based on primary sources, it is that simple. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
That (and a discussion at WP:RSN) reflect a consensus as to what sources should be used. A new secondary source, without actual knowledge, is still not allowed by that consensus, unless you want to try to establish a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you aren't making any sense. We don't point to discussions from a year ago when we're writing about a topic that has changed greatly during that time, and consensus does and can change. I've provided you with the Karatzogiann 2010 source which is one of the most comprehensive sources about the hacking that I've ever seen, and it even summarizes the sources that appeared in the news. I'm sorry, did you have a single source to offer me in return? No, you didn't. Don't point me to an erroneous discussion from a year ago that misinterprets policies and guidelines. The majority of secondary sources refer to this as a hack. We go with the secondary sources when we write articles on Wikipedia. What we don't do, is interpret primary sources in order to push a POV. I would expect you to know this by now, Arthur. Your suggestion that we rely on a police report that we now know has been tainted by the Neil Wallis allegations is simply outrageous. It's like you inhabit an alternative reality or something. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You have presented absolutely no evidence that the Wikipedia consensus has changed. I agree that (probably) the majority of secondary sources that refer to it as a "hack" or a "leak" refer to it as a "hack". (There are too many to count them all, an we recognize that a google search is not the way to determine the number of sources.) That is not enough for us to say in the editorial voice that it is a hack. If the police report is tainted, then all that we have is uninformed speculation. The Wired article said that almost all reported hacks are, in fact, leaks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't appeal to informal, erroneous discussions from a year ago when we edit articles that have changed significantly in terms of sources, evidence, and scope. Allegations against the scientists were dismissed. Sources such as Karatzogiann 2010 have documented the media coverage of the hacking since that time. Please review it. We certainly don't rely on old police reports that have been superseded by good secondary source coverage. Feel free to review the source I've linked to here and compose a reply. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It's neither "informal" nor "erroneous", and it didn't seem to depend on the content of sources, only modifying the general rule as to which sources are reliable for the purpose of "hack" vs. "leak". Your new sources, although probably "reliable" under the old definition, are not reliable under the new definition. If you want to try to restore the standard definition of "reliable", go ahead, but it requires a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how it works. We use the talk page to discuss how to improve an article. We don't hold up discussion or improvement by asking people to read an informal discussion from a year ago about issues that have drastically changed since that time. Nor do we rely on primary sources, especially when we are dealing with controversial subjects. Is there a particular secondary source you would like to point me to that reflects your viewpoint? Please give me the URL or name and date of publication and I'll review it. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If of interest, "Hacked" is a vague term as far as wp in general is concerned, See Hacker (term), Hacker (computer security), and Hacking disamb. page for starters. For a potential more specific term, not per references, see Cracking, such as Software cracking. 99.119.131.65 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring the interjection of the IP, for the moment) On the contrary, the apparent consensus as to what type of sources are allowable for "hacked" v. "leaked" is not automatically changed by new sources in either category, only by a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire incident is classified as a "hacking" in the majority of secondary sources. We don't need to appeal to literal definitions of the word, primary police reports, or old, archived discussions from a year ago to understand this fact. All we need to do is look at the reliable secondary sources, the very sources we use to write Wikipedia articles. Now, if you have an actual objection to using the word "hacking" or "hack", then please summarize your concerns so I may address them. Please do not appeal to a discussion from a year ago, but enunciate your concerns here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we still arguing about this? It was a hacking. Some people speculated that it wasn't a hacking but absolutely no evidence to support that view ever emerged. Some media sources deferred to the potentiality that it was--I don't know what, a controlled but covert release of information?--but it wasn't. It was a hacking. We should stop pretending there is a controversy over this. No, we should have done that over a year ago. Now we should stop pretending that a good faith case can be made that there is a controversy over this. --TS 03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, Arthur presumes to say that there is consensus for the view that 'Any statement from or authorized by UEA, or quoting UEA, is not reliable for "hacked" vs. "leaked".' Absolutely not. There was never anything even close to consensus for that bizarre notion. UAE should know. UEA doesn't have to speculate. When placed against handwaving and speculation, statements of fact based on actual knowledge are authoritative.

I can understand why some people might have felt that statements by UEA should be treated with suspicion. Somehow some people had got the idea that this crime was one in which the victim was to blame. Well those days are gone. The victim was innocent. The criminals have still not been found. They are those who selectively copied material from UEA servers without authorization, with malicious intent. --TS 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There had been agreement to that effect; UEA may have (had) knowledge, but they also have in interest in establishing it was a hack. To the extent UEA statements are considered "self-published", they are not reliable, as they are clearly unduly self-serving. I see evidence of consensus and policy support for that, and no evidence that the consensus has changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
"UAE should know. UEA doesn't have to speculate." Short of an identification of the leaker/hacker, with corroborating details, who can say with authority what happened? Has the UAE released this information? If not, the UAE administrators' 'because I say so' isn't proof of anything.
—WWoods (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no logic in doubting the UEA statements. The data and the servers belonged to UEA. Either the owners of the data and servers (UAE management) authorised the release of the data, or it was hacked by someone who was not the legal owner. They say it was hacked by someone other than them. What would be their motivation to release the data purposely, but covertly, and then pretend in public statements that someone else hacked it? There may be some doubt as to the extent of inside knowledge and/or local vs. remote access to the network that the hacker team had, but I don't see the logic in believing the most remote chance that it was a covert authorised release of data by the management of UAE. Most importantly, where are the reliable sources that support this bizarre hypothesis explicitly? If there are none, we do not need to include it in the wording of the article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, who in the News of the World phone hacking case is arguing that some of the victims 'leaked' their own voicemails to the press reporters? --Nigelj (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
To Nigelj: In this case, I think that "leaked" would mean that someone (a whistle-blower) inside CRU thought that they were doing something wrong and wanted to inform the public, but did not want to incur the wrath of his colleagues for doing so. Consequently, he collected and released the information secretly. I would guess that this is more likely than an outsider gaining remote access to CRU's computers (hacking) and stealing the information, simply because it requires much less skill and the insider would have knowledge of where to look for the embarrassing information. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Why (and how) would this putative person inside CRU then hack into a server of the RealClimate website and upload a copy of the data there? And put the cryptic comment onto McIntyre's Climate Audit website: "A miracle has happened"? When the upload onto RealClimate was taken down, the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia. These do not sound like the behaviours of a CRU scientist who believes their colleagues are "doing something wrong". These are the actions of a hacker. If they had to break into a CRU server, overcoming its security features, in order to get to colleagues' personal e-mails and load them onto RealClimate's and the Tomsk server, that is still hacking. Where are the reliable sources that support any part of this story of the well-meaning CRU person who has legitimate authority to do all this, and innocently wants to inform the public of wrongdoing? My point is that this is a meaningless fantasy, unsupported by all the reported facts, and therefore not worthy of air-time in a Wikipedia article. If I'm wrong, please give me a link to the reliable source of this story. --Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
That's about the size of it. The notion that an unsupported hypothesis should remain in the article has been persistent. This was a hacking and we shouldn't continue to pander to the notion that it was a whistleblowing or a covert authorized release or anything else somebody might wish it to be. --TS 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
<sarcasm>I quite agree. The unsupported hypothesis that the CRU (backup) server was hacked shouldn't remain in the article.... </sarcasm>. Seriously, the majority of the reliable sources say it was hacked, but a number (2, I believe) said it looked like (sorry about the grammar) an inside job. We should list both views in the body. The prior consensus that only "knowledgeable" reliable sources should be used leaves none usable; originally only the police report and secondary sources reporting the police report would have qualified, and, considering the police scandal .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop referring to primary sources as if we rely on them to write Wikipedia articles. We don't. We rely on the secondary. There does not seem to be any evidence of an "inside job" at all. If you have sources to the contrary, please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If we do not rely on primary sources there is no more solid evidence that it was a hack than it was a leak. Where is your evidence given in a secondary source that it was a hack. Not a secondary source simply calling it a hack. But presenting solid physical evidence of a hacking. To this date we don't even have IP logs that show an unauthorized person accessing the severs. There is no evidence either way.Bigred58 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{od|8}} OK, I think we're drifting into la-la land a bit here. The statements that it was a hack are cited to sources including the following (and yes, a reliable, informed and/or scholarly secondary source calling it a 'hack' is exactly what we need - server IP logs would be very much a primary source, and at one extreme of un-usability here. Another example of an unusable source would be a private blog or an uninformed opinion from a self-professed 'expert' who has done no research and had no involvement).

  • "Climategate broke in November, when a cache of e-mails was hacked from a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)" Pooley, Eric (2010). The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. Hyperion Books. ISBN 140132326X;
  • "Hundreds of private emails and documents [...] have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today." Hickman, Leo; Randerson, James (20 November 2009). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists" (The Guardian).
  • Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". WashingtonPost.com (Washington Post).
  • Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". NYTimes.com (New York Times)
  • Arthur, Charles (5 February 2010). "Hacking into the mind of the CRU climate change hacker". London: The Guardian
  • etc

Some reliable sources clearly state that the data was hacked and/or stolen and go on to use the word leaked as well. That is mostly just people using similar words to avoid repetition, in good writing style. Once the hacking (of several servers - the source and several destinations) and the illegality is established, there is no need to stick to the same word. Where is the reliable source that establishes that this was a legal and authorised transaction by someone who had the right to copy this data from its CRU source onto each of the destinations where it was initially posted? Without this, we go with the known reliable sources. Just quote a few lines and give author, title, date, URL - the usual stuff for a reference to a RS, not a whole argument, please. --Nigelj (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a straw man -- nobody thinks the release was authorized. However, I've yet to see that it's been determined whether it was the work of an insider or outsider, much less who specifically did it. It's not unprecedented for a disgruntled employee to release information. You've perhaps heard of WikiLeaks?
—WWoods (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage section has NPOV problems

I've tagged this section for editing to restore balance & NPOV. It has become (imo) notably slanted from recent edits. At present, a reader would get the impression that the media coverage of the controversy was almost entirely one-sided.

I've started a draft revision, and will post it when time permits. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When I have a moment to spare, I'll remove the tag, unless something more substantial has appeared here by then. --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nighelj. Tillman has repeatedly tagged this article for no reason (and Arthur Rubin as well). As I said some time ago, there appears to be a "campaign" of sorts to keep this article permanently tagged so as to give this topic the appearance of errors, inaccuracies, and bias, when in fact there are none. This has been going on for some time now, and needs to end. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You'll notice I didn't restore that tag when I restored the content tag. Although I believe it has problems, I don't have evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected. However, you still have not explained why there is a content tag or how it can be removed. For this reason, I maintain that you and Tillman are holding this article hostage to a minority POV against our best practices and policies. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, you have once again added the maintenance tag back in without explaining why. That's not how we use maintenance tags. Please stop holding this article hostage until your demands are met. That's not how we edit articles. Maintenance tags are used to alert editors of problems that can be fixed. There does not seem to be a problem at this time. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas: are you serious? You are (once again) asking our readers to believe that the views of an obscure PR man are more notable than those of one of the USA's two national newspapers? And then complaining about tagging a section with no views presented contrary to your own? Quite remarkable, and revealing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The US only has two national newspapers? Scotland has at least as many! If you're referring to the WSJ article, that opinion piece displays an alarming disregard for fact checking and accuracy, so at best is a questionable source. Historians have noted the part the WSJ played in promoting anti-science disinformation, so it's not surprising. Perhaps you were thinking of another reference? . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image to use in infobox

Viriditas has removed the image of the CRU building from the infobox as it allegedly non-neutral since it implies wrongdoing. I don't really think this is the case, as our article on the Watergate scandal for instance, contains and image of the eponymous complex. However, what would be a good alternative? In V's edit summary, he suggests a news graphic from one of the news stories hyping the "scandal," but a quick search of the worst offenders ::cough::fox::cough:: doesn't really turn up anything useful. So what would a relevant image be? I wondered if a screenshot of a small excerpt of HARRY_READ_ME.TXT might do? I think that the original image of the building is pretty neutral though. Anyway, just thought I would get discussion going.Sailsbystars (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Do you understand that the image used in the Watergate scandal is not comparable to an image of the CRU? The former is of an office building which contained the offices of the Democratic National Committee, offices that were burglarized. In other words, that photo illustrates the scene of a crime. Now, while many might argue that a photo of CRU could be used to illustrate the scene of a crime, the tenor of this article has been to allege that the crime was committed by the CRU. We don't see that kind of usage in the Watergate article. The two cannot be compared. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, say for Watergate it were a picture of the DNC office door instead of the building. Would that also be non-neutral? I really don't see how a picture of an office building implies guilt by association. I asked above and you haven't really answered my question of what you would propose as a good alternate image. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You are assuming that the infobox requires an image. My concern is that an image of the CRU doesn't work there due to the nature of the allegations made against them. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a truly bizarre argument. V., are you arguing that the CRU has fallen into such low repute that merely showing a picture of its building is prejudicial?!? Or what? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
What an odd reading, Pete. Clearly this manufactured scandal has smeared reputable scientists working at the CRU unit, in contrast to the Watergate complex where attention was on the parties which had temporarily made use of its facilities. There is a danger of making the distinctive CRU building an icon attracting attacks from those fringe opponents of climate science, while the Watergate building seems relatively nondescript. Of course much has been done to reaffirm the high reputation of CRU, and it certainly doesn't seem to have done any harm to the reputation of UEA . dave souza, talk 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy supported by climate change denialists

James Delingpole has been given credit for naming and breaking the "climategate" story. Our article calls him a "climate skeptic", but his arguments are entirely based on climate change denial not skepticism. For example, please listen to Dennis Miller's interview with him on iTunes. That someone who engages in climate change denial has coined a derogatory term about this subject and helped break the story is significant. Furthermore, Delingpole uses the "conspiracy" word several times, accusing the scientists of "cheating the evidence, conspiring to shut out any scientists who disagreed with them". He also won't accept the results of the investigations. I think it is becoming clearer by the day that "climategate" is a global warming conspiracy promoted by climate change denialists, and the sources support this statement. It is important for this article to make this clear and to discuss it in its own section, perhaps called "Climate change denial". Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to describe him as an opponent of action on global warming. Certainly his interview with Paul Nurse suggested that "credulous and ill-informed" would be more accurate than "sceptic". . dave souza, talk 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Goethean (talk · contribs) changed the lead description from "columnist", which is accurate, to "climate skeptic" which is both problematic, as above, and un-British. . Tried the more generally accepted term "climate contrarian", if need be we could link to contrarianism. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've gone back to "columnist", which is both neutral and factual. My other suggestion would be no ID tag at all, which is our customary solution if a tag becomes controversial. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Suits me. Thanks. . dave souza, talk 16:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This Paul Nurse? He was on a Charlie Rose (talk show) repeat in the USA recently. 99.181.151.50 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FOIA

In the light of requests to clarify the rather confusing FOIA section, I've extensively re-written it to show the context and sequence of issues. I've also included the recent ICO decision on a case that predated release of the emails, about disclosing raw data belonging to Met offices in other countries. . dave souza, talk 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So far, the only objection I've had is to the inclusion of the UEA letter interpreting the ICO letter, without the sourced fact that it clearly misrepresented the ICO letter also appearing. I think that was best resolved by removing the UEA letter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding issues to improve the article

First cut at a current list, by an involved editor:

1). Name of article -- Requested Move to rename active, see above. A hardy perennial, and an ongoing embarrassment to the project (imo).

2). Hacking vs. leaking, another hardy perennial, currently in the lede.

3). No mention of FOIA violations and concerns in the lede. This has been an outstanding NPOV violation for many months.

In progress, and in some dispute. See "Motivation, below, and refer to Archives for voluminous previous discussions, all inconclusive. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

4). Trevor Davies self-serving comment re "a deluge of Freedom of Information requests" to CRU needs a rebuttal, perhaps from McIntyre.

5). "Media coverage" section is currently almost completely one-sided. Long-standing reactions from the WSJ & the Economist were recently deleted, and our "Inquiries and reports" section currently opens with oddly misplaced media commentary from the Atlantic and BBC.

6). Our Information Commissioner's Office section is filled with mind-numbing detail -- needs a crisp opening summary para, and a summary in the lede.

