Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 10

E-mail misquoted
In the section on the "Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003," the article reads:

"In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Mann wrote:


 * 'I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.'[36]"

The first three sentences are not in the citation. Only the last two are quoted there. Can an administrator change the article to reflect this? (sorry if my formatting is clumsy. Anyone feel free to edit it w.r.t that.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to find a reliable secondary source that gives the fuller context, though a quick search on google shows that this is given almost exclusively in opinion pieces and editorials, rather than journalism (oddly, the opinion pieces in question use this against Jones). For now, trimming to the phrases as widely reported would seem to make sense.  If we find one quality newspaper or journal that reports the fuller context as fact, then we should restore it.  It isn't a misquote of Jones, though it's a misquote of the secondary source. --TS 13:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any objection to this, and Peter and I basically agree. Please remove the following quoted words which are not in the cited source:
 * "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? "

The words in question are in the section "Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003". --TS 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 16:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, checking the actual e-mail, the quote appears to be correct, although it's not in the source. Shouldn't we try and find a better source (it's possible it was lost/changed during all the edit warring?)
 * Oh, sorry, that is what TS said, remove it until we find a RS then.

I can't find anything other than from editorials and blogs either. However the next email quoted (2 Feb 2005) uses this article posted in "opinion" in WSJ. The full email is included there, but the solution is probably to find a better source to the 2 Feb 2005 quote as well? —Apis (talk ) 17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've put a hold on the editprotected. Should I go ahead now or do you think it needs more discussion? I agree that the full context of the quote is much better but we don't yet have a reliable secondary source for it, worse luck, so I don't see any alternative to removing pending better sourcing. --TS 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We need an administrator to make the change now.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, not so fast. We agree that it is in the emails right? At the very least it is shown here, agreed? Certainly this source should suffice for a few days until we can find a better source. (Thanks for tlx'ing the editprotected template for the time being.) Ifs unfortunate that MSM tries their best not to publish stories about these incidents -- we're left to sources both questionably and clearly partisan (well I guess you could say that about MSM too...) jheiv (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, not too happy with these additional sources either:
 * WSJ: The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths"
 * Ranking Member Sensenbrenner Opening Statement...
 * NCTimes.com Blog: AP’s F. Josef Hebert Blunders on Climategate UPDATED
 * Link to messages but zero context - useless - not sure who these NCPA guys are either.

Arguing to remove this quote based on RS technicalities is preposterous Wikilawyering. The multiple mainstream media sources given above are quite sufficient, and consistent with the fact that no one has contested the authenticity of the quote, and the fact that anybody can check that the e-mail with this exact quote is in fact in the widely available archive. There is absolutely zero chance that this quote is an error, and the person quoted is a public figure. The 29,000 Google hits on the exact two sentences proposed to be removed show that this is an extremely notable quote.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't adjust the title of this section, which I created. And no, you haven't found a reliable source. We need an administrator to edit the article to reflect the citation.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit is accurately described by Use:Heyispeter in the first comment on this section. There is consensus that the quote is not available in the cited source, and no consensus on an alternative source (all of the available secondary sources are opinion pieces which may not have been fact-checked). One editor dismisses this proposal as wikilawyering, and there is no serious disagreement that the quote is in the primary source, which cannot be cited because of copyright, the manner in which it was obtained, and no original research policy. So I leave the determination of consensus to edit to the admin. --TS 14:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'd caution any editor reviewing the editprotected to judge for themselves whether there is, in fact, a consensus. Despite Tony's bold statement announcing that there is, I think its clear that we are far from it. jheiv (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jheiv, frankly, it doesn't matter whether you think there is consensus or not. You have to give convincing reasons to think that we should misquote the citation, and in the meantime, we have to remove it. I find it hard to believe that such reasons can be found.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jheiv, I'm sorry thar my wording wasn't clear enough to be universally understood. I only announced consensus on the fact that the quote words to be removed are not in the cited source.  I wasn't convinced that I could announce consensus to edit--it was borderline due to Flegelpuss's objection that the proposal to remove was "wikilawyering".  I left the decision on consensus to edit up to the admin.  I think that was legit, because there is a clear argument to remove unsourced or inadequately sourced material based on commonsense and verifiability policy.  Consensus to edit does not mean unanimity, and admins are accustomed to making a determination of consensus in far more contentious circumstances, such as article deletion discussions. --TS 08:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this source help? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Lord no. "Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai -- who disputed global warming" -- where the hell did they get such a [multiple expletives deleted] ridiculous idea that Eugenia Kalnay is a GW skeptic??? If that's what passes for "analysis" at the National Post then we should just put them on a list of sources that resoundingly fail our requirement to have  "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know who these people are, but we're not using this source to support that claim, are we? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this source seems to support the first sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to it being removed. Having searched for reliable sources mentioning this particular quote and failed I don't believe it got much attention in the media, and thus shouldn't be in the article. I also think we need to check the other quotes, so we only include those who actually have been widely covered. AQFK, as you have pointed out we need to reflect what's been widely discussed in reliable sources, so a single article from the National Post doesn't help much. We should be careful not to cherry-pick quotes ourselves. —Apis (talk ) 01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I found a second source for this content, but I'm fine with the WP:UNDUE argument. It would be hypocritical for me to argue against its exclusion using WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times source you cite only seems to contain the final two sentences, not the three that have now been removed because they aren't corroborated by neutral secondary sources. --TS 08:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which policy is being used as the basis for those in favour of reducing the quote because there are no reliable sources that include the quote? Is it RS? Brumski (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, we have no neutral corroboration of dubious primary material. We rely on news articles having been fact-checked by contacting the original person and checking the accuracy of the quote (not 100% true, sadly, but it is enough for due diligence on our part as long as we don't just source from sensationalist tabloids and the like).  Opinion pieces may be held to a lower standard so we cannot assume that they have been checked.  --TS 08:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To the neutral editors
We have three groups of editors here. One group wants to maximize the damage of this controversy as much as possible. The second group wants to minimize it as much as possible. The third group just wants to write a good article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. We've been able to deal with the first group though various forms of blocking. However, we have not be able to address the issue of the second group. Thus far, repeated reminders about policy (particularly WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE) have not worked. What can we do to address the issue of this second group? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article for a neutrality check, in the hope of getting some fresh perspective. I'm pretty new to editing though and I've no idea how well that tends to work. I would very much like to see this article be a description of an ongoing debate rather than an explanation of why one side has already won that debate. Drolz (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the "minimizers" rely on wikipedia policies whenever they mildly support their position, and every time they do not, they fall back on "consensus." Apparently, because there is no "consensus" for changing the page to an NPOV form, it must be left in its POV form? Drolz (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately I think the article somewhat dances around the central issue at this point. If you ignore the right-wing pundits and the true believers' screaming, at least. The credibility of a few of the foremost climate scientists has been damaged.  Not by the revelation of some wide scale data doctoring as the right claims, but by the revelation of the extent that they were willing to go to to try to avoid their legal obligations under freedom of information laws.  The real implications this will have going forward will mostly have to do with transparency and ethics in science more than anything else.  Many of our sources support this analysis of the events, and I think we should make sure to give that particular issue due weight.  Gigs (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone just removed the Jones email about avoiding FOIA, apparently because his own words are not in keeping with BLP standards. Am I the only one who has noticed that when "consensus" is discussed, it's always that there is no consensus for including things that reflect poorly on CRU, and for excluding things that reflect positively on it? Drolz (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is a legitimate concern. I'll take a look at the edit, but it's not a WP:BLP violation if cited to a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A Quest for Knowledge, there are only two groups. One group wants to prove that science is a hoax while the other group wants the story to be reported accurately.  There is no third group.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a False dichotomy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear FD, I think you are getting a bit personal here. Very few (none?) of your opponents think that the science is hoax. Arguing that the current state of the climatology requires some serious fixing is not the same as disregarding the science in general and even climatology in particular. Most of your opponents are scientists, in fact. Dimawik (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) To Drolz: Please try to assume good faith. While I agree with your sentiment, these sorts of accusations aren't helping build any real consensus, it's just polarizing people further.  Anyway toward the end of including more coverage of the FOIA avoidance issue, here is a potential source:  "When you have a bunch of scientists going out of their way to prevent Freedom of Information Act requests to get source documents you get people hiding something," Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.)   Whether these accusations are baseless or not isn't really relevant, there's plenty of them flying, and plenty of coverage of them. Gigs (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't think it's possible to attain any semblance of balance while the article remains protected. If people who were just dropping by could edit it, there would be a lot more reference to the actual debate etc. As it stands now, about five extremely committed people have complete control over the article, and aren't afraid to threaten anyone who disagrees with blocking. Drolz (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't see why I should assume good faith when the same three people have threatened to get be blocked repeatedly, each time that I add something that is not in keeping with the article's current POV slant. Drolz (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a look at the edit. It's cited to the article, A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? by The New Zealand Herald.  The New Zealand Herald is a reliable source so it's not a WP:BLP violation.  It should be restored.  But we should probably also add a couple more sources to be on the safe side.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are two more reliable sources we can use for this content: U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap (Update4) A global debate heats up A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think a good first step would be simply removing all explanation and construal from the emails section. It is currently a press release about why we shouldn't read the emails.  Either make the emails section nothing but the plain text, or make it plain text + accusation, and then follow that section with a rebuttal section. I think the second idea is better because it gives a clear understanding of who is saying what, and why "Climatgate" is a word people are using. Drolz (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article needs more deletion than addition at this point. Drolz (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting the hand-picked quotes out there by themselves would violate NPOV more than the article does now. The quotes are by nature biased... they are the worst things out of a domain of thousands of emails.  I support adding back the quote that Quest for Knowledge just mentioned, but it needs to have commentary along with it about what people are saying about it. Gigs (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The controversy surrounds particular emails; it is not based on the claim that a certain % of scientific emails show malfeasance, and the fact that many more emails do not reveal malfeasance has no bearing on the current controversy. Drolz (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We should provide context. In determining content, the main question we should be asking ourselves is, "What do reliable sources say about the matter?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, nobody proposed to "hand-pick" quotes. We will use quotes already picked up by the RSs. Dimawik (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the relevant context that X number of emails and documents leaked, and Y number of them indicate malfeasance? Drolz (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to block some of the more overt AGW activists like Guettarda and ChrisO? They are as bad as the first group you mentioned and deserve similar treatment. I've been very happyu with editors like A Quest for Knowledge and Gigs. Both seem to be on a genuine search for truth and I wish we could rely on them to settle disagreements. JettaMann (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:AGF is that based on, JettaMann? The WP:NPA part? Assume good faith, and discuss improving the article content, not the other editors. --Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I don't rule out improving the other editors. --TS 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotation issue
As Gigs rightly points out, the statement is damaging to Jones' credibility. And that's the problem, that's why this is a WP:BLP issue. There's an implications of wrongdoing. But implications aren't good enough. We need sources that discuss the significance of the statement, and we need to present what these sources say in a balanced, NPOV fashion. At the heart of BLP is "do no harm". This quote harms Jones, deservedly or undeservedly. The less context there is, the more harm, since people will assume the worst. For example, if people assume he followed through with the threat (as many will) we will do Jones undeserved harm. Which violates the BLP policy. We don't present "the facts" and "let people make their own conclusons" - we report what reliable sources have to say about notable issues. As policy requires that we do. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, well here are three reliable sources we can use to cite this material: A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap (Update4) A global debate heats up A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read the actual WP:BLP page and it clearly supports the inclusion of this quote.
 * If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
 * The only relevant question is whether or not there is WP:RS for the claim that the quotation is accurate. The fact that people may draw negative conclusions from the quote is not relevant. "Do no harm" is quite obviously not the heart of BLP; the heart is "We must get the article right," as the page itself says. Since this quotation is unquestionably accurate, and there are reliable sources backing the allegation against him, the inclusion is warranted. Not including it is blatant POV. Drolz (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No inclusion is the default position; it is not POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz, do take care to read the whole policy and get the general sense of it. Wikipedia policies are not legal documents - you cannot cherry-pick a couple lines and use them to argue against the core aim of the policy.  Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the whole article and as I said, nothing in it recommends against the inclusion of this piece. I think it's about time that instead of just spamming the talk page with WP:BLP WP:NPOV etc., you and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes et al. you don't want included in this article. Drolz (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you read the policy and still think that we can include cherry-picked material that is damaging to the subject, simply because we can reliably source it? Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "[Y]ou and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes". I already did that.  In this section.  It has a 3:07 time stamp on it.  Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean explain why it violates your made up summary of the BLP page, or your unsupported claims that we do an don't do certain things. Secondly, if Jones wrote the email, and someone else took him at his word, how is anything that results "undeserved?" And how is "undeserved harm" a violation of BLP again? Stop making stuff up and find something in the actual policy to support your claims. Drolz (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Guettarda is upholding policy, and you are the one making stuff up. Perhaps if you weren't a SPA focused solely on promoting one side of the issue, you might have some credibility.  You could always turn over a new leaf. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [I]f Jones wrote the email, and someone else took him at his word, how is anything that results "undeserved?" Well, a lot of people have used that email to conclude that Jones deleted the files in question.  The truth is that the files were not deleted.  Simply presented, without context of discussion, some of our readers will leave with the impression that Jones deleted the files.  Similarly, there's a question of why he did not want the files released.  Most people will read that and conclude he had something to hide.  But if you read more of the background and context, it's likely that he didn't have the right to release the files, since he didn't own the data and wasn't permitted to release it.  We can't present information that improperly smears a person.  And if the information properly smears a person, we need to make sure that (a) we have a reliable source to support that meaning, and (b) we need to determine that the information is really necessary in the article.  That's what's expected of us.
 * [H]ow is "undeserved harm" a violation of BLP again? Thought you said you read the policy.  If you had, you'd know the answer to that question.  Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only mention of 'harm,' deserved or otherwise in the BLP page is:
 * The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * That emphatically does not mean the potential to do harm prevents inclusion. The article says nothing about information being misconstrued by a reader--its overwhelming thrust is libel, which this clearly is not. Again, find actual support for your claim. Drolz (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only mention of 'harm,' deserved or otherwise in the BLP page is - As I said to you before, you can't read Wikipedia policy as if it were a legal document. You most certainly shouldn't search the page for a keyword unless you know exactly what you're searching for.  Now go back and read it.  If you read that page and think it's no big deal to harm a person's reputation...then you really missed the point.
 * its overwhelming thrust is libel - no, it isn't. Our standards are considerably higher than that.  Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is such a cowardly argument. You are telling me that there are no specific guidelines controlling this issue, but just looking at the article with some sort of wholistic view will inevitably support your position. If the standards are higher then libel, why did they specifically mention libel and not the highest standard? Why would you enumerate a lower standard but not the highest one? Moreover, since "undeserved harm" is such a simple concept, why would it not be included if it was disallowed? Find textual support of any kind before posting again. Drolz (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are telling me that there are no specific guidelines controlling this issue - Nope, never said anything of the sort.
 * [B]ut just looking at the article with some sort of wholistic [sic] view will inevitably support your position - Nope, nothing so simple. Policy is complicated, and policy pages are not legal documents that can be interpreted out of context.  You could listen to the advice given to you by established editors (Viriditis and I have over 10.5 years experience here between us), you could ask questions at the various noticeboards...but instead you have chosen to insist that you know more than people who've been dealing with this policy (not always happily) as long as it's been in existence.
 * If the standards are higher then libel, why did they specifically mention libel and not the highest standard? Libel is mentioned, because it's a legal standard that you must steer clear of.  But the policy doesn't simply say "don't libel people" - it spends time discussing all sorts of other issues.  Which you would realise if you read it as a whole.
 * [S]ince "undeserved harm" is such a simple concept, why would it not be included if it was disallowed? Um, that's what the policy is about.  Not causing undeserved harm to people's reputations.  That's what the whole "getting it right" is about. That's why it says that you should consider the possibility of doing harm?  Just for the fun of it?  No - because you should avoid it.  That's why it says that "[m]aterial that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care".  "Special care" doesn't mean "special care to harm their reputation", it means "special care to avoid harming their reputation".  That's why the Foundation statement talks about things like human dignity.  That's why it references Jimbo's statement that "[z]ero information is preferred to misleading or false information".
 * Find textual support of any kind before posting again. - Oh, how precious. Guettarda (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jone quote is clearly notable, relevant, well-documented, and reliably sourced. If this negative information can't go in, then most of the negative information about most public figures in Wikipedia would have to be deleted. The arguments to the contrary are Wikilawyering at its worst.Flegelpuss (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing issues and methods
Thank you for that post, Quest. I believe I have tried to improve the article in a NPOV, just-the-facts-ma'am way, but I feel completely outnumbered.

On one side there are the folks, seemingly new editors, who insert large poorly sourced sections or paragraphs that reflect badly on the CRU folks. In response, the "this looks bad" side rely on rules lawyering and outright deletion to remove anything they don't like. If this second group were truly interested in improving the article, they would try to improve the poorly sourced &/or poorly written insertions instead of completely deleting them with a blurbish edit summary.

Who's with us? Who can work with Quest and me to improve this article and make it an example of how Wikipedia should work? Quest has some good sources. How about if I put together an NPOV list of material that cries out for inclusion? Madman (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably won't help because they will say that there is no "consensus" for the inclusion of these sources, and then spam revert you while threatening to get you blocked. Drolz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Madman, a list sounds like a good idea. If you could put it in wikitable with columns for "pro" and "con" (or for and against), that would enable editors to comment directly on it.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Can you give the Cliff's Notes version for those of us who have gotten sick to death of this whole thing and haven't been following closely? Also note that declaring oneself as "neutral" and others as biased can arouse skepticism -- more at MPOV. (Not saying this necessarily applies to you; just that the perspective is a common one.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Cliff Notes version can be found in my summary of events above. I'm not trying to be sassy, but I'm unsure what areas you're unclear on.
 * You can check my edits on the Main page and my Talk pages. I've been wanting to streamline the article and remove a lot of the WP:weasel words and I do think that more emails should be quoted, so some folks would think I am therefore in the sceptic camp. I am, rather, trying to build a better article so that anyone who links in from Google news will be impressed.
 * Check out my mediation work here. Madman (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Count me in. »S0CO ( talk 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would settle for them being able to get some vague sense of what this CRU press release of an article was written in response to. Drolz (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have an alternate theory regarding the "rules lawyering". The reason there is a lot of policy discussions could be because a lot of editors do not understand basic policies such as WP:RS and WP:OR. The editors who aren't familiar with these are also often the ones who refer to themselves as "AGW sceptics" or to others as "AGW supporters" and such. Thus it could appear as if there is one side that is being "wikilawyered" but the assumption that they are being wikilawyerd because they are "sceptics" might not be correct. I think Boris' comment and the one about false dichotomy above is worth a thought. —Apis (talk ) 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. AQFN's intro, and much of the tone in the section as a whole, totally ignores the principle of assuming good faith.  It's also replete with violations of our policy on personal attacks. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia, and AGW is mainstream science.  When it comes to drawing a line, the "centre" accepts AGW.  If you don't, then by all means you're willing to contribute. But people need to realise that their position is a fringe one, and it cannot be given equal weight with the mainstream.  Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again you reveal a complete failure to understand this article. This is not an article on whether AGW is real (and even in that case, skepticism does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a fringe or pseudoscience). This is an article describing a public debate, which has been aggressively edited to erase one side of that debate, while giving extreme weight to ancillary issues (the hack, death threats) that serve only to draw attention away from the fact that there is any debate at all. The notion that you are protected by WP:AGF is outrageous. Drolz (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, public debate has little to close to nothing to do with this article. The reason you and others are trying to promote that skewed, extra-topical perspective is because it is one based solely on opinion generated from op/ed's and anti-AGW climate lobbyists. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it has nothing to do with the article, what are the dozens of "experts" you have quoted responding to? For that matter, what is the article about? Drolz (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the release of the e-mails and other documents, what this material says about the authors specifically and climate science rigor in general, and the effect that this material has had on the climate debate. Er, right?  Madman (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd leave out the middle clause as it requires us to reach a conclusion or make a value judgment (whether positive or negative). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Try this: "The article is about the release of the e-mails and other documents, what Reliable Sources say that this material says about the authors specifically and climate science rigor in general, and the effect that this material has had on the climate debate. Madman (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reliable sources thing is inaccurate, or at least misleading. If an "unreliable source" says something about the emails which garners widespread attention, to the extent that "reliable sources" and "experts" are responding to it, is that not worthy of inclusion? This article (or at least part of it)is describing a public debate, and the role of wikipedia is to make note of what was said, not what was said correctly. In that sense, a "reliable source" is anything that was verifiably said, and the second requirement is notability, which is really a matter of how much impact it has on the behavior of others in the debate and the general public etc. Drolz (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the part about the reliable sources is not only accurate, it is essential to the creation and maintenance of articles on Wikipedia; This is not the place to argue about it, as your opinion on the matter is at odds with how Wikipedia works. You are free to take your concerns to the RS noticeboard, and I encourage you to do so. Second, this article is not about a "public debate", nor is it accurate to say as Madman has said above, that there is a "climate debate".  There is no such debate.  What there is, is a vocal group of partisan pundits and commentators generating massive amounts of heat concerning the politics of responding to climate change.  While that is certainly a valid topic, it is not the core of this article, and attempts to make it so is a form of coatracking. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you really just claim that there is no climate debate? Wow, dude. That's pretty intense. Macai (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Climate debate" is an ambiguous, almost meaningless term, and it can be easily misused to mislead. On Wikipedia, we don't use such terms, and tend to favor unambiguous terms.  There is a debate about political reactions to the conclusions reached about climate change, conclusions which are not under debate.  There is a debate about reactions to this incident, which again say nothing about the climate science. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate Viriditas' point: reliable sources are essential. Seriously Drolz, if you're going to argue policy, you need to educate yourself about policy. Guettarda (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstand me. My point was the the WP:RS standards for this article are simply verifiability. This standard has been perverted to mean that only "experts" are reliable sources, which makes it so that it is essentially impossible to post one side of the controversy. RP:RS simply means that there is a reliable source to support the claim that something was actually said. Drolz (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * inb4 "we can't quote every pundit on everything" strawman. Macai (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, "There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." This clearly indicates that a blog is a reliable source for what someone says. Per the BLP page, "Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say." That is, a blog is not an RS for "this is what happened," but they are an RS for "this is what XXX says about the event." Drolz (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz, please stop taking policy and guidelines out of context. You are welcome to use the RS noticeboard for any concerns.  This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a remarkably well argued position. Drolz (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the heading. If you have concerns about how to interpret the RS guideline, the proper place is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.  Otherwise, you are just generating noise. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You can spam the WP:RS magic wand at every quote you don't like, but I can't post a reasoned and sourced explanation of why it doesn't apply. That is certainly convenient for you. Drolz (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RS applies, and you are disrupting the talk page with your misinterpretation of policy. I suspect that is your goal. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF is being used as an ad hominem argument against several commenters above. It doesn't apply. Every claim I've seen here that has been the victim of a WP:APF retort is not *assuming* anything, but has copious evidence to back it up. It's in the editing history for the main article. There you will see very many instances of, for example, valuable edits that add highly notable and well-sourced material containing a minor error. These edits have been fully reverted, rather than the errors corrected, because of the POV of the reverter. So let's stop invoking WP:AGF against claims that are not *assuming* anything.Flegelpuss (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue of an editor not following Wikipedia's policy, please follow dispute resolution. Complaining on talk pages poisons the well for other contributors and does nothing to resolve the dispute. --TS 14:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article and debate