Please feel free to add more problems to the list (or just fix them!). The article remains something of an embarrassment to Wikipedia, imo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not how we use maintenance tags, so I'm going to remove it once again. If you want to discuss what you see as a "problem" then feel free to use any of the numerous open threads. We don't use maintenance tags to hold articles hostage to demands. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Your argument is specious. From Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes : "Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article."
You removed a valid tag, writing that there was "No justification on talk." I supplied same. Please self-revert.
If others wish to tag individual sections, that's fine too. But the article has many issues, as everyone but V. seems to realize. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article has few if any issues requiring a maintenance tag. What is happening here, is you and at least one or two other accounts are trying to hold this article hostage to your demands—the demands of a fringe, minority POV that does not deserve a majority POV. Feel free to consult WP:NPOV when you have a moment. Since this article was created in 2009, you and a few other editors have tried to slap a maintenance tag on it whenever it doesn't promote your minority POV. I'm sorry, but that's not how we use tags. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
V has a point. The tag you added is intended to replace multiple individual tags; however,
  1. is under discussion, and doesn't need a tag.
  2. is under discussion, and probably does deserve a tag, as the current copy doesn't agree with prior consensus, and there is no evidence of a new consensus.
  3. is not under discussion, and probably would deserve a tag (but I don't know which one) if it were under discussion.
  4. needs at most a localized tag, although it's related to the {{content}} tag I added earlier, and V removed without discussion.
  5. needs at most a localized tag.
  6. does not need a tag. If you can provide a neutral summary, go ahead and do so.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 3) FOIA info summarised in lead, as requested.
    4) A statement by the university's vice chancellor in the section showing the UEA response hardly "needs a rebuttal", least of all a self-serving comment by the fringe proponent whose website orchestrated meatpuppet spamming of FOI requests.
    6) Sorry your mind is numbed by the necessary detail of the FOIA involvement, have provided a concise summary for the lead.
    In future, Pete, readers may find it helpful if you sign each section to enable threaded responses to points raised. . . dave souza, talk 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for supplying a lede summary, Dave. I'll work on that, and on the main article section. I have some notes somewhere -- as you may recall, FOIA material was continually reverted out of the article during the Wiki Climate Wars -- which seem to be recurring (to a degree) here. I hope we can get back to improving the article, as opposed to, eg, fighting over its name. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Tillman, why would you cite a speculative news story from November 2009 when it is now 2011?[8] How does that best summarize the overall topic? Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede conspiracy opinion needed?

The lede currently contains a quote from an obscure Newsweek columnist, Ravi Somaiya:

According to a Newsweek columnist, climate sceptics believed that the documents showed that "global warming is a scientific conspiracy".

I believe this quote is here because one active editor here is very interested in conspiracy theories. I question whether this is needed at all (it's a minor opinion piece, one of thousands of similar ones available), and I certainly don't believe it belongs in the lede. See WP:Weight. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, you are engaing in tendentious editing again. You raise this issue every few weeks with the hope that nobody will actually check the archives to see that you are repeating questions you've already received answers to in the past. You previously raised this question at 13 May 2011 and it was answered. You raised it again on 23 July 2011 and it was again answered. Your claim that this quote is attributed to an obscure Newsweek columnist is highly deceptive and misleading, as you have been repeatedly been informed, over and over and over and over again, that Somaiya's quote is fully supported by Efstathiou (2009), Pearce (2009), Venkatraman (2010), Goertzel (2010), Winterton (2010) and many, many others. Previously, there was no quote, only the term global warming conspiracy, which I prefer, and is fully supported by the footnotes. I now see that you are trying to game this discussion by first disputing the assertion of the term "global warming conspiracy" (which is fully supported by the sources) and now disputing the notability of the news reporter. This is more of your trivial objections. The fact is Somaiya has nothing to do with using the term, and it has been used by multiple authors listed above. FYI... Somaiya received the 2003 Columnist of the Year Guardian Student Media Award for his work at the University of Manchester (he is listed on the Wikipedia page). Somaiya is currently at the New York Times London bureau. He is not obscure in any way. Tillman, I realize you are probably more concerned with articles like Heaven and Earth, the bible of the climate change denial movement, but it is an established fact that this topic is classified as a global warming conspiracy theory. Feel free to find some sources that challenge this, but I've looked and I've found none. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see evidence that someone other than V (and possibly ScottyBerg) thinks that Pete has been answered. Nigel seems to be supporting V on some issues, but only as to the reliability of the sources, not as to whether they support the contention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the sources (Efstathiou, 2009; Pearce, 2009; Somaiya, 2010; Venkatraman, 2010; Goertzel, 2010; Winterton, 2010; and others) the claims and allegations against climate scientists are classified as a global warming conspiracy theory. Do you dispute this statement? On what basis and with what sources? Please take a look at our article on global warming conspiracy theory. In what way do the claims and allegations differ? They match perfectly, and the sources acknowledge this fact. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The edit was misleading, in that the conspiracy aspect was cited to more than one Newsweek correspondent, and disruptive in that it was inserted in the middle of wording attributed to Leiserowitz as a source. There had been widespread allegations from self-professed skeptics that the emails revealed conspiratorial actions by climate scientists to exaggerate or invent AGW, a common theme going back to Inhofe's "hoax" allegations. I've modified it accordingly. This is something that should be discussed in the body of the article as well as the lead, improvements there will be appreciated . dave souza, talk 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • [outdent] The current wording,
Climate sceptics alleged that the emails revealed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics.[6] Climate sceptics said that the documents showed evidence that global warming was a scientific conspiracy.[7] (latest edit italicized)

--is clumsy, factually incorrect, and the pipelined link to Global warming conspiracy theory is unacceptable, as its been every other time it's been tried here. We have excruciatingly long discussions of this in the archive. Only one editor (sfaik) believes this usage is supported by RS's. We can work in something along the line of what Dave (and others) have suggested about critics alleging conspiracies by the Climategate scientists, but most of these people are (as you might expect) borderline nutcases (or worse), and I don't really think this sort of thing belongs in an encyclopedic lede without impeccable sourcing -- which don't seem to exist. Note that it's also inappropriate to refer to Marc Morano as a climate sceptic in the footnote -- he's a politician.

And I really, really don't appreciate yet another false accusation of tendentious editing. This is unacceptable behavior here -- see WP:NPA

PS: how did you Brits end up with the weird spelling "sceptic"? I know you guys were still studying Greek not that long ago.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, you are engaging in tendentious editing and revisionism again. I'm sorry you don't like that term, but it is exactly what you are doing. You have not shown that the link to global warming conspiracy theory is "unacceptable". You just keep saying that without evidence, hoping that if you repeat it enough times, somebody will believe you. You have been shown, time and time again, that reliable sources like Efstathiou, 2009; Pearce, 2009; Somaiya, 2010; Venkatraman, 2010; Goertzel, 2010; Winterton, 2010; and others use the term and refer to it as such, and our article supports it. If you believe that there is some fundamental difference between the claims made by the deniers and the GW conspiracy theory, please tell me what the difference is. Since you have remained oddly quiet on this question, I will assume that you can't, and that there is no difference. Please don't show up here to say the link is "unacceptable" when the link has been explained to you many times now. And to correct another one of your mistakes, Marc Morano is not a "politician" so I don't know where you are getting that from. According to reliable sources, Marc Morano is a climate denier,[9][10][11] whose ambitious and hard work denying climate science has been well documented.[12] Tillman, is it too much to ask for you to please use and refer to sources when you make claims? Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Pete is correct as to the main body of the comments, although I'm not sure about Marc Morano. Few editors have been in favor of "global warming conspiracy theory" appearing in the article or in the lede. I would have been willing to consider "conspiracy theory", if reported explicitly in a reliable source, but all the quotes that have been provided so far are of the form "theory ... that there was a conspiracy". As "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, we cannot add the link without explicit comments in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Only the other day on one of these talk pages someone was arguing that 'global warming' and 'climate change' are entirely different things, and that neither phrase can be understood by simply by reading the words that appear in them. Now you are saying that 'conspiracy theory' is unrelated to 'a theory that there was a conspiracy'. In what sense does "cited [...] as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data" (Efstathiou, 2009; V's first ref above) not refer to a conspiracy theory? I've heard of people trying to re-write history to make a point, but re-writing the English language?! You're going to need a very good citation to show that "theory ... that there was a conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are unrelated concepts. --Nigelj (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Nigel, I think an ordinary reader have a very hard time figuring out just what the global warming conspiracy theory is from our truly wretched article on this topic -- let alone WTF the "Counterclaims of conspiracy" might be. SFAICT, every crackpot "conspiracy theory" with the remotest connection to CC is tossed in. Oh, and Exxon is EEvil! Good god.
V's claim that "reliable sources like Efstathiou, 2009; Pearce, 2009; Somaiya, 2010; Venkatraman, 2010; Goertzel, 2010; Winterton, 2010; and others use the term and refer to it as such" is laughably wrong. Arthur & I pressed him hard on this months ago, and (ims) the only RS he could find who actually used the phrase global warming conspiracy was the lone Newsweek columnist quoted above -- which is why that's in the article. Arthur, do you have a link to that archive? For some reason, it's not coming up in my archive search [13].
If you want "tendentious editing", V's wrongheaded & endlessly repeated efforts to get this inflammatory phrase into our article would be a fine candidate. Feh. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
So, can I take it that you agree with Arthur that a "theory ... that there was a conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory" are unrelated concepts? Do you have any citation to support that, as it is very counter-intuitive? --Nigelj (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Nigelj is making the point that the objection you and Arthur keep making is nonsensical. For example, even though we have dozens of sources referring to a global warming conspiracy, you and Arthur claim that there is a difference (known only to you and Arthur because you won't tell us what the difference is) between a conspiracy about global warming and a global warming conspiracy. When Delingpole refers to a "conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth"[14] is there any question he is talking about a global warming conspiracy? According to Forbes columnist Charles Kadlec, there is no difference.[15] In fact, there is no reliable source that notes any difference. The only people disputing this are you and Arthur. So, then, what evidence do you offer showing that the conspiracy under discussion in the sources is different than the global warming conspiracy theory? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Tillman, the sources show that "climategate" is built upon the bedrock of allegations made by climate "skeptics" that are classified as a global warming conspiracy theory. This is shown in the sources. Before I once again point you to those sources, can you please explain the difference between global warming conspiracy theory and the climategate conspiracy theory? You and Arthur both claim there is a difference, and when asked to explain this difference you ignore the question. Now, please answer the question. You and Arthur claim that when the sources discuss this conspiracy theory they are not referring to global warming conspiracy theory. Could you please tell which conspiracy theory they are referring to then? Tillman, the problem here is that you and Arthur are ignoring the sources. For example, in the above discussion, you said "it's also inappropriate to refer to Marc Morano as a climate sceptic in the footnote -- he's a politician." Tillman, how is it "inappropriate" to quote Efstathiou & Morales in Bloomberg? Do you realize Tillman, that it is not inappropriate to cite and quote sources? You were previously asked to cite sources when making claims, Tillman. So far, you have refused. Which source describes Morano as a "politician", Tillman? I will once again request that you and Arthur refrain from making any claims without citing sources for your claims. You and Arthur have been asked to do this for months now. We edit from the sources, not from your personal POV of what you think the article should say. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas: none of this makes much sense, but if you violate WP:AGF one more time with such crap as "We edit from the sources, not from your personal POV of what you think the article should say. ", I will be filing a formal complaint. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Tillman, it makes lots of sense. Feel free to review Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, as you are engaging in it throughout this discussion. You've repeatedly accused me of being an activist ("One who accuses others of malice"); you've repeatedly disputed good RS because they conflict with your personal POV (One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources); you've repeatedly deleted sourced material you don't like (One who deletes the cited additions of others); you've repeatedly made claims without sources, even after you've been asked to provide them (One who demands that others find sources for his/her statements); and you've repeatedly refused to answer simple questions pertaining to your objections (One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors). You can easily remedy one or all of these things by engaging in good faith discussion at any time. It is your choice. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussions of conspiracy theories

"Reversion of "conspiracy theory" edit" discuss what seems to be the first time Viriditas introduced the term global warming conspiracy into the lede, after the failure of the attempt at an orderly rewrite of the article.
  • Reliable sources is a very long list of sources presented by editor Viriditas to support his addition of the Climategate "global warming conspiracy". Editor Alex Harvey argues that this is a violation of WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." A very long and convoluted discussion follows.

Conclusions: among all the "wall of text" of cites Viriditas has presented, only one, the Newsweek column mentioned earlier, actually uses the phrase "global warming conspiracy". If I'm wrong, please correct me. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning, Tillman. First, we'll look at the primary sources. Then, we'll look at the secondary and tertiary sources. I'll create subsections for each source below. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
James Delingpole (The Telegraph)

On November 20, 2009, James Delingpole, the libertarian conservative climate skeptic for The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator, wrote the following:

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth...has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed...As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails...suggest: Conspiracy, collusion...manipulation of data...the most damaging revelations...are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause....The world is currently cooling...The so-called "sceptical" view...is now also, thank heaven, the majority view (Delingpole, 2009).

Forbes columnist Charles Kadlec on Delingpole and his "global warming conspiracy"....

Delingpole was among the leading journalists who reported the Climategate scandal, in which he analyzed e-mails among leading climate scientists that had been hacked and posted on the web. What he discovered was a pattern of purposeful and coordinated efforts to: Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature; Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up; Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW); Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today; Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process (Kadlec, 2011).

Mr. Delingpole has since received credit for helping coin and popularize the term "climategate" (Booker, 2009; Allchen, 2010). Question: how does Mr. Delingpole's characterization of the "conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth" differ from what is called a global warming conspiracy theory? Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Peter Lilley (BBC, RT)

According to the BBC, on November 24, 2009, British Conservative Party politician Peter Lilley challenged then-Labour Party politician and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband with the claim that "scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming" (BBC, 2009). Previously, Mr. Lilley had appeared on RT News saying that the CRU e-mails demonstrated:

...an example of an unconscious conspiracy by a group of scientists, who from reading the emails, are so loyal to each other, that they are determined to agree with each other even more than they are determined to agree with the facts. So if the facts no longer agree with their theory, they try and change the facts rather than trying to change their theory. And the people who benefit from it, are obviously the scientists themselves because they feel morally superior, they're leading a crusade, apparently to save the world, they believe in it profoundly even when the facts refute them, and they also get large grants from government for carrying on this sort of research, and they wouldn't get it if they produced the opposite sort of conlusions...It will be a blow to their credibility, but so great is the momentum, so large is the amount of money invested in this theory, that it will take even more than this exposure to derail it, I fear...I'm certain from having read a lot of emails and documents, that they were adjusting the data and manipulating the data, concealing the doubts they had internally, and continuing to express certainty externally. There's even examples of the computer codes that they've adjusted to cut off the evidence of the recent period of global cooling. For the last decade, the world hasn't heated up as their theories suggested it should have done, indeed it's cooled slightly. So they cut that out of their computers and they cut it out of the diagrams and so on that they produce. And likewise, they've altered the data in the past, or they've selected data from the past which has wiped out the evidence of the so-called medieval warming period, when the world was probably warmer than it is now. Because after all if it was warmer then without us or burning lots of hydrocarbons, it suggests that hydrocarbons aren't the only things that cause the temperature and the climate to change...I'm a physicist by training...[I accept] that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will produce a modest warming in the climate, but nothing like the alarmist fears which these scientists have been trying to generate or that lie behind the Copenhagen conference. I think the one thing we can predict with great certainty is that the Copenhagen conference will not achieve a legally binding agreement (RT, 2009).

Mr. Lilley, a climate sceptic, has managed to successfully encapsulate and summarize the main points of the "climategate" conspiracy theory. Question: how does the BBC and RT quotes from Mr. Lilley differ from the global warming conspiracy theory? Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

References

RT News, as in Russia Today (RT (TV network)); with Russia's economy mostly extractive industry-based, thus fossil fuels lobby oriented? 99.181.134.238 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


James Inhofe (Senate.gov; Fox News; The Telegraph; CBS News; New York Times)

"global warming...the greatest hoax?"

In a two-hour speech on July 28 [2005] on the Senate floor, Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it" (Revkin, 2005).