 * Actually, there is quite a significant debate about climate science. Where are you getting this idea that there is none? Macai (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this incident has nothing to do with any "significant" debate about current climate science. Where are you getting the idea that it does? Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? The only reason this incident is notable at all is because some people think these emails are damning evidence of bias about AGW in CRU and the scientific community at large. Most articles about Climategate, by far, are in part or in whole about how AGW skeptics are going "Ah hah! We told you there was bias!" publicly. This article is made eligible for inclusion by Wikipedia thanks to AGW skepticism. This article has everything to do (hyperbole, okay?) with a significant debate about current climate science, just like the communism article has everything to do with Karl Marx. Macai (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first mistake is appealing to "what most people believe". If Wikipedia relied on that criteria, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia; We would have what would amount to a comic book, written and drawn by preschoolers, attributing good luck, weather patterns and disease to supernatural forces.  So, what most people believe isn't something we concern ourselves with here.  Granted, there is a place for that in the anthropology, psychology, and sociology articles, but the sources are written by experts in their field, definitely not "most people'.  Second, op/ed's are not an indicator of what "most people believe" but rather an attempt to stuff the ballot box, manipulate public opinion, and argue with emotion and rhetoric.  We don't do that here.  Third, there is no "significant" debate about climate science, only what to do about the conclusions that it has reached, which means it has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that Wikipedia should assert the perspective of AGW skeptics as objective fact. Nice try at the strawman, though. You don't need to assert opinions as facts in order to discuss public opinion. This article is evidence of that. Are you suggesting we should try to get that article deleted, or are you going to admit that discussing public opinion is acceptable on Wikipedia? I mean, you can't have your cake here and eat it, too. Also, define "significant", since you keep throwing that term around. Give me an objective set of standards for what makes a debate "significant". Macai (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Macai, what is this article about? In your own words, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article should be about everything notable pertaining to Climategate. That is to say, all significant positions. My definition of a "significant position" is a position that is held by a large portion of the general population, a position presented by at least one mainstream news organization, or a position that is presented by a source that is considered authoritative by the government. I use the words "should be", because as it stands right now, the article does not present all positions that meet this criteria. Macai (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Macai, only 14% of American adults believe in evolution. Should we adjust the scientific coverage of this topic based on their non-belief? Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the topic of the page somehow made that number go down, you'd probably want to mention it, yeah. Drolz (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, I assume you think, for example, that the Piltdown Man Hoax should be glossed over, because it might shake faith in the science of evolution? Or perhaps you would say something like "It's the burying of the head that's the story here! Not the decades of scientific acceptance of a hoax!" Drolz (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Veriditas, that above comment reveals an incredibly myopic POV. Drolz (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I believe it is an accurate assessment, and nicely describes the problem. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Try again: "The article is about the release of the e-mails and other documents, what (according to Reliable Sources) notable sources say that this material says about the authors specifically and climate science rigor in general, and the effect that this material has had on the climate debate. Madman (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't use ambiguous terms. What is "climate debate"? If you mean debate about the climate science, there is no significant debate.  If you mean debate about what to do about the conclusions reached by climate science then you are in the realm of political debate, which is based on opinions supported by, well, nothing more than self-interest.  Obviously, this is not the place for such a discussion, although it can be briefly mentioned.  Manipulation of public opinion is not the same as evaluating evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you mean debate about the climate science, there is no significant debate." That is unbelievably wrong. So unbelievable, I'll presume you meant something else, like AGW, in its broadest sense, is well-accepted in the scientific community. I would agree with that. But to characterize climate science as having no debate is absurd.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you forgot to mention the illegal act which led to the private e-mails and files being posted on the Internet. In fact that might be a good summary: "The article is about the illegal act which led to the private e-mails and files being posted on the Internet". And then the rest follows from that (e.g. the discussion about the e-mails, the allegations and so on).
 * Hacking generally implies illegal act, does it not? While you may argue that its broad definition also includes so-called "white-hat" hackers, the term as used colloquially seems to imply an illegal act. I'm just not sure that adding a word that is primarily redudant will help clarify the lead.jheiv (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, guys. I'm not trying to write a dissertation or a legal document.  I said "the release of the documents" which I had thought encompassed everything related to obtaining and releasing the documents.  Instead of "climate debate" we can use Global warming controversy if you wish.
 * I think we now have a general outline of what this article is about. Thanks, Madman (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall Impression and Structure
The impression given by the structure and wording of the article is that the incident is primarily about the removal and dissemination of personal emails from CRU. This aspect of the story is clearly not the item of primary importance in the incident. The fact that the article is structured and written the way it has been is clear evidence that the current slant is significantly not adhering to NPOV. Ask yourself this: if there had been no allegedly damaging information in the emails, would this even be an issue people were aware of an want information about? Clearly, clearly not. And yet the article leads with and revolves around the hacking/personal emails issue, obviously straining to paint the incident a particular way. I'm going to take a crack at showing what a NPOV arrangement would look like, fully expecting it to get reverted by someone whose agenda is to minimize any potential damage this incident might do to the cause of fighting anthropogenic global warming.Mark (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "minimizing potential damage"; your edit had nothing to do with NPOV. If you had read the previous discussions on the talk page you would have seen that all the issues you "addressed" have already been discussed at length. You removed reliably sourced information about the hack, added weasel words to cast doubt on it, and relegated the death threats to "reactions". They're not statements of opinion, they're criminal acts. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments here - everything that could be said about this has been said already. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "alleges" were super-bad word choice by me, yes. The summary should not have "various allegations" posed against specific quotes by "prominent scientists." That's laughably POV. The current place where the death threats are placed seem to be done so as to specifically paint a particular picture of the incident: Scientists are a victim of criminals. While I agree that this is data that should be presented, it is not the main thrust, and the only reason it has been structured this way is to give a particular impression.Mark (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We're very close to a more natural structure now. An anomolous item is the inclusion of the "death threat" passage at the bottom of the "Hack and theft" section. The natural structure is to discuss the hack/theft, then what was taken, then what the fallout of the incident has been. Death threats seem to fall under the category of "fallout." And yet I agree that they are not well-placed in the "reactions" section. MarkNau (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are all arguments I made at length, which nevertheless had no effect on the "consensus" represented by ChrisO, TS, Guerudata, and Viriditas. Drolz (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Has the basic form of the article actually changed? I hadn't noticed. Our argument with Drolz09 was, if I recall correctly, on his wish to exclude all mention of death threats and then, as a fallback position, to exclude death threats from the lead section. I've proposed both a lead section mention and a separate section of its own on the death threats, which currently seem to span scientists on two or three continents and investigations in several law enforcement jurisdictions. --TS 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a news article or a position paper? You've dealt with those wanting to maximize the damage by blocking them. However, you mention no attempt to deal with those trying to downplay the credibility damage of the incident. I guess that's why it reads like a position paper. The only thing this article tells me at present is that I need to seek out a less biased source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.159.111.2 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats are alleged, not factual
Here's what source 5 says:
 * An Australian born scientist at the centre of the East Anglia University email affair says he has received a number of death threats.

This means that the article should read:
 * Norfolk police are investigating the incident[4] and, along with the US FBI, are also investigating alleged death threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails.[5]

We don't even know if he really got those death threats, and neither does ABC News, the source cited for it. It's questionable if mentioning these alleged death threats are eligible for inclusion as per WP:BLP. Macai (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's eligible for inclusion based on ample coverage and many sources simply say they received death threats. I'm sure the wording can be altered, but it is notable.  It's also part of a larger harassment campaign that has been ongoing for two decades so it should be greatly expanded.  The harassment of climate scientists is the core issue. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If they can show the death threats are climategate related, sure. But the main issue isn't with the inclusion itself, just with the assertion that it's not an alleged death threat, but a definite one. It'd be comparable if the lead just flatly stated that CRU conspired to mess with peer review, and so on, rather than just saying that allegations of such have been made. You know what I mean here? Macai (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my preference is to move the threats and similar incidents into a background section, but some threats were made after the e-mail/documents were released, so yes, they are connected and should appear in the incident section. Can you tell me if CRU conspired to mess with peer review, and can you show me evidence that does not involve a primary source interpretation of their e-mails?  The threats are being investigated by at least two agencies/countries.  We have enough good evidence and sources to discuss them or mention them, and I see this harassment as the primary focus of the article, so the death threats are on topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can cite reliable sources - granted, reliable news sources - that assert that CRU did some of the things in the second paragraph. I can say the Telegraph went on a warpath against these guys. I mean, it's not even in their opinion section, so it's fair to say that they pretty much asserted it as fact. Now, keep in mind I'm not arguing (not right now, anyway) that it should be flatly asserted that they actually did these things based on the Telegraph article. I'm arguing that if we water those claims down to "allegations", then it's fair to water down the statement about the death threats down a little bit too. Like I said, while ABC may be a secondary source, it relies heavily on a primary source: the person who said death threats were lobbed against him. Macai (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other sources, like UPI, who write in their lead, "Two British climate scientists involved in a hacking incident have received death threats since their e-mail messages were made public, officials said." Notice the attribution, "officials said".  We should do the same, but I would like to know which officials we are talking about.  The police, the university, or?  But, this is all nit-picking.  We can work the details out easily.  As for your Telegraph article, that's not really a news source like the one I gave you from UPI.  Please notice the absence of opinion.  No, the Telegraph article was written by columnist James Delingpole, who has an admitted and known POV slanted against AGW and climate scientists.  It's basically an opinion piece. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Wikipedia's standard on news organizations says this:
 * Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market.
 * The Telegraph is pretty mainstream, and despite its conservative bias, I could apparently cite it, or the Huffington Post, its counterpart. Hell, I could arguably cite Fox News until the cows come home, since it's pretty damn mainstream in the United States. Supposedly Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, hence why a "reliable source" being openly biased (irony) can supposedly be cited anyway, and its claims asserted pretty much as objective truth.