"Possible conspiracy by scientists"...

The recent disclosure of emails...raises a number of issues, including...a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science...an apparent coordinated effort to distort and falsify data...[and] the appearance of a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism...The emails reveal apparent deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by, among others, the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC (Inhofe, 2009).

"Deliberately falsified data":

Inhofe is also considering a request to the Department of Justice for a probe of scientists who he claims deliberately falsified data used by climate change advocates...He said the research shows the world's leading climate scientists discussing obstruction of contrary data, manipulation of data, threats of journalists who questioned "consensus" on the data and activism to influence the political process. "We knew they were cooking the science to support the flawed UN IPCC agenda," he said. "I suspect Climate-gate is only the beginning" (Inhofe Calls for EPA Probe, 2010).

"Science is being manipulated"...

Senator James Inhofe, the senior Republican on the environment and public works committee, has already launched investigation into the emails..."This idea that some of the science is being manipulated and some scientists are not being heard is our biggest fear,” Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Sen Inhofe said. (Gray, 2009).

"Massive conspiracy"...

Republican Sen. James Inhofe, Congress' leading proponent of the argument that the scientific consensus around man-made global warming is actually a massive conspiracy, traveled to Copenhagen to pour some cold water on any momentum toward a global climate change agreement. Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, spoke to a group of reporters, telling them "the United States is not going to pass a cap and trade" bill. He also reiterated his skepticism of global warming science. Politico, which noted Inhofe wore black snakeskin cowboy boots, tells the rest of the story: A reporter asked: "If there's a hoax, then who's putting on this hoax, and what's the motive?" "It started in the United Nations," Inhofe said, "and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite." One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: "You're ridiculous" (Montopoli, 2009).

"Inhofe...influential skeptic"...

And then there was "Climategate," the publication last November of a series of private e-mails between British climate scientists that skeptics say exposed holes in climate science and a conspiracy to hide them...Sherwood Boehlert...says the skeptics' ascendance is being driven less by public discontent than by powerful voices in the party hierarchy..."You've got people in positions of prominence suggesting it's a hoax," said Boehlert... Boehlert, singled out Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) as influential skeptics. Tony Massaro, a senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, says the skeptics' rise in the GOP goes beyond party leadership to a deliberate attempt to distort the public's perception of the science and the media's failure to properly cover it. "I think it reflects a steady drumbeat by Fox News around the science of global warming and the coverage of the so-called 'Climategate' -- which turned out to be nothing," Massaro said. "The news media at first reported it ad nauseam, but when the investigation revealed that things had been taken out of context and the science was sound, the stories were buried on page 18." (Reis, 2010).

Mr. Inhofe says scientists deliberately falsified, obstructed, and manipulated data. According to Mr. Inhofe, "they were cooking the science". CBS News and The New York Times characterized these claims as a conspiracy. Question: what is the difference between the type of conspiracy Inhofe describes and the global warming conspiracy theory? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

References

This Jim Inhofe, (R-Okla.) raised $16.2 million, 13% from energy and natural resources (extractive industry-based), who has received more money from Koch Industries (see Political activities of the Koch family) than any other company. The oil firm has given nearly $25 million to climate change denial groups. This per the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) as list on page 44 and 49 of Mother Jones September/October 2010 "Who Owns Congress" by Dave Gilson? Also see Talk:Climate change policy of the United States ... 99.190.85.108 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Phil Jones (The Telegraph; EMBO Reports)

"Target of climate change conspiracy theorists"...

Phil Jones, the 57-year-old director of the CRU, is the man who has suddenly found himself the number one target of climate change conspiracy theorists the world over after he sent the most damaging of all the emails exposed by the anonymous hacker (Rayner, 2009).

"Conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made climate change...complete rubbish"...

Professor Phil Jones earlier this week said he would stand down from the post while the independent inquiry took place. But he has said he "absolutely" stood by the science the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had produced and labelled suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made climate change as "complete rubbish" (Gray, 2009).

"Part of a conspiracy"...

The conspiracy claims were fuelled by CRU's refusal to share the most detailed aspects of its methodologies, for example, the computer codes for producing global temperature averages...Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the word "trick" is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity...Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity (Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, 2009).

"Climate skeptics accuse Phil Jones of a conspiracy to manipulate data"...

"Climate change ‘sceptics’ have accused Professor Phil Jones of conspiring with his collaborators to manipulate climate data and the scientific literature" (Goertzel, 2010).

According to the sources, Phil Jones was the target of conspiracy theorists who claimed scientists manipulated evidence to support AGW. Question: How are these conspiracy theorists different than global warming conspiracy theorists? Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Motivation

This addition to the lead was poorly supported and misrepresents the weight of speculation on motivation, so I've moved it here for discussion:

The files may have been released in connection with a dispute between climate skeptics and the UEA over Freedom of Information requests for climate data.
ref Climate Hack Scandal Update by Antonio Regalado, Science Insider, 11/26/09
Climategate scientists 'too secretive and may have broken Freedom of Information laws', UK Daily Mail, 6th May 2011.

The first cite is an early response to the email theft, speculating briefly on a possible motive which looks like "skeptics" attempting to get justification from their own disruptive FOIA activities: a more widespread theory was the motivation was disruption of the Copenhagen talks, which should get equal weight if we go into this sort of speculation. The second is from a very poor source, and doesn't actually support the wording as the Daily Mail says "It is thought that the theft was motivated by the CRU’s repeated refusals to provide detailed information about the data underlying its temperature records." Since the CRU had previously announced willingness to provide the requested information as and when clearance was obtained from the Met offices whose info it was, that's a thin excuse. Maybe something to discuss in the body of the article on the basis of better references. dave souza, talk 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course this could be improved, but I think it's an important point to bring out early -- as you will recall, the leaked files were named FOIA.zip, and the cover message with the purloined CRU files was (by memory) something like : "This is too important to be kept a secret" -- which lead to speculations that this was an internal "whistle-blower" who leaked the files.
There's an interesting exchange in the leaked emails (email 1228922050 of December 9, 2008):
: Ben Santer:
“I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of F[reedom] O[f] I[nformation (FOI)] A[ct] requests that you’ve received from Steven McIntyre?”
: Phil Jones:
“[I h]aven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at [the] U[niversity of] E[ast] A[nglia]. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. … I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails—unless this was “normal” deleting to keep emails manageable!”
This lead Australian physicist John Costella [16] to speculate that
"Unless Jones volunteered this information to their FOI officer, this intriguing email may indicate that the FOI officer—who will generally have system-level rights to read all emails, as part of their job—may have been monitoring Jones‘s emails, including the one above where he admitted deleting emails. This may lead to the identity of the Climategate whistle-blower [added bold], for those who continue to doubt their existence.” Source: [17]. Note that there are (so far blog-only) speculations that the Norfolk police were suborned by the alleged phone hacker in the the Outside Organisation, that CRU hired to handle PR after climategate -- see here for part of this -- the Outside "operative" was involved with the Norfolk police as a PR man at that time, ims. Not for the article at this point, of course, but interesting!
One might object to including speculation in the article (& especially in the lede) -- but we already feature such speculative items as "Because of the timing, scientists and policy makers speculated that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the [Copenhagen] climate conference" and "Climate sceptics said that the documents showed evidence that global warming was a scientific conspiracy." It might be better to move all this stuff out of the lede -- but expect furious (& voluminous!) objections to that from a certain activist, conspiracy-theory loving editor! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Pete, your objections as an activist and your conspiracy theories are of course noted. Better sourcing is needed than your interpretation of primary sources. Costalla seems to be a non-notable "sceptic", but his publisher the Lavoisier Group appears to have form, and about as much credence as Ian Plimer. Doesn't look like a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Dave -- it was what was at hand -- I'll look for better. The Santer-Jones email is interesting, wouldn't you say? I'll post a revised proposal here in a day or two -- as we were doing with some success, back before the process was fatally sabotaged (imo) by a Certain Editor....
As for your Activist snark, same to you, pal. Really, best to not go there, eh? You have your opinions, I have mine, life & wiki roll on anyway....
Do you have any comment on using speculation such as this in the lede and/or article? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As for the activist comment, it was rather pointily responding to what looks like persistent personal attacks by you on another editor – best to drop that line, eh?
The Santer-Jones email appears to refer to normal discussions with the university's FOI managers about routine deletion of emails, which is allowed, and the need to preserve emails that have been the subject of a request. Routine stuff. John Costella seems to have a vivid imagination. In my understanding, FOI managers give training and advice on meeting FOI regulations, and don't read all emails as part of their job or monitor the emails of department heads.
If speculation is significant to the topic and covered in high quality secondary sources, then it belongs in the article and should be suitably and proportionately summarised in the lead. As is the case with various sources discussing the timing in relation to the Copenhagen summit, though of course that can be further improved.
The timing and context of FOIA requests is covered in the FOIA section, and summarised in the lead. Note that it's not a simple heroes and villains tale. . dave souza, talk 22:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
No offense to Tillman, whom I sure is a nice person in RL, but it really needs to be said, that Tillman's promotion and defense of Ian Plimer's position is considered extreme, and deviates from the mainstream findings of climate science in such a way that continuing to argue along those lines is tantamount to disruption. I understand that Tillman thinks global warming conspiracy is real, but that is a minority POV and needs to be treated as such. I have no objections to starting a new section devoted to the conspiracy theory and representing it with advocates like Plimer. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What on earth does Ian Plimer have to do with this? V, this is an odd post indeed.
"Tillman thinks global warming conspiracy is real" ???? V, are you sober?
FWIW, Plimer is a good geologist, but went seriously astray outside his area of expertise. As I've mentioned there, and to WMC, when we chatted about this back then. So, ???? --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, Tillman, but I suffer from question mark impairment syndrome (QMIS). Unfortunately, QMIS is genetic, and I'm unable to perceive the meaning of more than one interrogation mark at a time. Please try to work around my disability. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Plimer's only relevance is that Pete is giving uncritical support here to speculation by an unknown published by the Lavoisier Group, who appear to be Plimer supporters. Pete has given an undertaking to find better sources. Best to close this discussion until secondary sources of reasonable quality are presented. . dave souza, talk 07:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

global warming conspiracy / name again

I won't say I have read the thousands of words above but I do note that we have the following original research sneaking into the lede via hyperlink:

Climate sceptics said that the documents showed evidence that global warming was [[Global warming conspiracy theory|a scientific conspiracy]].[7]

It is very difficult to see how this is to be taken seriously. If source [7] really supported that climate skeptics' claims were a species of the so-called "global warming conspiracy theory" then it would say so, and our article would say so too, directly. Obviously, though, the article doesn't say that. And equally obviously, our article shouldn't say it either - even by use of the hyperlink.

Now, even if source [7] did support this hyperlink, we still wouldn't write that, due to our requirement of NPOV to adopt neutral language, and the designation "conspiracy theory" is pejorative.

Alex Harvey (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you glossed over the "...will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy" and "For skeptics, the 1,000 or so e-mails and documents hacked last year from the Climactic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy." ? Also, note the title of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories; when reliable sources refer to events as conspiracy theories, then we do as well. Tarc (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well. Other crap certainly exists. Meanwhile, although [7] refers to a "global-warming conspiracy" it does not refer to a "global warming conspiracy theory". Believe it or not, "conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories" are two complete separate ideas. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a conspiracy is when a group of people are conspiring to do something, like mislead the whole human race that there is global warming when there is none. A conspiracy theory is when some people think that a group of people are doing something like that, when in fact they are not. Which was the case here, as found by the numerous enquiries and reports? Just remind us. --Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Nigel, if one believes that people are conspiring to do something, that is not the same thing as a systematic conspiracy theory. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is a good example of the latter. It has books written about it, websites devoted to it, and so on. To my knowledge, there is nothing comparable with beliefs about a global warming conspiracy. Believing that Jones & Mann, say, conspired to hide adverse data is hardly comparable to believing that the US government conspired with Israel to destroy the WTC. The former is a case of believing in two or a small group of unethical or possibly even fraudulent scientists; and the latter is a case of a worldwide organised secret conspiracy. Now you may think that [7] means the same thing as Wikipedia's global warming conspiracy theory but there is no way of being certain, because the author didn't say so. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, if your criteria for inclusion is based on allegations of a "worldwide organized secret conspiracy", then that criteria has been met. According to Nature, climate skeptics interpreted the e-mails "as evidence of a global conspiracy" (Nature 462 (7276): 962), and there are dozens of quotes and commentary from climate skeptics supporting this fact. Even Fox News supports it.[18] Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Question for Alex: please specifically describe criteria that must be met to include the global warming conspiracy theory. We already have multiple sources (Newsweek, Forbes, etc.) supporting it so you'll need to explain the threshold for inclusion that must be crossed befor you will accept it. For the record, the sources show that the allegations of climate contrarians/skeptics/deniers are rooted in conspiracy theory, but that doesn't mean all climate contrarians/skeptics/deniers are conspiracy theorists. This applies to a specific set of allegations that accuse scientists of manipulating evidence that favors global warming. However, this data is based on multiple lines of evidence spanning many decades. Without this conspiracy theory, there is no "climategate". Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need a large number of sources that say specifically what you want them to say - viz. that "Climategate" is a species of the non neutrally termed "global warming conspiracy theory" and if you found that you would then need an argument for why we should ignore the NPOV requirement that we should rewrite using neutral language. If the sources simply say "conspiracy", they do not support your position. Those sources refer to this thing here: conspiracy. Last time I checked, IIRC, you had found a single source which actually supported your wording - a complete failure of weight. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What is not neutral about the term? If the major allegations are not classified as a global warming conspiracy theory, then what are they? Aren't the climategate allegations in the same class as the truthers and the birthers?[19]. If not, how are they different? It should be noted, Alex, that a large number of primary and secondary sources refer to this conspiracy theory, and it appears the threshold for inclusion has been met. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It's less neutral than "Climategate". And, as Pete, Alex, and I have said before, you would need a number of sources which specifically refer to a "global warming conspiracy theory". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO, you are a working with a different definition of neutrality than the one we use on Wikipedia. We already have many, many sources that refer to the global warming conspiracy theory, but you, Pete, and Alex refuse to acknowledge they exist. When James Delingpole, the coiner of "climategate", refers to the data supporting the evidence for AGW as the "conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth", and says that the CRU e-mails suggest "conspiracy, collusion...manipulation of data...the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause", is he describing the global warming conspiracy theory? According to Forbes columnist Charles Kadlec, he is.[20] What sources are you, Alex, and Pete using to dispute this characterization? The New York Times reports that according to climate skeptics, the CRU e-mails "exposed holes in climate science and a conspiracy to hide them",[21] "a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming" (The New York Times. July 11, 2010. p. 7). According to Nature, climate skeptics also interpreted these e-mails "as evidence of a global conspiracy" (Nature 462 (7276): 962), "a conspiracy to suppress uncertainties about climate change."[22] Newsweek said that "For skeptics, the 1,000 or so e-mails...establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy" and that the e-mails "will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy".[23] There are dozens of reliable sources along these lines, and I've posted them above and in the archives. Your criteria for needing "a number of sources which specifically refer" to this conspiracy has been met. Your claim that a conspiracy theory about global warming is somehow different than a global warming conspiracy theory is not just absurd, it is completely ridiculous. The conspiracy theory under discussion is the global warming conspiracy theory and no reasonable contributor denies it. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
V, this is soapboxing: If the major allegations are not classified as a global warming conspiracy theory, then what are they? Aren't the climategate allegations in the same class as the truthers and the birthers? It would be appreciated if you could tone it down a bit and limit yourself to showing sources that support the wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I provided a source for that idea,[24] which you conveniently ignored. There's no "soapboxing" going on here at all. The fact is, the sources are in parity, from climate skeptics like Charles Kadlec who refers to Delingpole's allegations as a "global warming conspiracy" to reliable news sources like Nature, The New York Times and Newsweek. You either acknowledge the sources, dispute the sources with other sources, or admit you have no argument. The sources are clear: allegations by climate skeptics are classified as a global warming conspiracy theory. When The Telegraph reports that Phil Jones "found himself the number one target of climate change conspiracy theorists the world over",[25] we know for a fact that there is no difference between "climate change conspiracy theorists" and "global warming conspiracy theorists". They are one and the same. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas has it right, there are clear secondary sources showing that these emails were blown up into a controversy by those alleging an international conspiracy by scientist to create an allegedly false scientific understanding of global warming. Those denying that global warming is significant may not want this conspiracy theory to be seen as such, but editors favouring undue weight to the fringe scientific views on the topic should not obscure the clear views of reliable sources on the topic. . dave souza, talk 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@V, it is true that I politely ignored your Guardian op-ed; I did this because it is not about Climategate and not relevant to this discussion. As for your next source it suggests one journalist thinks "climate change conspiracy theorists" is a useful phrase, and again it seems to have the character of an opinion piece. Even if others think it meets our RS criterion, and we agreed that it supports your wording, you would still only have one source - or possibly two if I am right that I once saw another one. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, i'd describe your objections to this as an attempt to "whitewash on a technicality". Change the wording to use "climate change conspiracy" with a piped link. And you should be satisfied. Should you? V has provided quite a lot of sources to back up his viewpoints ... where are yours? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [removed part, since it seems it is already so.... So what exactly is the objection? Sources do describe it as "global warming conspiracy"... is it the link? What exactly is the objection? Are you claiming that statements of a conspiracy, that doesn't exist, is not conspiracy theory? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)]

This no true Scotsman argument is not going to fly because some high quality source are sufficiently explicit that we are dealing with a conspiracy theory (amongst other characteristics). E.g. Paterson, Global warming and global politics, Routledge, p. 1f [26]:

Popular interpretations of the politics of climate change quickly emerged. Some commentators advanced a variety of conspiracy theories. Warren Brookes, writing in Forbes magazine, suggested that 'just as Marxism is giving way to markets, the political "greens" seem determined to put the world economy back into the red, using the greenhouse effect to stop unfettered market-based expansion' [...]. Similarly, although in less conspiratorial tones, Solow and Broadus assert that it is 'a policy in search of a problem' [...]. Another conspiracy theory has been that it is a case of 'environmental colonialism' [...], whereby the affluent West is trying to pull the ladder up behind it [...] In direct contrast, Singer suggested that it was a plot by 'Third World kleptocrats' to find new excuses to demand money from the West. A final conspiracy theory is that the threat of global warming is manufactured by scientific elites to ensure continued funding for 'big science' [...].
Others put forward interpretations not couched in the language of conspiracy.