 * But I digress. I'm proposing we word things in a way that don't read like we're taking sides, that's all. Macai (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But, we can't assert claims from someone like Delingpole as "objective truth". He is a columnist offering a slanted, biased opinion, and he lacks any and all expertise.  It probably can't even be used in this article unless it is notable in some way, or connected to the incident.  As for sides, there are several different sides, from the CRU, to law enforcement, to political analysis.  Our job isn't to take sides but to accurately represent them in proportion to the importance of each subtopic.  There is a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (or how it should work) by many editors who simply "showed up" to edit this article.  That's to be expected, but they cannot be allowed to dominate the discourse. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this Swiss article Phil Jones at UEA is under police protection because of the threats. I guess that's about the most concrete the media is going to become in the case of death threats unless someone is actually killed. Hans Adler 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We went through this nonsensical argument with the hacking. These threats have been reported to various law enforcement authorities in various countries, who have in turn announced investigations. Thus, just as when a family reports a kidnapping and the police announce that they're investigating a kidnapping, we report it as a kidnapping and not an "alleged kidnapping" unless the police themselves express doubt about the nature of the affair. So we treat these death threats. We do not speculate or second guess and we do not insert weasel words to dilute the facts.

On a side issue, we should certainly treat self-reports without corresponding law enforcement investigations differently and not confate those with corresponding investigations. But as there at least two such investigations on different continents that should not pose a probem here as long as we don't get mixed up. --TS 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not speculate or second guess and we do not insert weasel words to dilute the facts. Does this mean we get to flatly assert that CRU expressed intent to prevent dissenting views from being published in peer reviewed sources? Because I need to make no speculation here, and failing to assert this as objective fact would mean that we do, in fact, "insert weasel words to dilute the facts". Yes or no answer, please. Macai (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think we need to honestly explore these areas, and I recommend doing it in a section called "scientific integrity" per the UCS. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Does this mean we get to flatly assert that CRU expressed intent to prevent dissenting views from being published in peer reviewed sources?" Well no, because as far as I'm aware no reliable source takes that accusation as a true statement of fact. Whereas, the police and the FBI are treating the hacking and the death threats as facts.


 * Do you not see the distinction? All kinds of allegations have been made about the intent of the emails.  An investigation is being conducted to ensure that best scientific practice was followed and that the FOIA compliance procedures at UEA are appropriate for an institution of that type.  But the investigator have not asserted that they are investigating wrongdoing, whereas various police forces and the FBI have said they're investigating criminal offences.  We report what those reliable sources say. --TS 14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now on whether the death threats, are factual,we have this in the Guardian:
 * Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world. No further information can be revealed about these particular threats at present because they are currently under investigation with the FBI in the United States.

We should report this as fact. --TS 15:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 15:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) If it was only mentioned in opinion columns or even news I would agree with Macai. However, that the police and FBI "are [...] investigating death threats" is established. As for the rest, if the police is investigating, that's about as much evidence there's going to be that threats have been made. Apparently the police and the FBI think they are credible. We aren't making any accusations as to who made the threats.
 * (This habit of starting several discussions on the same subject is getting rather annoying.)

Charges of violation of the UK FOI have been made and are being investigated. Charges of hacking/theft and death threats have been made and are being investigated. These three cases should be treated consistently. The charges of scientific misconduct and the investigation into that are, arguably, distinct, although don't see the distinction as important as TS does.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we cite a climatologist's theories on origin of the "hackers"?
Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quoted in the article on his suggestion that Russian hackers are behind the document leak/theft. He furthermore is quoted informing on the general incidence of hired Russian hackers as well as providing an asessment on the level of technical expertise of said hackers. Looking at his short biographical article I can see no mention of his merits as a computer security analyst. Is this merely an omission in his bio that could easily be rectified? __meco (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the opinion of the Vice Chair of the IPCC. It is cited as an indication of the tenor of the IPCC's collective thinking on this matter.  It is not cited as fact, but as a significant opinion. --TS 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again, it's not really adding that much, and as there's clearly only circumstantial evidence to support his speculation, I'd be just as happy to remove it.  It verges on punditry, which isn't a good sign. --TS 14:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's part of a systemic problem - as yet, we don't have an article, we have (at least in parts) a collection of quotes. We need to work on converting this into an article, which deals with topic-by-topic (e.g., Tony's list of 6 facts higher up the page), rather than player-by-player.  Start thinking FA or GA, even if this may never be stable enough for something like that.  Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean this list?


 * documents were hacked
 * accusations were made, some wild and some less wild
 * most of the scientific community closed ranks behind the scientists; some however expressed concern
 * an investigation of allegations against CRU scientists has been announced
 * the hacking is being investigated
 * death threats are being investigated.


 * Needs some work, but I suppose it's a start. --TS 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the list I was talking about. Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree we should remove that quote (unless there is some widespread belief that the Russians did it). I also agree that we should focus more on facts and less on comments and speculations, list looks nice.


 * While we're at it, can we identify any more instances where a person's opinion is expressed outside his expertise or responsibilities? --TS 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So I guess I didn't actually make this argument in detail days ago, under the heading "Russian Hackers."  Drolz 09  23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus to remove the reference to Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele's opinion on the identity of the hackers:
 * Commenting on the theft, Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggested that it was the work of hired Russian hackers: "It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services... it's a carefully made selection of e-mails and documents that’s not random at all. This is 13 years of data and it’s not a job of amateurs.”

--TS 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any way you could wait more than 6 hours to declare consensus? Not all of use monitor Wikipedia 24/7. -Atmoz (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The quote is sheer speculation with no indication of any evidence whatsoever to back it up. It is a malicious slur against Russia, with Russian officials provided no opportunity to rebut, in violation of WP:Undue_Weight and the good advice to avoid gratuitously bashing non-English-speaking cultures in English Wikipedia articles. The quote doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Atmoz's point. I should have waited. --TS 11:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the Trick
This article outlines the pro and con views of the trick, however glosses over what the trick actually was. There is a simple description of the trick here and its effect on the data's presentation. Perhaps we could add something along this line, and give the reader themselves the ability to assess for themself if the trick was honest or not. 117.55.206.25 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also explained here and here. However, we usually cannot state things from opinion pieces (or press releases) as facts, and we rely on reliable sources, which blogs usually are not.


 * This blogger is no more a reliable source on climate than the wattsupwiththat fellow. See Stephen McIntyre for details of his background. --TS 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need something better before it can be incorporated.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently the article contains a detailed description of what the researchers did, and cites three or four reliable sources containing statements by climate scientists to support it. I don't think we need any more.  It's as if some people are reading about the trick and can't believe it's that simple.  They want it to be something complicated, nefarious and unrelated to the science.  But it's none of those things. It isn't a trick in the sense of a card trick.  The scientists have nothing up their sleeves. --TS 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article gives undue weight to the scientists who have expressed support, often without having read the e-mails, and an insufficient weight to the many scientists such as Steve McIntyre who have read and publicly analyzed the e-mails, for example what the "trick...to hide the decline" actually was.Flegelpuss (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Audit articles are the most scientifically proficient articles on climate science on the Internet and are extremely well reviewed by dozens of scientific peers in their comments section. It is a highly reliable source for analysis of the contents of the leaked documents, alleged rule technicalities notwithstanding.Flegelpuss (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempting to undermine trust and integrity in climate science simply by taking words out of context from stolen e-mails is neither proficient nor a form of analysis. This is a total non-issue on par with attempts to October Surprise Carter, remove babies from the incubators in the Gulf War, Lewinsky Clinton, Diebold Gore, truther 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Swiftboat Kerry, birther Obama, and teaparty the U.S. economy.  It's the sound of paid protesters disrupting healthcare town hall meetings, and its got the look of gun nuts carrying photographs of the President in Hitler garb. It's all mindless distractions with no substance and deep undercurents of violence and anarchy.  When Andrew Breitbart goes on to twitter and calls for the capital punishment of climate scientists and when Drudge says that global warming isn't occurring, and when Fox argues that global warming is a myth, it's clear that the American media can no longer be taken seriously or trusted uncritically. The real discussion is occurring at Copenhagen, and this entire incident is a manufactured controversy intended to distract the public away from the real topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

CNN: Tracking down the 'Climategate' hackers
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/11/hacking.emails.climate.skeptics/ A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thin on detail, unfortunately. The author has spoken to an activist, a senator and a couple of uninvolved security experts, maybe looked at a few Wikipedia articles on hacking techniques, and then cobbled together an article based on their statements.  No actual facts related to the investigation that are not already known are given.  --TS 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but there's still some debate as to whether the leak came from hackers or insiders. I posted this as a sample of a news article which doesn't even mention the insider possibility.  BTW, I don't really care about the question in the FAQ about this issue.  For now, the media seems to reporting it as a hack, but it's not completely out of the realm of possibility for it be an insider.  The FAQ makes it sound like the issue is settled, but in reality we may not know what really happened until the investigations are complete.  Maybe we should add a sentence that says something like, "If new information comes forward from relable sources, we can re-examine the issue." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article examines the possibility that the Russian secret service was responsible.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We're probably going around in circles. We've just reached consensus to remove a reference to Ypersele's opinion, and he's the only source quoted in this Independent article directly linking Russian hackers to the incident. --TS 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I must have missed out on that discussion. Nevermind.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors read WP:RS please
This edit featured "scandal" language and sourcing from "climatechangefraud.com". I reverted it. I doubt there will be any objections. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any objection to using this source instead? Or perhaps this one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether or not it comes with the disgraceful color commentary JettaMan added. I cannot see how Nigel Lawson's opinion is relevant, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you completely ignored my comment about Nigel Lawson. Recommend you self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without that edit, the commentary we've quoted is overwhelmingly in favor of whitewashing Climategate and having the hacker sent to prison. That violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Personally, I'm in favor of including both the Palin quote and the Lawson quote, since that would balance this section out nicely, but I'll settle for one or the other. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously nobody is saying that hackers shouldn't be prosecuted for their crimes. That isn't the same as whitewashing the incident--quite the reverse. As for the "Climategate" fuss, it's too early to say whether it will have a lasting effect on the politics of global warming. --TS 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After a thorough review of all the "reaction" quotes, including the climatologists and so forth, it's easy to see why the article has a "neutrality of this article is disputed" template. It would be hard to imagine a more biased selection of quotes, gentlemen. More quotes from climate change skeptics and less from the apologists are in order, from the world of climatology and the world of politics -- since this article is at the intersection. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest some comments on the matter from appropriately qualified sceptics. Everybody and his dog has an opinion on this issue, but informed comment is needed to draw out the facts of the affair. --TS 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's talk about Dr. Tim Ball. An eminent climatologist and climate change skeptic, former colleague of Jones and Mann, confirms that his views have been suppressed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean this fellow? What has he been saying about the affair? He is, I hope you realise, a retired geography lecturer. --TS 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Tony, as someone said here yesterday, apparently he singlehandedly invented climatology or something! Entirely on his own.  In his garage.  I think he was trying to put bubbles into beer or something.  Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll put in my 2 cents in for nonprosecution because nobody's bothered to demonstrate that there's been a crime. They might never be found but if found, there might never be a prosecution because of prosecutorial discretion, whistleblower protection, or the same doctrine of necessity that got those greenpeace powerplant protesters off recently on charges of physical vandalism, etc. Crimes are a matter for the relevant jurisdiction's legal code and prosecutorial staff. Allegations of criminality without any sort of prosecutorial statement or actual charges need to be considered in light of WP:BLP. Right now a criminal investigation is ongoing. That deserves mention but no jumping to conclusions in advance of the prosecutors would be a prudent policy. TMLutas (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FAQ Q5. --TS 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a FAQ? Oops, I missed it.  Maybe it should be set to "expanded" by default?  Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the Norfolk Constabulary statement does not mean that there was a theft. It means that they think that there was a crime committed by somebody. Alleged theft is appropriate at this stage of an investigation. There have been no charges, no John Doe warrants, no statements or conclusions other than they are looking into the events. The FAQ should be modified as it asserts as settled what is not settled. I've seen the howling mob in the Duke rape case. There were convictions in the end, but in an entirely unexpected direction with the prosecutor being disbarred and charged. And even at the height of the howling mob, media was constrained to say "alleged rape". We have much fewer facts than we did in the Duke case but people are confident saying it is theft, it is hacking, etc. Disgraceful. TMLutas (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, this is a silly argument. The UEA has stated definitively that it was a theft. It is the owner of the stolen files. It is the only party in a position to say whether the files were taken with its consent. That's an either-or proposition: either the files were taken with consent or without. If without, as the UEA has said, then it was a theft, as the UEA has said. Reliable sources have consistently described this unambiguously as a theft. If this was a bank robbery, do you think people would be disputing whether the bank's money had been stolen? Of course not. The only reason there is any dispute of any sort on this issue is because some people have an ideological interest in denying the fact of the theft. Though I suppose if one is intent on denying big things like mainstream science, denying small things is easy to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The UEA's opinion is interested, it is far from definitive.  If or when an independent investigative body or a judge or a jury says a theft occurred, then it will be definitive.  Until there is an indictment or similar independent process that reaches the conclusion it's just malicious speculation.   The article can only properly say that UEA claims there was a theft or a hack, not that there was in fact a theft or a hack.  We shouldn't be using Wikipedia to play judge, jury, and executioner in the court of public opinion based solely on the word of an interested party.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The UEA could conceivably be described as an interested party but the police are not. They're the ones saying they're investigating criminal offences. --TS 17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The operative word here is "investigating". The police do not claim that it was a hack or a theft, they are merely investigating UEA's allegation that is was such.  Our article should not state it for a fact either.Flegelpuss (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the alternative to saying "hacked e-mail" in this case should be "e-mails released through unknown means, allegedly hacking"? Because saying the "allegedly hacked emails" seems to give the wrong idea.  To be honest though, I'm really not sure this is a huge issue, I certainly wouldn't put it on my top 5 list of items to improve on this page.  I suggest we focus on the real issues, perhaps ensuring the quotes in the article (as a whole) meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV as Phoenix and Winslow mentioned earlier this section. jheiv (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU photo
As promised, I've got some pics sorted of the CRU's building in Norwich. I've added an image to Climatic Research Unit. We should include the same picture in this article. Therefore I suggest adding the following to the top of the article:


 * Hubert Lamb Building.jpg

This shouldn't be controversial, at least... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems uncontroversial to me. And sensible.  Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ Ron h jones (Talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ClimateGate is the common, accepted, and proper name.
This article should either be cleaved - and a separate article written about ClimateGate should be created - OR this article should be retitled to correctly reflect the reality and accepted naming conventions found throughout all forms of communication on the matter. What about this does Wikipedia not understand? It's ClimateGate, literally in the words of thousands ot politicians, researchers and commentators. ClimateGate. The hacking incident was only a subset of the whole. Just as was the break-in and burglary from the incident through which it derives it's name. Ignoring the reality of "ClimateGate" only underscores the marginal usefulness of this resource, and highlights the ease with which directed conclusions, political posturing and gaming holds sway here.99.151.166.95 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there is a policy or even a guideline that prevents us from calling it "Climategate". I, however, don't believe we should call it that at this point, because it's still a pretty loaded term for it.  If it's called that historically, then we can always change it in a couple years to that, once there is more historical perspective on the situation. Gigs (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the hyperbolic exaggeration that this, or any, incident can "bring down" climate science. Nor is it true that our opinion of the term has any bearing whatsoever - the article should simply reflect and report on reality - it should not produce a directed conclusion through the stilted language of political posturing. A neutral article would have none of this - that the incident is political and is being used politically is undeniable and should be fully discussed in the article. This has nothing to do with science.99.151.166.95 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're currently discussing a different renaming proposal, which will be determined at the end of the discussion period--in about six days time. Perhaps after that proposal has been fully discussed you might like to pitch your alternative proposal and see if we can get consensus for it.


 * A measure of whether there is likely to be consensus on your proposal might be whether it gets much support in this discussion section over the next week or so. --TS 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel the current title reduces the 'usefulness' of Wikipedia, you don't have to refer to it - we don't get paid more if more people read this, you know. (We don't get paid at all!) More seriously, apart from the policy that prevents us using this name, discussed at length already, there is a clear, and extreme, and frankly unsupportable, implication in both the proposed name and this proposal. All we actually have here is a theft of documents that show what 3 - 4 scientists have been writing to each other, out of the thousands of scientists involved in climate science over the decades. Watergate was a break in that brought down a government: there is no evidence at all that this theft is going to bring down climate science or any part of it, no matter what the more extreme big-oil interests would like us to believe. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there is a policy or even a guideline that prevents us from calling it "Climategate". I, however, don't believe we should call it that at this point, because it's still a pretty loaded term for it.  If it's called that historically, then we can always change it in a couple years to that, once there is more historical perspective on the situation. Gigs (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the hyperbolic exaggeration that this, or any, incident can "bring down" climate science. Nor is it true that our opinion of the term has any bearing whatsoever - the article should simply reflect and report on reality - it should not produce a directed conclusion through the stilted language of political posturing. A neutral article would have none of this - that the incident is political and is being used politically is undeniable and should be fully discussed in the article. This has nothing to do with science.99.151.166.95 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AVOID, "-gate" is a word to avoid: "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate)." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is item number one in our FAQ at the top of the page. Can't we get the FAQ expanded at the top?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoid means to consider before using indiscriminately. Climategate is a term that is a common coin and used by all sides. Here is the noted New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in a recent paper, "“Climategate” was triggered on Nov. 17 when an unidentified person hacked into the e-mails and data files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading climate science centers in the world — and then posted them on the Internet." Wikipedia records Friedman as being identifiably Green. The term is the norm, only Orwellian double-speak inhibits it's usage here.99.151.166.95 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AVOID seems pretty clear to me: -gate "should not be used in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note the proper and rational distinction made between the triggering incident at East Anglia and the subsequent, and unique, "Climategate". Friedman is a significant reputable source - as is the clear and undeniable fact that nearly every person on Earth use's the term. 99.151.166.95 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [A]s is the clear and undeniable fact that nearly every person on Earth use's [sic] the term. :) Humour is good to defuse situations like this.  Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know of no person, publication or outlet, that refers to it as the "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident".99.151.166.95 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It does NOT matter. We have a specific guideline against it.  This is a non-starter.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The goal of article naming is to be as clear as possible. "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" isn't meant to be a name, it's meant to be a description of the incident.  It isn't perfect, and you should feel free to join the discussion about ways to improve the accuracy and conciseness of the name.  But for the time being "climategate" is out of the question.  Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What you have is a "Style Guideline" and it does not in any way prohibit the term, it merely asks one to consider the use of the term. It also clearly states that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There can be little doubt that that the term Climategate is the only one in use. Worldwide.99.151.166.95 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this has been discussed at length and there's no consensus for changing it to "climategate". This may change, but for the time being, there's little to be gained by this line of argument.  But your input is welcome on how to improve the existing descriptive title.  Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange - first my comments were deleted outright, then moved around and buried, then I was ridiculed and belittled while my motives were questioned until finally (after invoking style suggestions as if they were inviolable fundamental principle) this whole discussion was archived just 64 minutes after the last comment. I guess rationale civil discussion using significant reputable, and unquestionably reliable sources has little use here. What exactly are you people trying to build here? 99.151.166.95 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this has been discussed perhaps 50 times already. People tire when someone brings up the same issue which is already in the FAQ for the 50th time with the same old boring arguments. Particularly when those commentators apparently think wikipedia is a thinking entity Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anybody who uses any term besides "Climategate" to actually find the article in the search box? If so, what term do you use? Flegelpuss (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I use the phrase "climatic research". It returns a more balanced selection of articles.  An article on this incident that doesn't mention the source of the documents probably contains less relevant information than one that does.  --TS 10:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, Time magazine noted at least one distinction in usage, implying the term is biased: "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up. Advocates of action on warming call it "Swifthack," a reference to the 2004 character attacks on presidential candidate Senator John Kerry by the group then known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — in other words, an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change." Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To correct the record, Time magazine referred to the incident definitively as Climategate in the headline to a news article, "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". By any measure, except calculated political posturing, the term ClimateGate or Climategate is the norm. My examples are from generally Green sources in the United States. Internationally the term is standard with quite literally millions of examples of reliably sourced, reputable mainstream utterances in article titles, as the above US examples are, in the text, as quotations from world leaders, scientists, and all others ''ad infinitum. '' _99.151.166.95 (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen",
 * 2) as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen",
 * 3) The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""
 * 4) The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"
 * 5) Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist, "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"
 * 6) Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"
 * 7) Reason magazine, ""Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.166.95 (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia governed by a different set of rules. We are not driven by infotainment or sensationalism, nor do we have copy editors trying to attract readership by coming up with headlines based on the guiding mantra of "If it bleeds it leads".  As the content from Time demonstrates, the term is loaded, and inherently biased.  That's why we can't use it.  They write: "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up."  We don't take sides here. Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) It sounds to me as if they're all saying that taking the simple facts of the hacking incident and trying to overblow them into being the 'nails in the coffin' that are going to bring down climate science, is pointless and has failed. That's no reason to change the name of our report on the underlying incident. I think they help clarify the moribund meaning of that term. --Nigelj (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Now my comments are being deleted?99.151.166.95 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate bloggers' comment?????
Are you serious? You really want to open this article to commentary from bloggers? If that's the case, why not include commentary from Free Republic, Debbie Schlussel, Hugh Hewitt and World Net Daily? Do you see that you're opening an enormous can of worms by including a climate change apologist blog? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SPS. Not all blogs are created equal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So what is it that makes RealClimate the only blog whose comments are allowed in the article? Does someone somehow believe that the number of apologists' comments is insufficient? Currently the ratio is (roughly) 21 apologists to three skeptics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that they're the only blog allowed here, it's just that they happen to be highly qualified climate scientists. If there are other blogs by climatologists, we'd be just as happy to include their relevant opinions.  RealClimate was also one of the sites hacked in the incident, so their reports on this affair are going to creep in now and again even on the hacking side of the story. --TS 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, as Tony says - they're among the victims of the crime, both as individuals and as a website. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it more than a little disturbing that a Wikipedia article about an event which clearly undercuts the credibility of "established science on the subject" is overwhelmingly dominated by shucking and jiving from the very same community of scientists whose credibility has been damaged. Some balance in the commentary, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "[C]learly undercuts the credibility"? Only with people who "always knew it was fake".  Guettarda (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That simply isn't true. Take George Monbiot as a prominent example. And, for what it's worth, I believe climate change is real, and also believe that the credibility of these scientists has been undermined.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're obviously a reasonable primary source for the subsidiary story of the hack attempt on their blog, but using thm more generally is less defensible, unless you're going to open up to, for example,, , and . Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that any of those blogs has quite the standing of RealClimate. MarkNau (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that we would be wise to attempt to make such distinctions. Using RealClimate with great caution (except where it's directly relevant) would therefore seem wise. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The quoted article on RealClimate is signed "group," which strongly implies that it has the backing of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, both of whom are highly qualified and reputable to speak on the issue of the meaning of the email excerpt. MarkNau (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 'an event which clearly undercuts the credibility of "established science on the subject" ' Oh for heaven's sake, that's what a few old warhorses like Lawson have said.  It's not what they're saying in Copenhagen. --TS 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Clearly undercuts the credibility" is an overstatement. Likewise, to insist that the focus of the story is on the hacking crime and their victims is not supportable. The main issue of this incident is: What does the leaked information show, if anything, with regards to the methods of, and resultant data from, CRU. MarkNau (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that's the story, because if it were it would have pretty much run its course. The only story that may exists here is whether they treated the whole FOIA issue improperly.  The rest is all light, no heat.  I'm guessing that the story is more about how long the deniers will continue to spin this, and whether the hackers will succeed in their attempt to undermine Copenhagen (and public support for science, in the longer term).  Guettarda (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, that doesn't seem anywhere close to a reasonable interpretation of what someone who comes to this page is looking for information on. You clearly want to dismiss the skeptics. I'm not debating whether they have a point. I'm saying the dispute is currently clearly over the meaning of the leaked information. MarkNau (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, the questions that have been raised about methods and results have been answered. Doesn't mean more might not come out, but for our purposes, at this point in time, that looks pretty settled.  All light, no heat.  The questions about the theft, the spin, and the impact, those are still developing.  That's all I meant.  Guettarda (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to judge whether they have a point. It's our place to follow what the reliable sources are saying and right now, the reliable sources are saying that the climate change skeptics have gained ground, and the apologists have lost ground. The commentary should reflect what the reliable sources are saying. Instead, what we have here are (roughly) 21 lengthy comments from apologists saying "move on, nothing to see here, the criticisms are all rubbish" and three little snippets from skeptics saying "hold on." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The only facts the reliable sources are reporting at the moment are:


 * documents were hacked
 * accusations were made, some wild and some less wild
 * most of the scientific community closed ranks behind the scientists; some however expressed concern
 * an investigation of allegations against CRU scientists has been announced
 * the hacking is being investigated
 * death threats are being investigated.

Those are the facts that a reader should go away with. I think we're doing a pretty good job of that so far. --TS 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I raised the issue of RealClimate's reliability at the WP:RSN.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TS, your understanding of "fact" is way off. It is, for example, a fact that there have been widespread allegations of scientific misconduct relating to the emails. It is a fact that something called "Climategate" is being discussed in the media. It is a fact that "Climategate" has gotten more attention than the death threats received by some scientists, or the investigation into the security breach at CRU. It is a fact that there are specific arguments as to how the emails indicate misconduct. All of these facts warrant inclusion in an article about current events. If you don't want to include them, then you should just delete this entire article and not put it up again until well after the topic is established history. Drolz (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've described the "widespread allegations of scientific misconduct " above. My words may be different but the facts are the same, and we do cover those allegations, and the responses of those accused.


 * And we do mention the fact that some sources refer to the affair as "Climategate".


 * The amount of media attention a fact gets is not a good measure of the weight it should be given--to do so would be to equate the entire broader media to reliable sources. While there is an inquiry into the CRU allegations, there are several distinct criminal investigations into crimes committed against the scientists and the CRU.  These are sourced unimpeachably.  While there's been a lot of vague and often very poorly informed commentary on the CRU emails, this has been more than matched by a huge deluge of informed commentary that gives at the very least a more nuanced, and sometimes a complete refutation of the popular media chatter.  Because we don't just count up articles indiscriminately, we track the facts and their appropriate weight better than the press.


 * We give appropriate weight to all of the facts. Just not the weight you would prefer. --TS 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * RealClimate is a blog, and is not a reliable source. The science is not peer reviewed, and the comments are often political. Let's stay out of that arena, and leave RealClimate to the blogosphere. Gherston (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [user was a sockpuppet of scibaby - Kim D. Petersen (talk)]


 * "The amount of media attention a fact gets is not a good measure of the weight it should be given" Huh?? What??  The amount of coverage reliable sources give to a topic is exactly the weight that it should be given.  If you disagree with policy and guidelines, take it up with the editors of those talk pages, not here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you're equating media mentions with reliable sources. Weighing column inches or numbers of articles doesn't help.  If we'd gone down that route this article would all be about poorly researched accusations and very little expert opinion (which is definitively a reliable source) would have made it into the article.  --TS 05:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what WP:UNDUE says. You're free to disagree with WP:UNDUE, but this isn't the article to do that.  You need to go to WP:UNDUE and get the editors there to change the guideline.  After you get those editors to agree with you, then we can discuss changing the article.  Until then, we follow WP:UNDUE A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't argue with you about what neutral point of view says, because counting weight of ink and newsprint certainly isn't what it's about. I've no need to change it, either. --TS 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what WP:UNDUE says. Weight is supposed to be determined by its prominence in WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still equating newspaper articles with reliable sources.  And we're going around in circles. --TS 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFN, I think you need to go and have a look at WP:UNDUE: right under the bit you like, it says, "Now an important qualification:" and goes on to talk about flat earth. I know it was metaphorical, but that is exactly what you seem to be arguing here regarding Gordon Brown's mainstream political comments - see any article linked from --Nigelj (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Audit discusses climate science in far greater detail and with a far higher quality of discussion than RealClimate. To argue that RealClimate is RS and Climate Audit is not is seriously jumping the shark. Furthermore, that RealClimate members are central to this fiasco does not make them RS, it makes them extremely interested parties, not reliable except for claims stated as claims they make via reliable secondary sources. With regard to Climategate RealClimate is neither secondary nor reliable.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said before when the use of ClimateAudit as a reliable source has been raised, it's a blog maintained by a fellow whose sole qualifications for the purpose are a BSc in mathematics from the University of Toronto, a degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford, and 30 years in mineral exploration. Stephen McIntyre isn't a climate scientist, which is odd because his blog's main claim to fame is its determinedly contrarian position on climate science. --TS 12:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the science itself, this is about the unethical practices of a group of scientists. This isn't a page on the CO2 content of core samples of arctic ice, this is a page about a current politically consequential event. We can't disqualify people on account of "not being scientists" on this page (though even if we did, McIntyre would qualify). You can't include RealClimate and exclude ClimateAudit on these grounds.


 * Nor can you keep one source and lose the other on account of hidden agendas, since both obviously have those.--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between RealClimate and Climate Audit is that the former is written by published professionals in the field. That is the sole reason for including Real Climate. --TS 14:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar incidents expansion
Recommend moving and merging the last "similar incidents" section into a new section 1 titled, "Background", and explaining that this incident is only the latest in a series of harassment against climate scientists for the better part of the last 20 years. Also suggest connecting this harassment in its historical context with the details found in the political pressure on scientists section, demonstrating the the only major suppression of climate data and evidence has not come from climate scientists, but from the very people now criticizing them. More importantly, the article should add a section dedicated to "Scientific integrity" and address the "valid concerns about scientific integrity" that UCS raises (and we should explore this) while at the same time, unequivocally stating without hesitation or hedging, that the climate science is fully intact and that both the data and the conclusions reached by climate scientists remains unchanged. No ifs, ands, or buts. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this early stage, this sounds like synthesis, though my opinion might change if I saw secondary sources on this background story. In other words, if say Nature or Science have produced the background research, I would say we should report that.  This article does definitely need to continie to cover the more analytical reports, which to date have been written by experts in the field. --TS 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a tendency to avoid baby steps so let me slow down a bit. Can you see the need for a background section that sets the scene prior to the incident?  This would involve the creation of a new section 1 titled "Background", which would include at least some information from the Climatic Research Unit, set the scene appropriately, and describe related events leading up to the hack (Section 2, currently section 1.  Section 0 is the lead). Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the intactness of climate science, we do report that just about every scientific body that has made a statement so far has emphasized this fact, and that's how we should report it. --TS 13:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it would work best as the concluding paragraph in a new section about scientific integrity. We briefly touch upon the problems raised, and conclude with the assessment.  A summary should also appear in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd feel more comfortable writing this after the CRU investigation concludes. Then we'll actually have some concrete data to work with.  We don't have a deadline. --TS 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have enough sources to get started on it. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that background information would be desirable, but also that without sources it feels uncomfortably like OR. I think we should wait for expert analysis, I'm pretty sure that will come. Science historians have shown an interest in the global warming debate before. —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 14:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The background information is supposed to help the reader wade into the subject. Right now, the article goes directly into the incident without giving some information about the institution and the key players involved.  This is a disservice to the reader who came here to find out what is going on. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More


 * Office break-ins in 2008. "Attempts to hack into climate scientists' computers...people impersonated network technicians to try to gain access to campus offices and data at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis." "[Weaver] believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing 'a war for public opinion.'"
 * Filmmaker Phelim McAleer harassed climatologist Stephen Schneider "leader of the Stanford delegation to COP 15 and co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with the IPCC". McAleer "proceeded to yell at Schneider and accuse him of being a fraud, repeatedly interrupting him even though the climatologist was making an effort to answer his queries. Though it was reported elsewhere that Schneider “repeatedly answered that he did not agree with the deletion of data,” he in fact emphasized that he regularly deletes data if it proves to be incorrect, and did not feel he could make a judgment on the Phil Jones issue without knowing more about exactly what was deleted. With McAleer apparently intent on pursuing his harassment of Schneider, a security guard escorted the irate Irishman away from the professor upon completion of the Q&A." Schneider suggests that the CRU incident be named "Climate Denier Gate" emphasizing the "illegal nature of the disclosures". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 December 2009