My personal impression, by the way, is that the last conspiracy theory mentioned in this source is the one most popular among the astroturfers from the Heartland Institute & Co who are active on Wikipedia. Hans Adler 12:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And it's not just people writing about the global warming debate and coming up with "conspiracy theory" as a description of what's going on. This particular conspiracy theory is notable as such even in the context of conspiracy theories. E.g. Sunstein, "On Rumours" [27]:

Many rumors spread conspiracy theories. Consider the rumor that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus; that the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile; that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud; that the Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy; that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents; that the plane crash that killed the Democratic senator Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians; that the moon landing was staged; that the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers are responsible for the deaths of presidents and for economic distress in Asian nations; and that the Great Depression was a result of a plot by wealthy people to reduce the wages of workers. [...]

Hans Adler 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh?? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@Hans, after all this I still see only one sources that possibly supports Viriditas's wording. Also who are the "astroturfers from the Heartland Institute & Co who are active on Wikipedia"? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"...after all this i still see only one sources [sic]..." - that is rather impressive. May i suggest that you state exactly what the problems is with each of V's many sources in these comments[28] - otherwise i am forced to consider your comment as a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kim, what's with all the underlining and italics - are you okay? :) I am more than happy to say the same thing again. Wikipedia has a policy called NPOV - Wikipedia's oldest and most central policy - and the fourth part of it is "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone". Now in order to adopt the non neutral language that Viriditas wants - the pejorative "conspiracy theory" / "conspiracy theorist" - he would need to show that the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is to use the same non neutral language. So, for example, since the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is to describe the Climategate controversy with the non-neutral "-gate" suffix, we should therefore call the article "Climategate" - in the interests of neutrality. Now, the question is, is it or isn't it the case that the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources describe Climategate as a "conspiracy theory"? So far, nearly all the sources that Viriditas and Hans and others have provided don't support his wording at all, so I am left to wonder why they are presenting these sources. They simply refer to the neutral "conspiracy". That said, I did see two sources that possibly support Viriditas's "global warming conspiracy theory" (I say "possibly" because I'm not sure that they are reliable sources). Now in the diff you referred to specifically, Viriditas says that the Nature piece refers to a "global conspiracy". That's fine, but it doesn't support his non neutral wording. Then in the Fox News piece, the word "conspiracy" doesn't occur at all, so have no idea what he was talking about. How many sources can you see that actually support Viriditas's wording? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we go back in discussions and focus on how you are misinterpreting NPOV here, by focusing on a specific sentence instead of the sentiment of the policy? Despite your insistance on the opposite, when the weight in WP:RS's use a "judgemental language", we aren't in the position to judge reality ourselves, and have to go with what reliable sources say.
Conspiracy here is what a rather substantial part of WP:RS's call it... on both sides, quite a lot more than the two that you mention. So your claim that we shouldn't use it, by appealing to WP:NPOV is simply fallacious. Where are your WP:RS's that describe your viewpoint on how the conspiracy wording should be interpreted? (ie. the majority view is that the conspiracy claimed is non-existing => it is a conspiracy theory) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Kim -- good to see you here again. If you go back to previous discussions on this topic (which I linked to above), you will see that (ims) all editors active then agreed that there were RS's supporting various allegations of conspiracy by critics of CRU (etc). What there isn't is more than one or two sources who actually call it a "global warming conspiracy".
For reasons known only to himself, editor Viriditas has been hell-bent to get a prominent link to that term into our article. But, if you look closely at our global warming conspiracy article, it is quite possibly the worst Wikipedia CC-related article I've seen. I imagine you could find there any flavor of conspiracy that has ever had even a tenuous link to CC -- so V's repeated assertions that his sources "agree with our definition of global warming conspiracy theory " are more or less meaningless, since any mention of conspiracy qualifies same as a "global warming conspiracy" per that horrible article, sfaict.
Additionally, as Alex and others have pointed out, calling someone a "conspirator" has legal consequences, aside from being grossly pejorative. So we would need multiple impeccable sources for Wikipedia to use this term under NPOV & BLP rules. Viriditas isn't even close to that standard, and I invite you to look at his claims skeptically. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Pete, i'm sorry, but the sources that V has provided are all referring to a conspiracy - in fact the exact same scientific conspiracy that global warming conspiracy theory refers to (i'm rather indifferent to your WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments about that article - fix it then). There is nothing "tenuous" about it. If anyone claims a conspiracy that can't be substantiated, then it is a conspiracy theory, and there are a significant amount of sources that make exactly this connection. The mere weight of the references given, is sufficient to merit that we mention it, and since it is a significant part of the conflict, it also should be mentioned in the lede. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe that this rumbles on. In this case we cannot use 'non-judgemental language' - the judgements are in. Six (eight? nine?) official enquiries have concluded that the hacked e-mails do not demonstrate any conspiracy, worldwide or localised, to subvert climate science. Yet in the early days, countless commentators said they did. There is no BLP issue to that: if the enquiries had found that the scientists were conspiring to pass off junk science onto the public, the UN, etc, it would have been the biggest scientific conspiracy ever. They did not. It wasn't. V has demonstrated lists of RSs that comment on this point and conclude, rightly, that these were conspiracy theories that proved groundless. We have to report that. It is nonsensical to expect that at this stage, with all those sources, we could leave the possibility hanging that maybe there was a real scientific conspiracy, and not merely a set of empty, anti-science, conspiracy theories. --Nigelj (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Kim, I know you don't like it but NPOV says what it says. You seem to be saying we should ignore the letter of the policy but focus on the sentiment. No, sorry, it applies literally. Otherwise anyone could say it means whatever they want it to mean by appealing to the unwritten "sentiment". We can get yet more outside opinions on this if you like but I am confident, after several RFCs, that all non climate change editors are going to say the same thing. Now on the subject of "I didn't hear that", I still haven't seen you explain why you think that reliable sources referring to the neutral noun "conspiracy" are support for Viriditas's pejorative "conspiracy theory". I also note you didn't answer my question about how many sources you think there are that actually support V's wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, we know you will not recognize any source that supports the concept of a global warming conspiracy, so that discussion is over. We've got the sources, many sources in fact, and it isn't in dispute by reasonable editors. You are of course, free to inhabit an alternate reality where those sources don't exist, but here, in this reality, they do, and anyone can review them. In fact, we've had them in the article for quite some time now, and they've been offered on the talk page for many months. You've been given many opportunities to comment on them, and I've even asked you questions which you've refused to answer. To summarize, your only response is, "they don't exist because my eyes are closed and I refuse to open them and look", which is just childish. Your refusal to get the point is noted. Now, your claim that calling a conspiracy theory what it is (based on the sources) is somehow "pejorative" is not supported by any source that I am aware of here. Could you provide one please? As you already know, we have many that discuss the use of "climategate" as a pejorative. So far, we have none say the same about calling it a conspiracy theory. To the best of my knowledge, that is the only thing that it can be called, per the sources. Perhaps you have a source to offer that says otherwise? Let's see it. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
V, instead of asserting over and over that I am refusing to get the point, let's play a game of truth. Will you or won't you admit that all but one of the sources you have just presented above in support of your wording have in fact not used the wording "conspiracy theory" anywhere. I can go through them all a third time but it would be better if you just told the truth. How many of the sources that you and Hans and others have just presented say "conspiracy theory" anywhere? If the answer is not 1 I will apologise. Is this fair? On the pejorative nature of "conspiracy theory" "Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. See also Wiktionary. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, I asked you for a source that refers to the use of the term "global warming conspiracy theory" as pejorative, not a non-notable 2003 essay by Floyd Rudmin that has nothing to do with this topic. Please find a source about this subject. Now, with that said, Alex, what is the global warming conspiracy theory? How is it different than any or all of the conspiracy theories in this article and in the sources I've provided? When G. Rayner in The Telegraph says that Phil Jones "found himself the number one target of climate change conspiracy theorists the world over"[29] is it reasonable to conclude that there is no difference between a climate change conspiracy theory and a global warming conspiracy theory? Climate change and global warming are used synonymously, as you are well aware. When James Delingpole, the man who coined the term "climategate", refers to the "conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth",[30] is it reasonable to conclude that he is referring to the global warming conspiracy theory, more so when Forbes columnist Charles Kadlec calls Delingpole's claim "The Global Warming Conspiracy" in the title of his column?[31] Could it get any clearer than that, Alex? When Ted Goertzel discusses "Conspiracy theories in science" and says that "climate change 'sceptics' have accused Professor Phil Jones of conspiring with his collaborators to manipulate climate data and the scientific literature", it is safe to conclude that the conspiracy theory he is referring to is the global warming conspiracy theory? If not, what is it? When Newsweek reports that climate skeptics believe the CRU e-mails "establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy" and that the e-mails "will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy",[32] is it reasonable to conclude that Newsweek is referring to the global warming conspiracy theory? I've asked you these questions many times now, and you've never provided a single answer. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Usage of the term 'Climategate' in the article

I have started this section to keep discussion of different issues separate for clarity. The word 'Climategate' appears 50 times in the article. Many of these occurrences are in the References section, which may actually be a metric of the degree of bias in the opinions of those we have cited(?), and many of these appear not only in the titles of, but in lengthy quotes from cited sources, which may or may not be necessary here in our article. Apart from these there are occurrences of the word in direct quotes within the article body, which is one thing, but there are some where Wikipedia's own voice uses the term. Two of these do not even have scare quotes and so, I believe, should be fixed or reworded:

Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into Climategate, [...]
Audio recording of a Guardian-sponsored debate on Climategate, held on 15 July 2010.

Usage in editorial voice, even with scare quotes, show in my opinion questionable taste regarding NPOV, considering the consensus shown in recent discussions on this talk page.

... scientists discussing the "Climategate" fallout considered launching advertising campaigns ...
... in an article about the history of climate change denial, observed that in the aftermath of the "climategate" investigations ...
Royce described "climategate" as "a sustained and coordinated campaign" ...

Finally there are usages where the term itself is under discussion, which are reasonable. In the discussion thread above, I implicitly question the need for the term to appear three times in the lede (in the first para, the second para again, and in the info box). To an outside observer, it would appear that we are part of the effort to 'popularise the term'. (Maybe the parenthesis in the opening line should read, 'also called "Climategate" by critics of the theory of global warming, by some of the news media, and by Wikipedia') <--- That last bit's meant to be a bit of humour :-) --Nigelj (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire; to an outside observer, it would appear that we are part of the effort to stifle the term. Reams of archived talk confirm this. Typically, a newcomer will come blasting in with criticism and either be instructed in the m.o. or leave in disgust. Also, I don't consider the sidebar as part of the lede. Yopienso (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yopienso, perhaps you would like to strikethrough the comments on "newcomers". Shall I remind you of WP:OWN? --Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"Climategate" is a pejorative term that should only be used in discussion of the term itself. Otherwise it should be "controversy" or some other euphemism. As I've mentioned several times (and will continue to do so until someone agrees with me!), I think there should be a separate section on how the term originated. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate Nigel's and Scotty's good humor and good faith and hope they will guide the discussion and decision. I'll watch from the balcony for a while! Yopienso (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Good grief! I'd better stay alert, then! So far, I sincerely appreciate Yopienso's approach and agree with both Scotty's points above - (1) when the protection is lifted we should dust off our book of euphemisms for use where appropriate. (2) We should have an actual small section on the term itself, that is then summarised in the lede (my vote goes for at the top of the 2nd para of the lede). In that small section, I would like to introduce this confusing little fact - a whois search shows that climategate.com was first registered on 2008-01-06 - nearly two years before the e-mail incident. I don't know what that means either, but it throws doubt on some of the existing 'first use' claims.[33] --Nigelj (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
We already have a section that discusses the term. The first paragraph of the "Media coverage" section talks about the origin of the word, who coined it, and how it was used. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The media section covers the origins of the term, which were actually from the blogosphere and not the media, and then goes on to discuss the coverage of the controversy in general. I think that it would be helpful to rejigger things a bit to highlight how the term originated with anti-CC blogs. Doing so would take the pressure off the need to explain in the lead how the term originated (coined by the media and critics). We also can point out that the term is referred to as the "so-called climategate" by various media outlets including Columbia Journalism Review, in a cited article. "So-called" is journalistic shorthand for "bogus." We don't have to say that specifically as it would be OR, but we can point out that CJR et al have used the "so-called" language. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the need to be euphemistic about the usage of "climategate" in the article. When a source is directly quoted as using the term, it should be quoted as such. What is a problem is when the encyclopedic voice uses the term, for example when self-referencing the controversy. We should also be watchful for when the term is being used as shorthand or in "scare quotes", we can indeed in the encyclopedic voice say "the controversy" or "the email hacking". However, the overuse of the term could be pointing at the WP:UNDUE issues evident here, and that is a deeper issue than simply naming, and for which there are many discussions in this talk page going on. as to the lede, I think it should be mentioned one at most twice. One to acknowledge the usage of the term to refer to this incident and the controversy it generated, the other to mention the studies and origin of the term itself - if we create such a section. Lastly, interesting WP:OR, I have read about that on the interweb, in particular from partisans that argue that "Climategate" was a label being held in reserve by well-funded conspiratorists waiting for an strategic deployment. One can see why such conspiracies based on some evidence might have currency, but no serious examination has said so: all sources point to the current usage being born in the comment threads of one of the blogs that posted the emails.--Cerejota (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, I don't believe the comments directed at Yopienso above were fair. I think you may have missed hisher point with regards to the "newcomers" remark and certainly heshe is not displaying any form of "ownership" of this article (although other active editors are). I would welcome more rather than less input from Yopienso; heshe is genuinely and consistently neutral and fair. Everything else you have said is spot on. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, Yopienso has always referred to herself as a "she". Is there a reason you are calling her a "he"? Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies Yopienso. I am not sure why I assumed you were a "he". Alex Harvey (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem whatsoever, Alex! :) Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, my further apologies. I've read Cerejota's thread above and I realise unfortunately that I completely disagree. It is now called "Climategate" - without scare quotes. When a source like Nature agrees, it's over; it's time to stop pretending that this is just a name that skeptics call it. ref. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Except of course Alex, that it is only in the headline that they don't have scare-quotes. Read the first paragraph of the article. Headlines are not written by the author of the piece - you should know this by now. That's basic knowledge, in critical source reading: Headline and summary aren't written by the journalist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kim has a very good point. It is in scare quotes in the first paragraph, and that should have given you pause for thought, Alex. It's not conducive to finding consensus if you overlook that kind of thing. In general, not enough credence (ie apparently zero from what I see here) is given by those wanting "climategate" to be the title to the issue of its well-attested scarequoted or criticised use in many sources. In order to avoid suspicion of editing wikipedia to promote one's POV, the issue of scarequote use and criticism of the title has to be seriously engaged with, rather than ignored. This is not a game - we are all here to build an encyclopedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "(often called "Climategate")" would be a better parenthetical for the lede. There's little doubt of accuracy, there, and if it's ambiguous whether it's scare-quotes or mention-quotes, all to the better. It should be explained in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion Arthur. The support for "commonly" has reeked of wiki-speke disputes spilling onto the page itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Except this is extensively being discussed in a thread above, and the main problem is not what to put in the paranthesis, is that so far I am the only one providing a sourced alternative. Consensus needs compromise, but compromise shouldn't ignore the house rules unless utterly necessary. --Cerejota (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are discussing what to but in the parentheses in the first sentence. We have
Vsevolod, Nature Closing the Climategate. "... the affair will be forever known as Climategate". But sure, my preference would be to use the scare quotes anyway. I'm just not sure how we go about alerting the reader to the fact that this Wikipedia page is the only place in existence where you can find the controversy with the absurd name 'Climatic Research Unit email controversy'. If we say "commonly called 'Climategate'" the reader may think that it is also called the 'Climatic Research Unit email controversy' when of course it isn't. It's now 18 months or thereabouts after Jimmy Wales publicly intervened to try to get the article renamed "Climategate" and look where we are. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh and in case I wasn't clear, I 100% support Arthur's proposal as the best we can hope for. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No, an absurd title would be "This is not a climate email cabbage ferocious wibble freud freud." You really need to get out more. ;-) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The Nature editorial is critical of the scientists, and makes quite a fuss about the term. That substantiates the position that the term is used by critics and is not a neutral or universal term. Re Arthur's proposal, to say in the lead "often called Climategate" doesn't seem quite fair, considering that it is a perjorative term and is frequently accompanied by the words "so-called." ScottyBerg (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that editorial is remarkably neutral. The editors of Nature are not critics of the CRU! What we mean by "critics" on this page is Inhofe, Solomon, Delingpole, et al. Nature's "criticism" is entirely constructive, not accusatory, urging the scientists to understand the situation and move forward more wisely. They are not using "Climategate" as a pejorative. Here are two quotes: . . .the affair will be forever known as Climategate. . . . By then, the Climategate was already swinging off its hinges. I beg each involved editor to read this long excerpt from mainstream scientific academia and adopt the same attitude: Take the name Climategate itself. The 'gate' suffix, now routinely applied to the most mundane controversies, is as trite as it is predictable. At the height of the controversy, senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims of research skulduggery and corruption. That reaction alone helps to explain the sluggish response of the science establishment a year ago to the allegations made against their colleagues and their profession. One lesson that must be taken from Climategate is that scientists do not get to define the terms by which others see them and their place in society. This journal has already warned that climate scientists have to accept that they are in a street fight. They should expect a few low blows. The key is to learn which punches to roll with and which to block and counter.
We need to stop squabbling over noting that the controversy is also called "Climategate." Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
What Scotty said. --Cerejota (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Climategate is pejorative in certain hands, obviously. But I think it's too far soon to reject the "also called" formulation in the first sentence. What there is clearly enough material for is a section on how the name "Climategate" has been contested as a propaganda term - which I wish someone would just write and be done with. The scarequotes issue demonstrates two things - first that the name is prejudicial (which is why it shouldn't be the title of the article) but second - that it is a widely known term. I don't see evidence that the majority of mainstream RS has started avoiding it. In this second sense, scare quotes aren't distinguishable from non scare quote usage.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think scare quotes can be taken into consideration in determining the context of use of the term. Scare quotes are a shade of meaning, leaning to doubt. We can't just ignore them. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say we ignore them completely, but that in terms of judging how widely used the term is, we can't argue scare quoted use should count for less in terms of acknowledging common use.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Heh. I guess it's a measure of just how controversial this topic is, that we are still arguing passionately over what to call the thing, almost 20 months after it began. I'm a bit disturbed that some active editors appear to be using Climategate, "Climategate" or "So-called Climategate" as some sort of litmus-test for the writer's opinions/beliefs re the CC topic. On a more positive note, it's good to see some fresh editors taking part in the discussion.

It is interesting that the climategate.com site was apparently registered well before the event. But not very significant for this article, as the name clearly didn't refer to this controversy then! It does seem that a small section in the body of the article discussing the name, and its various uses, would be appropriate. Properly sourced, of course. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, as is this recent theory: Could Murdoch’s News Corp be behind Climategate too? http://www.grist.org/climate-energy/2011-07-19-could-murdochs-news-corp-be-behind-climategate-too - Who again is leading the investigation into the hack? The hype fits well into the orchestrated agenda of ExxonMobil, Koch & Co. Gise-354x (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This ExxonMobil, overtaken once again by the world's most valuable company by Apple Inc. [34]? 99.181.138.215 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

lede change

I changed the lede from this:

(commonly known as "Climategate")

To this

(also called "Climategate" by critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change)[1]

diff

User:VsevolodKrolikov then reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 443502665 by Cerejota (talk) One source not strong enough for such a strong claim; it's not just been used by critics, even if they've been pushing the term."

diff The reverted back to my version by User:Tarc, with the edit summary "Undid revision 443507413 by VsevolodKrolikov (talk) - 1 source is sufficient" diff

I just want to say, that however valid or invalid VsevolodKrolikov's point on "it's not just been used by critics, even if they've been pushing the term" is, I definetely take strong issue with his comment: "One source not strong enough for such a strong claim". Let me explain myself:

  1. The item replaced didn't have a single source, in spite of being obviously disputed in the talk page, and having been an issue of contention thorough. Including an item with a strongly reliable secondary source (an expert, peer-reviewed journal) is a vast improvement on what existed before
  2. I question that "Climategate" is "commonly known as". It is known this way by partisans, and by sections of the media, and its usage has significantly dropped down since its peak when the hacking happened. It is a much more strong claim than saying "also called "Climategate" by critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change" with a source, yet it was placed without a single source to back it up. I think sourced material *always* is better than un-sourced material, all other things being equal. Since both descriptors ("commonly known" and "by critics") are ultimately bound to unsatisfy one or more editors, all things ar eindeed equal, except one has a source, and the other doesn't.
  3. The reason is that I did the edit was because I saw this naked, unsourced claim ("commonly known as") and tried to find a suitable source for it. I failed. All I found were partisan or controversial sources. RS sources either just used the term (requiring WP:OR/WP:SYNTH) or used it in scare quotes. The closest I found to a sustaining argument for "commonly known" in a non-partisan source was this paper on climategate as a meme, but it is problematic as it is actually a study of "snowclones", and is in fact denigrating "climategate" as a term - even if it does so from a non-partisan perspective on climate change, as the paper is entirely about social media studies. So after all this searching, I was left with no option but to do what I did.
  4. I am not opposed to my version being improved upon, or even changed into something else, but I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a naked, uunsources, and partisan claim of "commonly known". In fact, if properly attributed, I could accept a sourced and verified "commonly known" formulation, because that is what I originally set out to do!

So I think VsevolodKrolikov jumped the gun there a little, but his point is not ignored, just that it is weird he claims one source is not sufficient, when what it replaces has no sourcing at all.

That said

I also used the phrase "anthropogenic climate change", which is what the source uses. In wikipedia, that links to Global warming. Unless there are objections to doing this, I think it should be changed to "global warming". I didn't do it to keep the sourcing from being challenged needlessly.--Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tarc put it back, saying 1 source is enough. I tend to agree, but I doubt that will be the end of it, since both versions are part of the truth. Yes, it's commonly known, and yes it's due to the efforts of the climate deniers, primarily. This is the challenge of NPOV; let's don't polarize over it, but try to work it out. That paper you cite is a fascinating source; we could possibly have a whole section on the neologism climategate itself. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, as a card-carrying member of the Nerd Geek Cabal, I basically shat myself with the source I included and the center for social media one. Its is really fascinating stuff (outside of the climate debate per-se). We live in interesting times, indeed. --Cerejota (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I basically came here as an interested observer of WP:WTA, so I must ask, why is there not such a section on the neologism. It is a fascinating term, in spite of the pejorative use.--Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a misleading statement: "also called "Climategate" by critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change" because it incorrectly implies that only critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change call it that. Many reliable sources call it that which are not critics of the theory. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring to (commonly known as "Climategate"), which has been the consensus for a while now. The source for the change is not very good. Check out these two to see it's not just critics. SciAm Mother Jones (I know, I know, but look at it.) Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So you figured a revert was the best way to work it out, instead of saying something sourced and useful? I like what the Mother Jones article points out: "Of course, calling the incident 'Climategate' was a lot more simple than calling it 'that time when some unknown person procured and released a number of emails between climate scientists, potentially via illegal means'. But it's a helpful reminder that what we call things matters, particularly when a meme can take on a life of its own online." So maybe we can call it that time when some unknown person procured and released a number of emails between climate scientists, potentially via illegal means? Probably not; but it wouldn't hurt to saying something more useful than "commonly known as" in the lead, to acknowledge the source and POV of that term. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
My reasoning for the revert is, in part, the same as Born2cycle's - the edit implied that the term "climategate" was exclusively used by critics of AGW (which is a very strong statement). The reference to there only being one source is that this is the first sentence of the lede. While there is RS that "climategate" is a term promoted by AGW skeptics and deniers, for it to be a cast-iron part of the effective definition of climategate, one would need more than one article in what appears to be a fairly minor journal (albeit a peer-reviewed one). I think it might be acceptable to refer to this study (along with other RS) in the lede, but not in the first sentence.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It is commonly known as "Climategate", in fact, that's the only common name for it. All other names, including ours, are uncommon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
(also called "Climategate", especially by critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change) is unencyclopedic, too wordy, and displays the fact that a lot of niggling has been going on. We need to stick to the simple and utterly true and abundantly sourced also called "Climategate". Yopienso (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that simple is better, and I don't like "commonly known as", given the analysis of amongst whom it's commonly as that. However, "also called" is a little misleading - the title here is a descriptive neutral one, not a "common" one. How about "often called", or "often referred to as"? We can explain about analysis of usage in the text that follows.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "also known as Climategate" would be even better. This is standard AKA usage. Yopienso (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "also known as X" is standard usage - in contexts where the subject is also called something other than X, which is not the case here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review your logic. Are you saying this event is not known as anything other than "Climategate"? Yopienso (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The premise may be wrong, but the logic is fine. The premise is that this subject is not called (referred to by a specified name) anything but "Climategate". Is that not correct? What other names does it have? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Several. "Climatic Research Unit email controversy," for one. :) The CRU Controversy. The CRU Hack. (Actually, I agree that "Climategate" would be the best name for this article, but, 1. It's not worth fighting over. 2. There is considerable precedent for such a contrived title. 3. As I said above, with my three conditions met, any further argument is mainly pickiness or worse (POV-pushing) and not about serving the general reader's needs.) Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • [outdent] I suggest a usage such as "best known as Climategate", if the name change proposal fails. But I hope policy and common sense prevail this time ;-] -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Your recommendation would violate just about every known policy and guideline and would also contradict the historicity and usage of the term in American politics. The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang (2004) says the following:

"...journalists were the primary disseminators of the catch-all Watergate, and began to use it as a synonym for any scandal...none of the other Watergate spin-offs endures like that last syllable, -gate, affixable as it is to almost anything...it now indicates a scandal, particularly one involving a cover-up or covert activities...As noted in the Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English, 1980, -gate as a "combining form persists in spite of the short life of most of the creations that make use of it." Most of the -gate coinages are one-offs, nonce usages, jokes, or journalistic short-cuts used when column inches are precious. In order for the -gate coinages to have legs, the scandals they are connected to must have legs as well...The controversies of the two Clinton presidential terms turned out endless -gates...but...proved to be ephemeral once the president's impeachment resulted in acquittal and when other charges made against Friends of Bill resulted in few convictions and even less compelling press coverage...It's the same for most -gates...Irangate...is still more often known as "the Iran-Contra affair." Irangate is disappearing from use, and other names for the scandal...lasted only as long as the newsprint on which they were printed...Contributing to the mayfly lifespan of some -gate coinages is the fact that sometimes a simple -gate nickname is not enough to remind one of the details. Other -gate coinages disappear because the coiner's hoped-for hullabaloo fails to materialize. Maybe it wasn't really a scandal. Maybe the new -gate word was merely the produce of proximity politics, in which its "scandal" connotation was used to malign an opponent, no details or true scandal required...[35]

In other words, the term is used sensationally, has a short shelf life, and we know that the connotation of "climategate" was used by a fringe group of climate skeptics to malign climate scientists and the established science of climate change which is supported by multiple lines of evidence. "The coiner's hoped-for hullabaloo [failed] to materialize" and resulted in ZERO convictions. Unless Wikipedia has suddenly been turned into a trashy tabloid that caters to the lunatic fringe, we have no use for the term as an article title. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have re-inserted a modified version of my original edit, because it is true that not only opponents of the theory of global warming use the term, and even the included source supports this view.

If you admit that 'not only opponents of the theory of global warming use the term' your last edit is silly; it implies the exact opposite. I'm not sure if it was a mistake and you meant to say something else, but I reverted as per the logic in the earlier discussion. --Blogjack (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That said, I do call into question the commonality of the term as divorced from its opposition, or a news-speak, rather than a term with simple neutral implication. Here is documented evidence: The first news report in the BBC when the hacking incident happened. No mention of any "climategate" or some such. As non-partisan research on social media has shown, the term was first used and gained currency among the participants in the comments section of the the two partisan blogs that first published the emails. It is clear, in its genesis, that the term was hatched as a partisan term to influence the public debate and the newsmedia. Further research shows that initially the news media took the story on from this perspective, in fact, there was some initial confusion, as some media outlets - specially in the USA - either hid or were not aware that these emails had been obtained not just illegally, but by active hacking (rather than whistle-blowing from a disgusted insider). This difference is not trivial, it is when the difference becomes clear that we see a drop-off in the usage of the term in the news media, or its usage in scare quotes - that is, not speaking in the journalistic voice, but quoting someone else saying it - which is usually an opponent of the theory of global warming.

The reality is that we should dispute that this incident is "commonly known" as "Climategate" - as far as I can see, in general the news media have stopped using the term, or using it only to quote opponents or to dispute the validity of the term - all reasons that stem by the almost unique usage of this term as an epithet by opponents, and its proven beyond a doubt origin as a partisan epithet. The initial usage remains, but can be safely ignored as a common usage as it was the usual vulnerability to the whims of an uninformed media that a breaking news event has. The reality is that supporters of the hacked scientists and/or the theory of global warming do not use the term, but instead refers to the "CRU hacks", or variations thereof.

the scandal related to the released emails is commonly known as climategate, so we don't need to dispute that. People who refer to "the CRU hacks" aren't simply using a different term for the same thing, they are focusing on *part* of the climategate story, the part they prefer to discuss. --Blogjack (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is silly, in the face of the serious evidence such as what I have provided, to continue to argue that the usage of the term "Climategate" is not partisan, and that saying, without a single source to back this, that it is "commonly known". "Commonly known" implies a lack of controversy, and any mention of this term without qualification and attribution in Wikipedia is a clear violation of NPOV due to its partisan nature.

It is also silly to deny that it is not a wildly controversial recognizable name (different from "commonly known"), that's why we must include it in the lede and as a redirect.