The above proposal is obviously WP:OR. The phrase including "has been targeted" in the Similar Incidents section should be removed as this is only an allegation, not a verified fact. Indeed, the whole section should be removed as the alleged incident(s) are not notable. Even if the section is kept the extreme quote from an interested party without rebuttal gives that party undue weight and should be removed.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that climate scientists and their associated departments have been targeted for hacking, burglaries, and data theft, and it's a fact that this has been going on for two decades. It's also a fact that the harassment is still ongoing and this can be demonstrated with dates and names of people who have released false information to media outlets about the CRU incident, in an attempt to mislead the public and manipulate their perception of the issue.  It's also a fact that several books and many news articles have been written on this subject, and that the last Bush administration was directly accused of manipulating the science to suppresss the evidence for global warming.  It's also a fact that several users are creating multiple Wikipedia accounts to promote and perpetuate this propaganda in direct opposition to the sock puppet policy. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that these are facts, but we don't synthesize accounts from such facts. That would violate no original research.  What I'm saying is that if and when a reliable source--such as a professionally qualified science historian--publishes an account of the affair expressly linking the instances of harassment, then we may attribute the linking to that source.  We may not, however, make the link ourselves.  I'm not discouraging further research on this, but I do think we have to wait for a reliable source. --TS 11:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The article lacks a background section.  It launches right into the hack without any information about the research unit, the people involved, or the history of climate research in this regard.  None of this is OR and it is already supported by sources. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, why not make a start on a draft background section and put it below so we can work on it and offer suggestions? --TS 14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Source code sections appropriate?
Are source code sections (mostly comments)(like these) acceptable for the article? Thoughts? jheiv (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not acceptable in the slightest. The link goes to an opinion column written by Lorrie Goldstein, a known climate change and global warming denier. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have listened to the first part of your argument with more consideration, but considering the fact that you backup your view with the fact that the author who mentioned the code is a "denier", I skipped it entirely -- and to be honest, I'm starting to skip your !additions to the talk page with increasing frequency. jheiv (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why we should cite a newspaper opinion columnist's opinion of computer code. It's hardly within his area of expertise. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the source Viriditas just cited isn't biased. Anyway, the Toronto Sun is a pretty mainstream source, at least in Canada. This merits its inclusion as per Wikipedia's standard on news sources. Macai (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true at all. 1) The source I cited is biased, but supports my statement.  It is not appropriate for the article, however.  2)  Goldstein is a columnist, known for her strong (some have called her "hysterical") opinion against climate change remediation in any form, and she claims that all of the science is a fraud.  Goldstein is neither authoritative, accurate, or neutral on the subject.  This is not a reliable source for this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, if all you are going to do when a source to consider is presented is argue that the author is somehow biased then please just close your browser. These are !additions and getting frustrating to read. jheiv (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But, that isn't what I'm doing at all. Quite the opposite, actually.  1) Is Goldstein an authority on climate change?  2) Does Goldstein have a record for neutrality and accuracy?  3) Is Goldstein's opinion notable or representative of the topic?  Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? It cites the Small Dead Animals blog as its source. This is merely a regurgitation of a blog posting, quoting a readme text file without much context, larded with the columnist's own non-expert opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quoting anyone for their expertise, but rather quoting someone on their reporting about the entirely-human-comprehensible comments (if quoting anyone other than the source itself, that is.) jheiv (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What reporting? It's Goldstein's extremist opinion versus the world.  Jheiv, do you know what actual reporting looks like? Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite acceptable, even required. The source code comments and HARRY_README file have been analyzed by many software experts and discussed in hundreds of detailed Internet articles: they are highly notable. There is no dispute over the authenticity of the quotes in the above.  Thus to argue that WP:RS forbids it is as a mere opinion piece is to argue by technicality and against the spirit of the rules and principles of Wikipedia.  Of course, it would be better to find a more strictly conforming RS.Flegelpuss (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of how we use sources. There is nothing about the source that is acceptable in any way.  Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "discussed in hundreds of detailed Internet articles" - i.e. blogs. Which we cannot use as you know perfectly well. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets get back on track. The question isn't about whether the commentary about the source code is of value, but whether the comments in the source code are valuable. Specifically, why they would not be just as worthy as the emails we have on the article. Please leave your politics at the door (as much as possible). 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for us to review. The one above is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess simply stating something is not acceptable, without explanation, makes it so. Not all that surprising that you reason that way but I'll humor you:
 * Except, that I have specifically explained why it is not acceptable many times. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails
 * HARRY_READ_ME.txt
 * The Harry Read_Me File
 * Climategate: hide the decline – codified
 * Interesting ways to conduct science
 * Climategate’s Harry_Read_Me.txt: We All Really Should
 * SOYLENT GREEN: The Harry_Read_Me File
 * Tickerforum.org
 * (Please note that I am aware that not all of these would be RS or linkable, but I figured I'd give my good friend V some reading homework)

Its pretty clear that the text files are of the same merit as the emails, both getting significant coverage from RS, so lets not draw this debate out any longer. I'll work on including them when the page protection expires. G'night jheiv (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 04:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to tell me exactly what I should be looking for here? Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be a complete article, the article needs to at least mention that the non-email files have been reviewed, dissected, discussed literally hundreds of times. The one with the most chatter seems to be HARRY READ ME.txt.  Would you agree with these two sentences, Viriditas??  Madman (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the documents have been analysed by experts and published in reliable sources, we can discuss those analyses. On the other hand we're not a blog reporting service. As a longtime programmer I'm keenly aware of the shallowness of many online code reviews. --TS 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that the documents need to be "analysed by experts" as they are not being used for the technical use of source code, but rather the comments that anyone can review with no more accuracy than a professional programmer. The same goes for your notion of a code review, that is immaterial.  We should probably start framing out what we want to add when the protection expires. jheiv (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just about anything between heaven and earth has been discussed literally a hundreds of times, that's not a good criterion for inclusion. And I don't agree with the view that you don't have to be an expert to make a correct analysis of source code and climate science. That's basic prerequisites.

FactCheck.org review of e-mails
The independent non-partisan FactCheck website has published a detailed analysis of the e-mails at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ which looks rather useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A reliable source published a detailed analysis of the e-mails at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ which looks rather useful. Macai (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this link has already been discussed above and the source was found to be unreliable for our purposes. The link itself goes to an opinion/column by James Delingpole, who has been personally campaigning against climate change science for years.  He's a denier with an axe to grind.  Does anyone here actually understand what a reliable source means, and how we evaluate a source for reliability? Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that Wikipedia's policies are wrong? Macai (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying your interpretation of policies are wrong. Macai, you already brought this up in a previous discussion at 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) and I quickly responded to it 12:00, 11 December and 12:42, 11 December.  Is there a particular reason you are asking the same question again and again?  This sounds very much like the behavior Drolz was engaging in when he repeatedly tried to argue for a POVFORK in thread after thread, again and again.   It may help to review Tendentious editing. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Far from neutral, the Annenburg Public Policy Center is very left-wing, even if it is technically not affiliated with the Democratic Party. Quoting Heng along with Delingpole's analysis in the Telegraph may balance out.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a good, neutral source for your claim so we can review it. Delingpole is a columnist who has been campaigning against climate change science for years.  He's not neutral or reliable for our purposes. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happens to be my perspective as well. But let's so some formal reasoning for those of you who don't think the Telegraph article is valid:
 * Mainstream news organizations are welcome.
 * The U.K. Telegraph is a mainstream news organization.
 * Therefore, the U.K. Telegraph is welcome.
 * Any questions? Macai (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it isn't the Telegraph that's doing the reporting, it's an opinion piece by James Delingpole, a climate change denier. It isn't neutral or authoritative for our purposes.  You have to be able to evaluate a source before deciding if you can use it.  Do you know how to do that? Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The same is true of the Annenburg report: it's written by a single person, Jess Heng.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the domain name "telegraph.co.uk" kind of gives it away that this is, in fact, a publication by the U.K. Telegraph. Not to mention the fact that the article says that the author of the article is "right about everything", really clinching the deal that this is not only published, but officially endorsed by the U.K. Telegraph. Now that we've cleared that up, please address the following logic:
 * Mainstream news organizations are welcome.
 * The U.K. Telegraph is a mainstream news organization.
 * Therefore, the U.K. Telegraph is welcome. Macai (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delingpole is not a "news" source. This has already been explained to you.  And he isn't neutral.  This has also been explained to you.  And, he's not an expert.  Again, explained.  Therefore, Delingpole fails evaluation and is not reliable for our purposes. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heng's "analysis" is very shoddy. He fails to mention most of the controversial quotes, including Jones' call on other scientists to delete emails in violation of UK's FOI Act.  He fails to mention the "very artificial adjustments" in the code or any of the codes comments.  He doesn't actually seem to show much familiarity with the content that has caused the most controversy, or else deliberately ignores it.  It's pure partisan hackery.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heng uses sources, but Delingpole does not. Whose analysis is shoddy? Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The fact-check.org article is interesting and should probably be included, I am not sure how well an M.A. in English prepares you to distinguish what is scientific right and scientific wrong, but I suppose her analysis is as good as any journalist's. jheiv (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, do Heng and Delingpole have the same or different level of expertise? Heng uses sources for her report.  Do we see the same with Delingpole's blog entries? Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources like the U.K. Telegraph don't need to cite sources - they are sources. But yes, it actually does. There are links littered around the Telegraph article. Macai (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. A source is not "automatically" reliable.  You have to evaluate for reliable criteria and determine if it is appropriate for the topic.  Since this topic deals with scientific issues, the bar for reliability is much higher.  In other words, if we are going to analyze climate data or make claims requiring specialist knowledge, then we need to evaluate the source for those criteria.  I hope this makes sense to you. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, according to Wikipedia's policies, mainstream sources are automatically reliable. Macai (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is simply no such thing. Reliability is not automatic for any topic.  I hope this makes sense. Viriditas (talk)
 * Both Delingpole and Heng come from literary backgrounds with no formal scientific training. Both are very poor sources when it comes to interpreting the consequences of the information for climate science and the process of science.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Her name is Jess Henig and "she received a B.A. in history of science from Smith College and her M.A. in English from the University of Maryland. While at Maryland, she taught digital literature and rhetorical writing. Prior to joining the Annenberg Public Policy Center in May 2007, she worked for the National Academies Press. She has also worked for the National Institutes of Health and as a freelance researcher and editor."  I would say that her background and experience surpass that of Delingpole when it comes to this topic.  Furthermore, her experience at the NIH shows that she has professional familiarity with the concept of "scientific integrity" which is essential to medicine. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to use any single source for an overall analysis of the emails. We already have in the article the widely published explanations of some of the principal scientists, and that should be adequate. --TS 09:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we should definitely also present any facts published by reliable sources, as well, facts. An example would be that CRU manipulated evidence, privately doubted that the earth is heating up, suppressed evidence, and attempted to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. You know, so that we can maintain Wikipedia's NPOV. You being the one who recently said that we shouldn't distort the facts with weasel words. It's not an allegation, it's a fact, as per WP:RS. Macai (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece from a non-expert, climate change denier about climate change science, and it can't be used in this article. That has been explained to you already several times.  There is nothing "reliable" about it for this topic. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's an article by a reliable source. Are you denying that the Telegraph is mainstream? Because that's all it needs to be to be reliable as per WP:RS. Macai (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not even close. Please read and understand Evaluating sources.  An non-neutral, climate change denier opinion about climate science from a non-scientist is not reliable for our purposes.  End of story. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So WP:RS does not reflect Wikipedia's policy? Because I could have sworn it does. Also, WP:RS > WP:ES, since the former is an actual policy as opposed to the latter. Thanks for trying, though. Macai (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RS is a guideline not a policy, and evaluating sources is an essay describing how we determine if a source is reliable or not. It is standard procedure for all research.  If you don't know how to evaluate a source, then you can't tell if is reliable for a certain topic.  You need to learn this in order to actually edit Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, evaluating sources isn't about how to determine if a source is reliable. Here's the summary:
 * This page in a nutshell: When using primary sources, editors should stick to describing what the sources say. Any interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims require a secondary source.
 * Your article doesn't even support your argument, whereas Wikipedia's standard on reliable sources, on the other hand, does happen to directly support mine. Macai (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It not only supports my argument, it repeats it word for word. Please read and understand it.  Better yet, read the sources that it is based upon.  Without it, you cannot determine what is reliable and what is not. This is the first step in writing Wikipedia articles.  Unless you truly understand how this is done, you will be running in circles chasing your own tail. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Explanations that one non-expert (Henig) is reliable but another (Delingpole) is not, because Delingpole is one of those evil "climate change deniers", no longer how often they may have been repeated, still make no sense.Flegelpuss (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you shown that Henig is unreliable or non-neutral? Please do so.  Can you show that she promotes climate change science beyond that of the consensus opinion on the subject?  Henig uses sources, unlike Delingpole, so Delingpole doesn't even make the grade. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have. She dismissed the fact that Phil Jones expressed intent to exclude scientists from the IPCC by saying that the people he expressed the intent to exclude were included, as if that made the expression of intent less bad. So no, she's kind of biased - oh wait - that's only an issue when Delingpole does it. Anyway, I'm out for the night. See you. Macai (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that italicized quote anywhere in the article. You will need to actually stick to what she says and explain directly how it is unreliable. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Macai, that article is a blog article by James Delingpole, it is not a Telegraph article and was not subject to the Telegraph's normal editorial process. It's a self-published source, not a reliable source for the information it contains.  Delingpole is a resident blogger at the Telegraph, which is why it appears on telegraph.co.uk. Simonmar (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delingpole's blog is only a reliable source for Delingpole's opinion. It is not a reliable source for any factual statements, and I see no reason why the views of Delingpole - a novelist and columnist with zero expertise on scientific issues - should be given special prominence. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Does anyone here actually understand what a reliable source means, and how we evaluate a source for reliability?" Having participated in numerous discussions about reliable sources on the Reliable sources noticeboard, the issue of whether a source is biased it completely irrelevant. Lots of sources are biased. That doesn't affect it's reliability in the slightest. What matters is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Feel free to take up the issue at the reliable sources talk page or the Reliable sources noticeboard and they'll tell you the exact same thing. As far as this particular source goes,, it appears to be an opinion piece which is only reliable for the opinions of its author. WP:UNDUE applies. However, if we can find evidence that this blog is subject to the full editorial control of its publisher, then it's acceptable as a reliable source for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it improbable that the editors of the Telegraph have a better grasp of the facts than the science specialists we quote at present. Where a normally reliable source differs with a more reliable source, we defer to the more reliable. A newspaper editor is no more qualified to form an expert opinion on climatology or the scientific method than I am. --TS 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a single mention of the death threats.. Why does our article continue to give undue weight to this minor issue when reliable sources are largely ignoring it? ChrisO, you yourself called this a "detailed analysis". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't true at all. The factcheck article isn't about the death threats (and was probably written before it was released).  There are, however, dozens of sources that cover it, as you know.  So why would you say this? Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was important, they would have mentioned it. I also remind you that I examined the first  10 sources used by our article, and 9 out of the 10 don't even mention it all, not even in passing.  It's undue weight for our article to give such prominence to an aspect of the story that reliable sources aren't focusing on.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would explain the problem. Most of the death threat sources aren't in the article and have only been released in the last week.  It's all over Google news. Viriditas (talk)