The naming of the article is being discussed above, so I wont address it here.--Cerejota (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, you wrote, as far as I can see, in general the news media have stopped using the term, or using it only to quote opponents or to dispute the validity of the term. I believe you're mistaken. I find it is the most generally used term by all except those who are on the defense. In other words, those who are neutral and those who are on the offence are the ones who use it.
  • Naturally the BBC did not use the term "Climategate" within twelve hours of its being coined!
  • The BBC has consistently used it since it was coined. 27 July 2011.
  • The University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, target of "ClimateGate". . .
  • The issue peaked just before the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen, when a batch of e-mails and other documents was stolen from a CRU server and made public - the affair dubbed "ClimateGate".
I'm not sure the difference between "recognizable" and "common" matters. In any case, I'm restoring "also known as."
I experienced an edit conflict when posting; I will not be restoring "AKA" just now since SofV wisely shut this down for awhile.
Can we again form a consensus for "also known as Climategate"? Yopienso (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, maybe there are some obscure other names by which it is known, but "X is also known as Y" normally is used when the subject is better known as X than as Y. It's like like saying "also known as 'New York City'" when someone refers to it as "The Big Apple". It's odd and misleading, to say the least. "Best known as" is factually correct (whether you like it or not) --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that "best known as" or "commonly known as" would be the most factually correct. But if we can't get consensus on that I'd be willing to settle for "also known as". It's certainly an improvement on what's there now (which I had assumed was a mistake given the talk discussion). --Blogjack (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with any of these suggestions so long as that's all that's said. I oppose including anything similar to by critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Yopienso (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, the usage is with scare quotes, that suggests - and is reflected in the source text - that an editorial decision not to endorse the term is made.

It is obvious the BBC couldn't have used the term before it was coined, true. It also shows that neutral news media didn't adopt the term on their own, but got caught in buzzwording a PR term that got snowcloned into dominance, and as the PR offensive receded, and the journalistic facts emerged, the most respected and reliable news media, like the BBC, have been quietly retreating from the usage - such as renaming categories and making editorial choices not to use the term without scare quotes. It is rare for the news media to accept errors, but it is not rare for them to quietly retract from them, and they are doing so for the term "climategate".

In particular, as has been observed in neutral sources, this retreat is consciously linked to the realization that the only scandal here was the email hacking, not what the emails said. There have been no news reports in the non-partisan news media on the contents of the emails on a few years, however there has been ongoing reporting on the controversy and the crime of hacking.

"Climategate" is a partisan term, and its usage in non-partisan sources is entirely tied to the coverage of partisan sources - this has been proven beyond a doubt not by opinions but by research.

Again, I think my revised version, which clearly attributes the usage using a reliable source, is way better than any other proposed alternatives: it is NPOV (doesn't take sides), it accepts that it is used (doesn't expunge it or reduce its importance), and it gives it due prominence in the first sentence of the lede (not buries it). None of the alternatives proposed give sourcing for their claim, none attribute usage, and none are NPOV, but actually partisan attempts to give WP:UNDUE weight to a term that was hatched in the same blogs that published the hacked emails, while seeking to bury this highly notable fact, or even expunge it completely. Unless a truly NPOV *and* sourced alternative emerges, I stand by my version.--Cerejota (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"commonly known as Climategate" is accurate and unbiased, but difficult to source. "also known as Climategate" is probably adequate. "Called Climategate by global warming deniers" fails NPOV badly. I'm afraid "Best known as", although probably accurate, is extremely difficult to source. The present locked version should be completely unacceptable to an editor attempting to follow WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Who proposed ""Called Climategate by global warming deniers"? I agree that would be entirely awful, but I think you building strawmen, unless I am missing something.
"commonly known as Climategate" is accurate and unbiased, but difficult to source. I know about the difficulty of sourcing it (and believe me, I tried because I do think AKA with source is the better solution). This difficulty, as I tore through the sourcing sources, can only be explained by one thing, which is that the majority of the sources making the claim are partisan, or not reliable otherwise. You also find formulations similar to the ones here in non-RS that attempt to be neutral, for example this blog post in the The Explainer at Slate.com. In fact, I suspect the slate article is the origin of this formulation in this article. However, that article was written when "Climategate" was still in heavy rotation in the media. "Commonly know" is a very relative term, relative demographically (ie common among who?), relative time-wise (ie commonly used when?) etc. The encyclopedic voice requires attribution and precision that most journalism lacks. The fact is, that if we eliminate some of the news media and critics of the theory of global warming as sources (I am not suggesting we do this, BTW), the "commonly known" meme crumbles, and what emerges is the "CRU email hacking" (or variations) as the most common name.--Cerejota (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, wrt your statement, "the majority of the sources making the claim are partisan, or not reliable otherwise," I'm understanding "the claim" to be calling the controversy of which this article treats Climategate, "Climategate," ClimateGate, or climate-gate and maybe a few other variations of single or double quotes, of capitalization, or of hyphenation. If that's what you mean, again, I believe you are mistaken. I have quoted the non-partisan RSs BBC and The Guardian above. I have previously cited the hometown paper, Mother Jones, USA Today, CBS, Nature, SciAm, etc. It's extraordinarily easy to source the MSM's use of the term "Climategate." What's difficult is to find non-partisan RSs that avoid the term. "Common" to me means what the MSM commonly uses. That establishment journals also call it "Climategate" makes it impossible to deny this is the common name except in partisan sources.
B2C has a good point that there is no one definitive name besides "Climategate" by which the controversy is known. Again, I will suggest we compromise and agree to call the article by our title contrived to be non-pejorative and encyclopedic and say it is also or commonly or frequently or often or sometime or. . .or. . . or. . . known as "Climategate" without attribution. Or, go ahead and attribute it the scientific journals, but not to critics. That was in the early weeks. Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. Lets make sure we keep things organized. The issue of article name is discussed in the RM, not here. Here we are discussing how the term "Climategate" should be presented in the lede.
  1. As I have mentioned, I do not dispute - as it would be silly to do so - the the name "climategate" is widely recognized as relating to this event. The issue is not if we have to include it - we have to include it, in my view.
  2. You try to use sources to sustain a point of view that the sources do not support. For example, as I noted in my original post, the Mother Jones article is both clearly partisan, and is speaking about the partisan origin of the term - the article actually harms your position rather than help it - the Mother Jones article actually points to the partisan origin of the term (I also provided the factcheck link above - we really have a bad case of cognitive dissonance going). So does the Nature article. The SciAm usage is the only one that really supports a view that this is "commonly known" except it is an exception, which voids the claim of "commonly".
  3. The point is not a quantitative one - is not the quantity of the usage, but a qualitative one - how it is used. "Commonly known" is an assertion that is both qualitative and quantitative, it implies -correctly- that their is widespread recognition of the term as relating to the CRU email hacks, but it also implies -incorrectly- that there is a neutrality in this adoption. There isn't: careful qualitative views, not by wikipedia editors but by - for example - the factcheck report you provided, or the source my version of the lede includes, show that the term didn't rise organically, but was the result of a partisan strategy of misinformation. Further study of recent reliable sources shows a retreat from that formulation in non-partisan sources with serious journalistic standards (ie not USA Today). For example
  4. My point is that naked inclusion of the term "Climategate" - even if the article is named "Climategate" - is a violation of NPOV. We resolve that with sourcing and attribution. The source I provided is serious, non-partisan, and backs what is being said: a)the term is used by the critics of the theory of global warming b) some of the media. I fail to see why an unsourced naked assertion is better than a sourced attribution, it simple boggles the mind to want a decrease of encyclopedic quality and information in such a manner.
  5. The statement that there is no descriptive name in current usage is false - the current article title fits, or perhaps the addition of "hacking". It is indeed more recent, because it only came with the Great Retraction, when the MSM realized they have been taken for a ride and there was no scandal to be had, except the criminal actions of hackers against the CRU. Ironically, in the case of the BBC, the change came only after claims by critics of the theory of global warming that the BBC was biased in its coverage led to an independent review that recommended, among other things, the ceasing of using the term "climategate" in the journalistic voice. For example, these two BBC articles from last year do not mention "climategate" at all, yet mention CRU and email hacking [36] and [37].
  6. "Common" to me doesn't mean the MSM, although they are not ignored. "Common" also means "non-controversial", besides "recognized", synonymous in this case with "colloquially" (see for example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church"). Common is calling a dwelling, a "house". Colloquial is calling an automobile a "car". Climategate is not colloquial, it is partisan, like saying "pro-life" rather than "opposed to abortion rights". --Cerejota (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Correct; we're discussing the lede, not the title.
2. Yes, it began as a partisan term. The Mother Jones article is not partisan. It "really supports a view that this is 'commonly known'." Excerpt:
. . .I resisted calling the incident "Climategate." Yet it appeared in almost every post we wrote about it at Mother Jones, because it very quickly became the shorthand that everyone seemed to be using to refer to theft and release of a number of emails between notable climate scientists. . . .my editors and I agreed that this would be the name most readily identifiable to readers.
3. Factcheck used the term in its headline, ascribed its origin as coming from skeptics who wanted to attach scandal to the event, and then went on to use it neutrally: Leading scientists are unequivocally reaffirming the consensus on global warming in the wake of "Climategate." You forgot to include your example.
4. What's wrong with your attribution is that it gives the appearance that "Climategate" is used only by critics. This is simply, obviously, verifiably untrue.
5. Read more carefully. I wrote, "no one definitive name." Notice that I provided B2C with several names.
6. I'm using these definitions of "common.": 2. Widespread; prevalent. 3. a. Occurring frequently or habitually; usual. b. Most widely known; ordinary Yopienso (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for an obviously thoughtful contribution, even when we are disagreement.
  1. Obviously an article examining the term, will use the term - but you push aside the reluctant part of the comment. Why that reluctance? Perhaps because the term is inherently POV charged? But again, I do not dispute that when this became scorching hot news, everyone and their grandma used it, specially before it became widely known that it was a manufactured partisan term. I grant you that, and so does Mother Jones! And Mother Jones, however, would probably want that term completely deleted from this article, because that is their POV.
  2. Again scare quotes are important - they are using the term not as a common name, but as a scare quoted "so-called". Usage is not the same as common name, a common name is "house" or "apartment", not "McMansion" or "Luxury Condo". All four are in extremely common, but not all four are common names, only the first two - the later two are one a derogatory POV against an architectural form for houses, the other a marketing POV that generally sells you an overpriced apartment. This is why I advocate the creation of section, if not an article, on the term "climategate" itself: as a snowclone, media strategy, political meme hacking, etc it is highly notable as a term separate from what one side of the POV uses to describe this event. THat has encyclopedic value in itself, similar to Eurabia.
  3. That is a fair point. I addressed by modifying my original entry and adding some in the media as per the source. I am willing to hear suggestions for further modification and editing, and as I have said time and again, additional or different sourcing, but I cannot in good conscience support the inclusion of the term without attribution and without sourcing. I could even accept (also known as "climategate")sources if further down in the lede a line or two are given to explain the partisan origin of the term. But "commonly known" is a weasel word in this context. I try not to come up with silly partisan objections - but expect the same in return: hard work finding sources and verifiability, not platitudes pulled out of our asses. :)
  4. I question the "definitiveness" of "climategate". The same Mother Jones article speaks of "stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit" which is a few words away from our current title, and does so before mentioning "climategate". Yes, no one invented a neologism to call this event neutrally, that is because there is no need to: perfectly descriptive phrase suffice - such is the wealth of the English language that we can call new things using existing words without needing to invent ones. "Definitive" doesn't mean "unique" or "single word" - it means widely identifiable, and there is no journalist, scientist or political commentator in the English speaking world today who does identify a phrase like ""stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit" instantly or near instantly, and certainly as fast as they would "climategate". If you do not know what "stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit" means, you have other problems bigger than global warming... or at the very least shouldn't be talking about this topic. Our neutrality and need to attribute, shouldn't suffer simply because only one side of the debate got themselves a winner of a PR snowclone. That argument essentially means, if applied globally, "which ever side comes up with the best viral neologism wins at wikipedia". I don't think so.
  5. We could play dictionary forever. According to my Oxford Compact, "commonly" in this case means "lacking special distinction, rank, or status; commonly encountered". That is, it is not only used often, but also it is undistinguished. I recall above making the distinction between qualitative and quantitative, well, here we have the dictionary version of that. You argue that "commonly" only refers to the quantitative, but the reality is that it also refers to the qualitative. In this case it means both that it is widely used, and that it is lacking special distinction. The first is correct, the second is not. And as per my point right before this, there is actually not a single word, other than by direct attribution, that can mean "commonly" in the quantitative sense, but not the qualitative sense.
  6. I feel like am doing everyone's thinking here, but we here is something that the source I found supports, and with which I could live: (widely called in the media and commonly named by opponents of the theory of global warming as "climategate") It is both quantitatively and qualitatively true and neutral.--Cerejota (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected - edit warring

Protected one week, since some parties think edit warring is a valid means of dispute resolution. Settle this above, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

SoV, please restore this to the stable version agreed to by consensus back in 19 April 2011 before this recent edit war started. Finding consensus on new wording should be burden of the person wanting to make a change. Your suggestion to "Settle this above" ignores all the people who have already "solved" this once before. IMO, leaving it like this is an unnecessary slap in the face of everyone who worked to stop the previous edit wars. Q Science (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:CCC and WP:OWN. Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it should be protected in the version that has been agreed upon multiple times for the greater part of two years. I became involved in this article when the issue was raised on Jimbo's talk page in 2010, and since then the consensus has been stable. One editor coming along and changing the article does not represent a change in consensus. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, there is no WP:DEADLINE. However, why do you not argue something of substance? You have been absent from the debate so far...--Cerejota (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It's all been said, not just in this discussion but in numerous repetitive discussions dating back to early 2010 and perhaps earlier. It's tiresome to see the same issues discussed over and over again after consensus is settled on a particular aspect of this article. The "Climategate" stuff is perhaps the one that has been beaten to death the most. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So we should have a version you support because you are too tired to defend it? That makes no sense.--Cerejota (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
No we should have the version established by consensus multiple times. The repetitious challenging of that consensus is what is tiresome. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version, or better still concisely state the reasoning behind the preferred version in a new [sub]section and seek consensus (again). I agree that "(commonly known as "Climategate")" has problems and the current version is better sourced, perhaps some other wording will meet with wider approval. The origins of the term are discussed in the Media coverage section, the sources could perhaps improve that section. . . dave souza, talk 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The current version is just wrong. It is commonly known as Climategate; in fact, a simple (although original) literature search shows that "Climategate" is the most common specific term used. The current form gives undue weight to the position that Climategate is only used by climate sceptics, by not mentioning any other use. It certainly seems appropriate to mention the origin of the term (although probably not in the lede), but to ignore the fact that it is commonly used is clearly an WP:NPOV violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well in regard of being common, it's certainly a vulgar term, but as you know well we should be citing academic expert opinion and not using our own original literature searches to promote out own feelings! Suggest again that such points should be argued in a new section, preferably with the aim of finding a better description with suitable sources. . dave souza, talk 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you name any publication (book, magazine, or newspaper, not just a single article) which has not used "Climategate". If you can, I may have to reconsider my position. Otherwise, I stand by my statement that "Climategate" is a common usage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
No one is arguing that "climategate" is not in usage, even common usage. Please see my contributions to the title discussion, and in this thread above. Its fine to disagree, but it is unproductive to argue against what no one is arguing for. I am not going to repeat myself, but I am beginning to see a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue - I even offered yet another version. The reality is that the "commonly known" as formulation takes NPOV and makes it meaningless by the lack of attribution. The only way I would allow Climategate as article title and as prominent title would be as term in itself, as a snowclone/meme and PR buzzword itself, something for which the RS are just piling on, but is not quite there to warrant an article. --Cerejota (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm opposed to use of "climategate" in the article title, and that discussion was my original entry point into this article. But the fact remains that it is commonly used as a name for the controversy. If "commonly" is a problem, it can go. But I don't think there's any doubt that it is AKA "climategate." Saying that in the lead is simply accurate, and that's why I just don't get the constant bickering over the lead. Perhaps one solution is to have a subsection on the term itself, carved out of the media section. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll again add my voice to the apparent consensus that the subject of this article is also known as "Climategate."
Dave might answer Arthur's question. I disagree with Dave's point about the term being "vulgar" and that we should be "citing [only] academic expert opinion." (Certainly it's "vulgar," which merely means "common." That does not disqualify it for use.) The rule is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The term has indeed been published many, many times by nearly every reliable source, including, as has also been noted repeatedly, Nature and SciAm.
I don't understand Cerejota's point. Sorry, but I find your posts difficult to follow.
Scotty, thanks for your input. This bears repeating: "But I don't think there's any doubt that it is AKA 'climategate.' Saying that in the lead is simply accurate. . ." Yopienso (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Calling this a consensus is laughable - there is clearly a polarization of opinion, but hardly A consensus. In fact, the above RFC clearly demonstrated the consensus is that "climategate" is a controversial term that cannot be used as the title. While this discussion is about a different thing, claiming a "consensus" when there clearly isn't one is a bit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And claiming not to follow points, without asking for clarification, also is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you do not understand something, ask. --Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This also bears repeating naked assertion without sourcing is not a substitute for reliably sourced statements. Or as the rules say, verifiability, not truth.--Cerejota (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
How does that bear on the discussion? Who is making any naked, unsourced assertions? Yopienso (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm opposed to "Climategate" being the title of this article. I think an "aka Climategate" reference in the lead is fine, but I also feel that a section describing the derivation of the term may also be desirable. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, Scotty. I don't know why Cerejota interjected the comment about the title. I thought you quite ably made clear there has been a consensus since April to note the usage "Climategate." Prior to that, we said the media so dubbed it, which, although true and verifiable, is a bit limited in scope of usage. Still, it's far, far, better, and perhaps an interim compromise, to the totally unacceptable insinuation that only critics call it "Climategate." Along with your invoking long-held consensus and Arthur's and my agreement, I saw a consensus. Obviously Dave and Cerejota disagree. Consensus is rarely unanimous. If not a consensus yet, it leans heavily toward the established wording, which, may I add, passed muster with all involved editors, including Dave, who is now changing his opinion, which is certainly his prerogative. I appreciate your thoughtful responses; what say you? Yopienso (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Whether there is a consensus or not is somewhat beside the point at this stage. It's protected and now there has to be an agreement on wording of the lead. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yopienso: please read the very beginning of this thread (not the sub-heading, the thread) which I started. The version at the time of my edit was (commonly known as "climategate") without sourcing of any kind. That is what I call a naked, unsourced assertion. I hope this clarifies it for you. I have proposed different versions, including the one in the current protected version, all of which are sourced, and reflect what the source says. I am not opposed to any version that is both NPOV and sourced, but I am opposed to any version that is not sourced, or that doesn't attributes belief. So I am opposed, for example, to "commonly known as" unless it is well sourced with NPOV or to "also known as" if those who know it by that name are not identified. As to why I oppose this, I point you to the ample reasoning I provided above. More importantly, I think any sourced version is preferable to the unsourced statement as per WP:BURDEN, there is no way we should agree to a consensus that prefers an unsourced statement to a well-sourced one. --Cerejota (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, Cerejota, I have trouble following your posts. If I understand you correctly, all that needed doing (according to you) was adding any of the multitude of RSs that use the term. Would that not have been simpler than adding a long, explanatory phrase? The term is so generally known that the involved editors saw no need to add a source for months. We do not source self-evident facts. Yopienso (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, there is never a requirement for references in the introduction. In fact, many people have argued for getting rid of them in all articles. Instead, the intro should be a summary of what is in the article. That said, a separate section explaining the term makes sense. However, there is no reason to over due it since this article already has multiple references that use the term. Q Science (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also no requirement we do not use sources. Its a choice we make. However, we are required to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and in this case that requires sourcing and attribution.--Cerejota (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Shall we note the controversy is aka "Climategate"?

I moved this thread because it is basically a fork of the above discussion, and we should keep things about the same topic together to avoid repeating the arguments more than needed--Cerejota (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On 22 March 2010, there was an edit war about noting the controversy is often called or was dubbed "Climategate." It settled down by the end of the month as "dubbed 'Climategate' in the media" with an occasional tweak. On 7 August 2011 a clause was added asserting "Climategate" was used by critics, implying that only critics use that term. Do we wish to affirm the established consensus that the controversy is dubbed or called or known as "Climategate," or do we wish to say only critics or sceptics call it "Climategate"? Our decision must, of course, be based on RSs.Yopienso (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We all know that Climategate is the name of the controversy used by all sources. It is called "Climategate" by Nature, New Scientist, Mother Jones, The Guardian, the BBC, and every left leaning, politically correct outlet you can think of. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"We all know...." - this is a complete rewrite of recent talk-page history. May i suggest that you scroll up, and start reading? Because that sentence indicates that you haven't read any of the above discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither of these two responses answers the question posed in this section. Yopienso (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As you know, I was in favor of leaving well enough alone. But since we're "back to the drawing board" on this, we need to establish a new consensus on the language and revisit the whole blessed thing over again. As for the Guardian, in a recent article it is referred to as the "so-called Climategate." The term is pejorative and needs to be used with caution. ScottyBerg(talk) 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
So, are you in favor of an opening sentence along this line? The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate") began in November 2009. . .Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. My concern was mainly about process, the endless bickering around every little dot and dash in this article. Now that it's open up to discussion again, I think that we all have to have an open mind. Sorry if I've been confusing on this point. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The #Lede change thread still seems active, and is discussing the same issue - isn't it? I mean, why repeat the discussion, again? With the same arguments.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This was in direct response to Suggest again that such points should be argued in a new section, preferably with the aim of finding a better description with suitable sources. . dave souza, talk 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC). Yopienso (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Then i don't understand why the intro to this section doesn't summarize the arguments pro/contra of the issue? Which have already been parsed in the sections above. It is tedious to restart discussions again and again from scratch. I'd also note that the "consensus" referred to, afaict, is something that never existed in reality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Aspects of the lead are being parsed in several sections. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yopienso, I did in fact answer your question. Your question was, ... do we wish to say only critics or sceptics call it "Climategate"? Our decision must, of course, be based on RSs. I then gave you five examples of leading left leaning outlets that have all chosen to describe the incident as "Climategate". Everyone knows the sources I am talking about because they've been discussed extensively throughout the many rename requests that have been raised for this page and the same editors have been present each time. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, I'm looking for a "Yes" or "No" with supporting reasons. You have only stirred in contention. Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact that we have a significant amount of WP:RS's that use the name in scare-quotes, and who classify it as a name that point out POV nature of it.... makes it imperative that we go beyond the "also called" stage. How we do that is open for discussion, but the fact that it should, isn't. Again, see the arguments in the open discussions on this page.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It is also widely known as the "so-called Climategate" scandal.[38] Use of "so-called" effectively brands the term as bull. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
So called "Climategate" could work, it addresses the elephant in the room. Although i suspect that it would be even more controversial as a lede item, than the current alternatives, especially to newcomers, although no version will be uncontroversial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to review this this sensibly, then I would start by suggesting that the complexity of the issue precludes trying to squeeze the discussion of it into parentheses within the first sentence. It unbalances the whole point of the opening sentence and just reads like poor writing. There was a time when it was covered in the opening of the second paragraph of the lede, which I think worked well. Of course, the main coverage of the origins, usage and implications of the term should be under 'Media coverage' or somewhere like it. At the moment, searching the whole article for 'climategate' is instructive - it occurs no fewer than 50 times, and it appears that people have managed to squeeze the term into use outside of direct quotations, and without scare quotes, at least twice in Wikipedia's own voice. I'm not happy with that. --Nigelj (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree the history of the word not be squeezed into the opening sentence! The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede takes care of this appropriately, and the Media coverage section expands on it.
I counted three times and each time came up with 11 uses of "Climategate" in the article plus one in the sidebar. Once was in our voice with scare quotes and once without. I would suppose consensus to add the quotation marks or change the wording will come easily. (I'll be the first to acquiesce.) Your count includes the refs, which I did not count, but assuming there are 38, that again shows how ubiquitous the term is in the RSs.
I interpret the first part of your response to mean you support a very brief parenthetical phrase in the very first sentence noting the controversy is also known as or is also called "Climategate," with further details following. Is this correct? Yopienso (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Close. rather than having it in both paras, I would scratch it from the opening lines and bold it, adding the detail that is currently parenthesised into the opening of the second para. Something like this:
The story first broke in the blogosphere,[4] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to refer to the controversy.[5] This term, with its implied reference toWatergate, was quickly picked up by so-called 'climate sceptics', and popularised by some of the news media.[2] [... (remainder of 2nd para here)]
--Nigelj (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I prefer The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate"). . . as a nod to popular usage and so the first-time reader can know right off the bat he's on the right page. I hope this section will produce a consensus one way or the other. Yopienso (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I support Yopienso's common-sense proposal. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
So would I, if you could find a verifiable source for it. --Cerejota (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, please read more carefully. At 06:18 10 August 2011 and 22:12 10 August 2011 on the thread "lede change" I directed you to multiple verifiable, reliable sources. Yopienso (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's verging on tendentious to claim that it is not also known as Climategate, and appropriate that we ourselves use scarequotes. I support Yopienso's proposal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've properly sourced the fact that the controversy is also known as "Climategate" and removed the longer parenthetical explanation from the first sentence. It is important to be included, but not there. Further explanation is necessary to show the term has been adopted by nearly every newspaper, magazine, and broadcaster we can find. Otherwise, we give undue weight to the pejorative sense of the term. Yopienso (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is called Climategate and i see nothing good/bad with it, because it can also be described as the climate gate of the climate sceptics, as it turned out, just depends how you look at it. Gise-354x (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And I have tagged it with {{who}} because no attribution is made as to who "knows it as" and since the sources provided are not web available, I have also place {{verify}} to verify the actual text supports the assertion and is not an opinion piece.--Cerejota (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, please remove those tags immediately. Both articles are available on the web; proper citations no longer include URLs. Here they are for your convenience.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climategate-redux
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468345a.html
As to "who," it is every person willing and able to read the literature in English. Please stop your tendentiousness. Yopienso (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but why not link directly to the webversion? Gise-354x (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Done! Yopienso (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"Who" is best answered by a section in the article describing its usage (ledes don't actually have to have sourcing if the main body of the article gives it). Some people here seem to have a lot of time on their hands to argue on the talkpage - might I suggest diverting that effort into writing a section using the RS that analyses the use of "climategate"?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
We're now down to ignoring the elephant in the room again.. without any hint in the lede as to the POV nature of the moniker, and that a significant proportion of sources, use the moniker in scare-quotes. That simply isn't good enough. Popular usage isn't climategate, but "climategate" or so called climategate etc etc. This has to be addressed in the lede. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The lede should reflect the contents of the article. Once more may I suggest that somebody familiar with all the RS on the usage of climategate write a section on it? I would if I had the time to focus on it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If that be the argument, then we should remove "climategate" from the lede entirely. Since there is no real discussion in body about it. This obviously isn't an option, nor is it (considering the length of the article) a real option to have an indepth terminology section. Thus it returns back to us as editors to do as good a job as possible, based upon the article mass that we're familiar with. And in this there is an Elephant. As has been noted/discussed/editwarred/... again and again and again and again and ..... The climategate moniker need some indications as to the nature of it, be it scarequotes (as a large bulk of sources do), or "so called" or something... Just noting it as if there is no controversy - is simply bad editing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously what is the problem with the word climategate? I find it much more important to get rid of the remark "controversy" and "conspiracy links" (see voting above section), because it is no longer a controversy! Gise-354x (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kim, "Climategate" is in scare quotes in the lede, and nine other times in the text and info box. The only time outside the references it is not in scare quotes is in a direct quote from Leiserowitz of Yale, who does not use scare quotes in his paper. The second paragraph of the lede shows the sceptic origins. The first paragraph of the section "Media coverage" amply explains the pejorative, fringe slant. Yopienso (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kim, you can't have it both ways. If there is not enough sourcing for a paragraph on the terminology, then there is not enough for the lede. I happen to think that there is enough for a paragraph, as I thought would have been obvious by my repeated pleading for people with enough time to bicker at great length on the talkpage to get on and add to the value of the encyclopedia and write that section.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor issue of fact in section 3.4.2 Information Commissioner's Office

I'm mostly keeping away from this article for obvious reasons, but there is a minor factual error directly concerning me in the first and last paragraphs of Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Information_Commissioner.27s_Office. The first paragraph says

On 14 August Jonathan A. Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge made a FOIA request for the data that Jones had sent to Webster, on 11 September UEA refused the request.[16][87]

and it looks like the dates are taken from [87] which is FER0280033, the ruling on Keiller's request. However our requests were quite separate, and I made my request on 24 July, and was refused on 14 August, as detailed in FER0282488.

Not hugely important but would be good to get this right. There are obvious knock on consequences for the last paragraph of the section, and possibly elsewhere in the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this point, the article is currently protected from editing so we have to be sure to agree a way forward before making any changes. The BBC News report discussed the FOI requests by yourself and Keiller, and gave a link to "when the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) ruled that UEA had to release the data." The ruling, reference FER0280033, doesn't identify who made the request, simply discussing "the complainant".
In light of the points you raise, I've looked up FER0282488 which again refers to "the complainant", and as you say gives different dates for the request and refusal. Otherwise it seems to be nearly identical to the FER0280033 ruling, showing the same decision date and essentially the same decision. We need a published source to say who made what request, and since I've yet to find such a source, I propose the following changes:
"On 14 August Jonathan A. Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge made a FOIA request for the data that Jones had sent to Webster, on 11 September UEA refused the request.[16][87]" changed to "Jonathan A. Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge made FOIA requests for the data that Jones had sent to Webster.[16] The requests were both refused by the UEA by 11 September 2009.[87]" Reference [87] would show both FER0282488 and FER0280033, and not note the dates the requests were made and refused.
"In discussions with the ICO about the FOIA request made by Jones and Keiller on 14 August 2009, before the email controversy had begun," would be changed to "In discussions with the ICO about the FOIA requests which Jones and Keiller had made before the email controversy had begun,". This is currently cited to ref. [101] which would be replaced by ref. [87] incorporating both decisions as discussed above.
If there are no objections to these changes, they can be implemented. Otherwise, please advise of any suggested improvements. . . dave souza, talk 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Oops, typed "not" when I meant "note", see proposed footnote wording below. dave souza, talk 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the INFORMATION RIGHTS REPORT – Management Board 18 July 2011 1. Cross sectoral work 1.1 Protection of Freedoms Bill p. 6 says the ruling "has attracted considerable attention in the scientific community as an illustration as to how far FOI and EIR may push researchers to disclose scientific data. A considerable debate is developing about open science. The Royal Society is running a consultation which the ICO is in the process of responding to." This points to effects of these decisions which should be noted in the article. . . dave souza, talk 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your proposed main change seems fine to me; I understand the problem you will have finding a reliable source for which decision is which. You can find unredacted copies of my decision at [39] and [40] but I doubt these are much use for that purpose. So simply leaving the dates out and referring to both decisions is likely to be the best that can be done barring further reporting, which seems unlikely at the moment.
With regard to your ICO report, I prefer not to express an opinion as I am too close to the matter. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, the two decision notices are indeed identical with regard to the parts of the requests which are common to both, but Keiller also requested some additional information and the ICO upheld UEA's refusal to release this (on the grounds that UEA didn't hold it, as far as I recall). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, to avoid any controversy about this proposed edit I'll formally request that the change be made, using the template below. My intention is to show the decision dates in the footnotes but not in the body text, that was unclear due to a typo in my statement which I've now corrected, so hope that's ok. The note about the ICO report was a pointer for future discussion, and not an immediate edit: we really have to wait for more detail to emerge in reliable published sources. Your comments and assistance are much appreciated, dave souza, talk 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[editprotected request answered]

Edit as proposed rewording of text shown above, also inline citation [87] (ref name='FER0280033') reworded as follows, and additionally used to replace citation [101] which currently duplicates [87]:
<ref name='FER0280033'>{{cite web | url = http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0282488.ashx | title = Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Decision Notice | accessdate =15 August 2011 | date = 23 June 2011 | format = PDF | work= FER0282488 | publisher=ICO}} FOI request made 24 July 2009, refused by UEA 14 August 2009.<br> {{cite web | url = http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx | title = Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Decision Notice | accessdate =15 August 2011 | date = 23 June 2011 | format = PDF | work= FER0280033 | publisher=ICO}} FOI request made 14 August 2009, refused by UEA 11 September 2009.</ref>
If an uninvolved admin prefers, I can make these changes with their agreement. . dave souza, talk 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Info now moved to HadCRUT and changes implemented as above. . dave souza, talk 07:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

In March 2010, American economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University wrote the following in Scientific American:

...it's time to step up the response to the climate skeptics, who have misled the public. The Wall Street Journal leads the campaign against climate science, writing editorials charging that scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy. I have made repeated invitations to the Journal editors to meet with climate scientists publicly for an open discussion or debate, but all have been rebuffed.[41]

Sachs is clearly referring to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and the massive propaganda campaign the WSJ ran against the scientists, accusing them of malfeasance before a single investigation had exonerated them. I would like to see more information in our media coverage section about the role the WSJ had in fueling this non-event. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Could Murdoch’s News Corp be behind Climategate too? http://www.grist.org/climate-energy/2011-07-19-could-murdochs-news-corp-be-behind-climategate-too Gise-354x (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we've seen it already, many times in fact. But it is just speculation at this point. I'm curious if the WSJ had been accused of this kind of misleading editorial bias prior to the 2007 merger of News Corp. and Dow Jones. I could be mistaken, but I do not think they had, as prior to 2007, Americans on both the left and the right looked to the WSJ for timely and accurate information. Is this still the case or has the WSJ lost the plot? Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I note this because the WSJ belongs to the Murdoch empire. So if you assess the WSJ, everything originates from the Murdoch. The problem is that the email hack went live during the time when News of the World hacked into many peoples private data and they had ties with Scotland Yard. IF you look at motives, you find that too. Actually it woudl surprise me if they can not be connected to the email hack. The investigation is still unresolved. Gise-354x (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the News Corporation Scandal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation_scandal Gise-354x (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we already know this and we've previously discussed it. You really do not need to keep repeating it. We got it already. As for my question whether the WSJ has been accused of editorial bias in regards to climate change prior to the 2007 merger of News Corp. and Dow Jones, I have an answer. As it turns out, I had completely forgotten that the original allegations of global warming conspiracy theory against the IPCC had their roots in the Ben Santer controversy which began with a letter the WSJ published by Frederick Seitz on June 12, 1996. The letter was titled, "A Major Deception on Global Warming" (Lahsen 112) and the WSJ appears to have been published Seitz's letter just days after the IPCC released "The Science of Climate Change 1995", the first new report on the state of the climate since 1990. Seitz's letter to the WSJ had the same effect as the release of the CRU e-mails that disrupted the Copenhagen conference. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Because climate skeptics claimed from the very beginning that the emails are proof of an conspiracy, we should include for the sake of neutrality the theory about the involvement of News Corporation/Murdoch/News of the World into the article to present both side of the coin. Especially because the hacking is still unresolved and parts of the media discussing this possibility. Gise-354x (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No, we usually don't talk about rumor and speculation on Wikipedia unless the sources are exceptionally good. At this point, we don't have them, so talking about Murdoch isn't ready for prime time just yet. We need to wait for better sources. As for the WSJ, however, we do have good sources talking about their role, and that can be expanded. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
So you suggest it is just fine to add the conspiracy theories of the fossil funded climate sceptics and do not include the only hint we have when it comes to the offender of this still unresolved hacking case? Are you also suggesting to not even link to the News Corp Scandal wiki entry? Please apply below, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the News Corporation scandal. The grist article states "Now, it is entirely possible that News Corp wasn't involved. But there is no way of knowing until we get a thorough and independent investigation." It's mere speculation, no matter how interesting or exciting. As for the WSJ, fwiw, there needs to be a thick line drawn between its factual reporting and its editorialised opinion pieces. The former is good RS, the latter are notoriously detached from what the former is good at talking about.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

See Also section - Adding News Corp Scandal link

Extended content

VsevolodKrolikov removed the See Also link to News Corporation Scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&curid=25160837&diff=445596768&oldid=445594721 He says - Remove Newscorp scandal link. That page has nothing at all about climate change; the link cited on the talkpage here is explicitly speculation.

First off you can learn in above section on Wall street, that parts of News Corp are involved in climate denial, on record. Secondly the reason to keep this link is because the media discusses the possibility, that the offender is News Corp, because it fits into the time when an orchestrated campaign, lead by Murdoch's News Corporation hacked into many people's data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation_scandal . If you argue that this is just speculation, it is not, because it is discussed in the mainstream media. So i ask you to re-add that link, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

More evidence, more then speculation. When MurdochGate Met ClimateGate quote "The so-called "Climate-Gate" controversy - in which e-mails about Global Warming were stolen from researchers at Britain's University of East Anglia in November, 2009 - now turns out to bear the stamp of Neil Wallis, one of the key figures in Murdoch's hacking of the phones, voicemails, and other electronic communications of thousands of people. Wallis is unique in this scandal. He had been the Executive Editor of Murdoch's "News Of The World" when hacking was at its peak. Yet in 2009 he wound up being hired by the police as a public relations consultant, while the police investigated the hacking scandal - and he wound up spying for Murdoch's people on what Scotland Yard was investigating. Wallis was, as the New York Times put it: "…reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996814/-When-MurdochGate-Met-ClimateGate " Gise-354x (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Olbermann piece is also speculation: "If any of the others among the "Hacked 12,000" turn out to be scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, Rupert Murdoch may be in a lot bigger trouble than he is, even tonight." Note the word "if". It's pretty important. If you're not happy with my response, you could go to WP:RSN and ask them if those sources are good enough to clearly state that News Corporation was involved in retrieving the emails. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but this is wikipedia, where we wait for RS confirmation of events.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Note: I say "third time" in my previous edit summary, as Gise also asked me on my talkpage for an explanation (which I gave again) and to undo my edit, which I have refused to do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please explain to me why we include in large parts the "un confirmed" conspiracy theories from climate scpetics, and leave out now the only theory (with media coverage) we have when it comes to the offender. Not only that, both wikipages are about hacking, another reason why to add at least a link. Gise-354x (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't include those conspiracy theories as facts, we report them as conspiracy theories that have received a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. Please remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, not a blog, not a soapbox and not a repository of rumours. For what you want to do, I think blogging would be a better solution.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that it is a fact? I think you misrepresenting the arguments here. Above we discuss already the introduction of a new section on Wall Street, here we discuss the link to the wiki entry of the News Corp Scandal, because it is both about hacking, both involves Scotland Yard and the media writes about the involvement, theories. What about we add a small section about the alleged offender, as some parts of the media speculate. Adding theories about the case offender is very well in the scope of the article. Further i have to add that i find that a bit strange that you argue that the wiki is not a repo for rumors, because you seem to be a bit biased here when removing certain links about "rumors about the case" and on the other hand keep the links to the global warming controversy and conspiracy. That is you contradict yourself with above arguments. Gise-354x (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You're bundling up several different points as if they're one point.
* There is RS linking the CRU emails controversy to more general attempts to spread global warming conspiracy theories.
* There is opinion of possibly due weight for inclusion that a Murdoch-owned publication has been supportive of these conspiracies - but that's not for this page, but for various pages dealing with skepticism, denialism, global warming controversy etc.
* There is speculation by one person (that Keith Olbermann then blogs about) that a Murdoch-owned publication might have been involved in obtaining the CRU emails, but that person is very, very, very clear that we don't actually know anything for sure. That's the only relevant thing here.
There's nothing biased about sticking to core content policies such as WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral Point of View and WP:No original research, all of which you appear to be transgressing here, particularly the first and last. It's true that both stories involve "hacking", and both, funnily enough involve Scotland Yard - but did you expect the Police Nationale or the Carabinieri instead to investigate things in Britain?
VsevolodKrolikov keeps ignoring facts and startign with unfaithful behavior, here are the facts with original sources. the source are results from the investigation, Media outlets, in particular: Phone hacking: Claims Neil Wallis was ‘reporting back’ to paper from Met http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8643820/Phone-hacking-Claims-Neil-Wallis-was-reporting-back-to-paper-from-Met.html and the New York Times quote from above, which is evidence for the involvement of NCS, quote "On Friday, The New York Times learned that the former editor, Neil Wallis, was reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case. " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/world/europe/17police.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:News_Corporation_scandal#Removing_of_Link_to_hacked_Climate_Emails Beside this there is the News Corp link with the Ben Santer Controversy, when NC published climate denial to attack a CRU researcher back in 1995 Gise-354x (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's become clear on the NewsCorp scandal talk page that Gise-354x is, for whatever reason, under the impression that the police investigation into phone hacking by journalists at the NOTW is precisely the same police investigation as the one into email hacking at CRU. As he's also started making repeated accusations regarding good faith, at this point I don't think further discussion on this topic will be fruitful. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the case because the above linked NYT article is referring to the time from 2006-2010, so the NYT was referring to the 2009 investigation of the hacked email case, just at the time when Neil Wallis was at work. Gise-354x (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC) There was no other investigation other then the CRU at the time and Neil Wallis started working at the police in october 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_scandal_investigations#Police_investigations Can we now because the NYT article is OR ok, and evidence for the connection, re-add the link Gise-354x (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No, "we" cannot re-add this link. It is perfectly obvious to everybody except you that the New York Times article is referring to the first News of the World phone hacking investigation. A connection between the phone hacking and the "Climategate" incident was never suggested, at least in public, by anyone before this week, so it's totally unreasonable to suggest the NYT meant to indicate such a connection without mentioning any of the obvious keywords (global warming, climate change, University of East Anglia etc.). "Hacking" appears many times in the article, and always refers to the phone hacking. Hans Adler 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you aware that you can also cite this blog here which says the opposite? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996814/-When-MurdochGate-Met-ClimateGate The New York Times article is the reliable source to confirm the timeframe not about the hacking case, other then that the time the NYT is referring to, there was no phonehacking investigation at that time. Gise-354x (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
For the last time: The NYT article is talking about the News of the World phone hacking affair, which started in 2006, the year when the MET (= Scotland Yard) began its investigations on the topic and made arrests in connection with it. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the journalist who wrote it ever considered a possible connection with "Climategate", let alone meant to imply one. Hans Adler 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Link between News Corp and the CRU investigation

Extended content

VsevolodKrolikov is using unfounded arguments to remove my See also Link, and another user, both claim the source is unreliable Alex claims this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gise-354x and VsevolodKrolikov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:News_Corporation_scandal The source is the New York Times, which reported a month ago that Neil Wallis was working at the MET, the time during the CRU investigations. At that time there was no other investigation. I have the feeling that both user follow an agenda and try to prevent this connection from being published on wikipedia. Initially VsevolodKrolikov, said i have no facts to support this claim, but the New York Times article makes this very clear. During a lengthly afford to find consensus he warns me of several Rules i would break and even ask me to leave the wikipedia and go blogging. He alleges that i would do my own investigation, which is laughable considering the mainstream NYT. Gise-354x (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Gise, please step back here. Three editors (including myself) are now informing you that you are confused on the news stories. The hacking the NYT article deals with involves "11,000 pages of handwritten notes listing nearly 4,000 celebrities, politicians, sports stars, police officials and crime victims whose phones may have been hacked." The hacking this WP article deals with is of computers in a university lab.
Also, please slow down in general. In going back over your edits of approx. 24 hours ago, I'm thinking your "spree" was a little too quick and some of your edits may need to be reverted. Please take the time and care to establish working relationships with fellow editors. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday you write "Gise, whoever you are--apparently a vet--thanks for all your work.", make up your mind Gise-354x (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Your editing seems to have changed. And, I may have thanked you too soon; at a glance it seemed to me you were quickly and significantly improving the article instead of just talking. Last night as I was reviewing the changes, I think some will have to be reverted. Hans Storch's quote, for example, should be restored. I wish you well, Gise, and reiterate my statement above. Yopienso (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Gise-354x.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, i have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:VsevolodKrolikov. Gise-354x (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources to suggest a connection. And in fact, there is a borderline reliable source (Guardian science journalist on Guardian blog) that picks up this rumour and explicitly contradicts it: [42]. Hans Adler 12:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you aware that you can also cite this blog here which says the opposite? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996814/-When-MurdochGate-Met-ClimateGate But no matter what you believe, the CONNECTION is the FACT that a Neill Wallis was working at CRU at the time of investigation! Gise-354x (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian's blog qualifies as a borderline reliable source. I don't know if the same is true for DailyKos, but I doubt it. So long as only (relatively) unreliable (in Wikipedia's technical sense) sources mention that connection, it has no business in either article per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP considerations. Basically you want to insinuate that a living person engaged in a specific criminal activity based just on the fact that he might have had a chance to commit it. Just wait a few days. It looks as if it's all the rage among bloggers, so it's probably going to be discussed more in reliable sources. Hans Adler 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine, let's wait a few days/weeks but mind commenting below on the Ben Santer controversy link? Ty. Gise-354x (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1RR warning

Extended content

I warned recently created user account about 1RR, as the account did something like 20 reversions.--Cerejota (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go away, Cerejota. All you have done on this article is argue and disrupt. All Gise has reverted were your tendentious tags. I'm serious; please do not continue to contribute to the article or the discussion in the manner you have up until now. Yopienso (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed his tags,, after his argument has been resolved - verifiable sources. He is also not aware what Revert means. A desperate attempt to discredit me i would say Gise-354x (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Patently false, Yopienso, and I suggest you take a read of out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies, because you are breaching them left and right, as well as again I remind you of WP:OWN. If you believe in good faith I am being tendentious, then please take it up to WP:DR, or stop empty accusations. For example, I am not going to provide the entire sequence, but here Gise-354x violated 1RR and 3RR in under 20 minutes, removing material from multiple editors: [43][44][45][46]. Its really quite simple, this article is under sanctions, and they have been violated, and all of wikipedia is under 3RR, and it had been violated. If this happens again, I will raise it at arbcom.--Cerejota (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC) None of the diffs, btw, are material I produced, so Yopienso's accusation is spurious. --Cerejota (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejotal i replied to you at my user talk page, you still seem to be not satisfied with that and still put out false claims. And you still refuse to point me to the WIKI RULE which says that reverting is considered removing content during editing. For the record you posted 4 reversions at my user page, where 1 i re-added, 2 got moved to their respective wikipedia page and 1 got removed because it was a wrong statement. I ask you again to provide me with the RULE to your accusations, thank you. Gise-354x (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I did put in your talk page a link to the sanctions in my original message, which should clarify the matter. But other than mentioning 3RR, I didn't wikilink to it: WP:3RR. In your talk page, you admit to making edits that violate WP:3RR and by definition, 1RR under the sanctions - I discuss that further there. Notice how I have not reported you for this, as my attempt was to educate a new user on the rules. However the unexpectedly harsh response makes me question how wise not simply reporting you was, I suggest you consider this when making further comment.--Cerejota (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Dude if you not stop with your unfounded accusations/claims i will report you for the unfaithful actions to the admins. Gise-354x (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
By all means, if you feel there is any wrongdoing, do so. I'll even give you the link: WP:ANI. I stand by what I have said.--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Merciful heavens! Gise, I was going to suggest to you that you not engage with Cerejota and that if ignoring him doesn't work we could seek dispute resolution on the basis of disruptive editing. In poking around, I find he has opened a sock investigation on me; he thinks you're my sock!! ROFL I suggest you ignore him because this will surely blow over and the article will continue to be improved. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If you are not a puppetmaster, I will apologize. But things need to be clear. You have been nothing but unwarrantly hostile to me since I contributed, focusing on me rather than the content - and then a relatively new account shows up that you start praising as it violates sanctions with edits you approve? WP:DUCK.--Cerejota (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejote can you explain to me why you are here on this wikipage? I see from your talk page that you are concerned with the amount of wiki contributers. What are your contributions to this wiki, beside adding yesterday a "verify source" and "who" marks Gise-354x (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked for disruptive editing for a week. I think that speaks for itself. --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Nerlich, Brigitte (1 November 2010). "Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis". Environmental Values. 19 (4): 419–442. doi:10.3197/096327110X531543. Retrieved 7 August 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_42&oldid=789364812"