 * I have no idea where you get your news. As for Google News, there doesn't seem to be anything published in the last 24 hours.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your problem. You forgot to add an "s" on to the end.  The most common usage is plural.  I hope you will now forfeit this debate due to your error. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, of the last few news articles people have posted to this talk page (NPR, Russia Today, AP, FactCheck, etc.), none of them mention the death threats either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE to have them featured so prominently in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not obvious. It's an opinion held by several people here.  The idea that it belongs in the lead is also held by people here - including experienced editors who have actually gotten articles through WP:FAC.  Try not to be so dismissive of the opinions of people who actually have experience writing articles and who, you know, helped to formulate WP:UNDUE.  There's a difference between an opinion and a self-evident fact. It's useful to keep that in mind.  Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a RFC on the death threats. Please don't clutter this different discussion; instead, post your comments there. --TS 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, now that's an appeal to authority. So far, I haven't seen any argument for giving them such prominence that doesn't involve WP:OR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What? "Don't be so quick to dismiss the opinions of people who have actually done the job"? More like an appeal to experience.  Anyway, it's not a fallacious argument.  Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then fine, come up with legitimate argument that meets WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You made a mistake in your search term above. It's "death threats", not "death threat".  Please forfeit this discussion.  You made a mistake, and now I've corrected it. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline"
It's a completely suspect analysis because it misses the point.

1. The intent is clear. It is to hide something.

2. Why is hiding the decline in tree ring temperatures important? Well its a 50 year period. If the tree ring proxies do not show the actual temperatures, then there is no evidence that they actually are a proxy at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.130 (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Steven McIntyre is a scientist who has published in the peer-reviewed climate literature, and as the e-mails indicate is held in high esteem (or at least fear) by Jones, Mann, and company. His article IPCC and the "trick" is an in-depth analysis of the science and scientific process behind the most notorious email and a number of related emails in the leaked archive. It's a much better source than either Henig or Delingpole, although its an analysis of just one of the important issues raised by the leaked documents. ClimateAudit is a highly regarded, award-winning scientific forum in blog form, with a substantially more detailed and higher-quality discussion than the pop blog RealClimate.Flegelpuss (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Steven McIntyre a climatologist? Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephen McIntyre's sole qualifications for this chosen role are a BSc in mathematics from the University of Toronto and about 30 years at company officer level in the mineral exploration business. He also has a degree in PPE from Oxford.  Oh, and he runs a blog.  He has developed a popular fan following for his vitriolic attacks on the work of qualified, published, peer-reviewed climate scientists.  His fans frequently mistake him for a scientist. --TS 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's as much of a scientist as Al Gore is.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Gore invented the internet! :) Let's play devil's advocate: Isn't a mathematician qualified to comment on a mathematical model? Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're going to lower our standards to the point that a BSc in mathematics qualifies one to pose as an expert in mathematics, a lot of Wikipedians would be able to start blogs and have their opinions on climate models copied by their friends and fans into Wikipedia. --TS 12:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate: But McIntyre is not only a mathematician, but a notable climate skeptic. And along with Ross McKitrick, McIntyre has successfully challenged the evidence for anthropogenic global warming used by the IPCC.  How can you eliminate McIntyre's voice from this article? Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you raise McIntyre and McKitrick. There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether, and if so to what extent, the McIntyre and McKitrick challenge has been successful.  If intended to scuttle the evidence for global warming, it has been a complete non-starter.  Moreover the IPCC AR4 cites a later paper, Wahl and Ammann (2007), which they say "showed that [M&M's failure to replicate the MBH98 reconstruction] was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data."  To me, this looks like a polite way of saying that McIntyre and McKitrick's replication failure was due to their incompetence. --TS 16:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Saturday noon free word here, eh? :) Let me ask a stupid question: what model has M criticised? And with the little knowledge I have about his doings, I'd call him an analyst. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Isn't a mathematician qualified to comment on a mathematical model?". It depends.  Has McIntyre's work in the relevant field been published by a third-party, reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly think that McIntyre's credentials are good enough to be quoted as a contrary-balancing voice in this matter. He has published a paper (2003), been interviewed on a couple of US-based cable news programs concerning this controversy (not sure about Canada), and is referenced in several/many of these emails.  There is no doubt that he is in the thick of this matter and his analysis would be highly appropriate.  Madman (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * McIntyre's blog is an SPS, so we need to use that as our starting point. Is it a reliable source for McIntyre's opinion?  Certainly.  And as someone who is at least peripherally involved in the whole affair, his opinion is not irrelevant, though consensus at this time seems to be to exclude the opinions of relatively peripheral people like Pierrehumbert.  Can ClimateAudit be used as a source for something more than McIntyre's opinion?  That's where things get a bit more iffy.  A single publication in the literature, especially one that has been widely criticised, does not make him an expert.  Think about it like this: many universities require undergrads to do a research project in order to graduate.  These projects are often published with the student as the first author, even if they don't actually write the ms.  But this is not sufficient for them to be considered a recognised expert on the subject.  Granted, McIntyre has done a bit more than that, but saying that he has "published in the peer-reviewed climate literature" stretches the point a bit - technically true, but misleading.  Oh, and by the way - a B.Sc. in maths does not make one a "mathematician" any more than a B.A. in psychology makes you a psychologist or a B.A. in history makes you a historian.  Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As it happens, McIntyre's opinion is widely quoted in reliable sources (see for instance the excellent AP analysis that somebody linked to on this page this morning). It isn't as if we need to quote his self-published, non-expert blog to get his opinion of the affair. --TS 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

NPR on "ruckus" in Congress
A rather entertaining account of Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)'s call for in inquiry, during a House select committee meeting. --TS 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical error
I actually noticed this from a comment in a denier blog but anyway the article currently says:
 * Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated a few thousands of e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years

(emphasis mine) which obviously isn't good grammar. May I suggest "a few thousand e-mails..." or "thousands of e-mails..." ? Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In my dialect of English that's perfectly good grammar, though it may sound a little archaic to speakers of standard English. Yes, by all means change it.  As this is obviously uncontroversial I've tagged this section with "editprotected". --TS 10:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was originally "thousands of e-mails"; someone apparently added "few" in front of that to qualify it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was probably something like that. Considering that, I propose "a few thousand e-mails..." as the better option Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that that is not actually a grammatical error, but I removed a few, as that works too. The change was last made, so far as I can tell by J. Sketter. The source document reads The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents.
 * I was making the change as you were commenting, Nil Einne. If you or anyone else would like it reverted for further discussion, that would be fine.
 * Also, while I am here I would like to express support for the aggressive archival of stale and unproductive threads. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine I just thought leaving a few might be better to avoid people adding it back if they think 'thousands' isn't specific enough Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ by. --TS 11:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are you people trying to fool?
Why bother? Anyone who tries to engage in a civil reasoned discussion BUT doesn't toe the party line will be deleted, archived and banned. I was thinking of engaging in civil disobedience - but I'll go one better, I'll actually join in which ever side has the greater thuggery and will subtly egg them on to greater extremism. This will not of course work here in this article but it will work wonderfully in dozens of articles. I'll just sign up with an account and notch up a quick few thousand edits by reverting IP's wholesale (the more abusively the better, just not too many to tip my hand) then I'll suck up to some power users and go to town aggressively shutting down intelligent discussion always from the side of strength. My sole purpose will be to bend with the wind and support the ignorant assholes that are the loudest voices and most obsessive contributors who have become the arbiters of truth. I will endeavor to speed the decline of anti-intellectual Wikipedia by contributing (and not resisting) to the rot at the core. This will be easy to game simply by bending with the prevailing wind and pushing hard with the wind while leaving behind piles of crap quietly weaved into every facet I can touch. :) Hello brothers, I'm home. >99.144.192.74 (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship is thataway... :-) Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My, my. Climate change "skeptics" are usually the anti-intellectual crowd, though.  The scare quotes in this case are partly because scientific skeptics (as opposed to "skeptics" of science) come out on the side of the majority of climate scientists..Шизомби (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly a skeptic, I simply discussed the widespread usage of the term climategate::

From a Time magazine news article, "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". By any measure, except calculated political posturing, the term ClimateGate or Climategate is the norm. This dangerous bit of knowledge was deleted immediately. When I restored it, it was then archived immediately and I was banned.99.144.192.74 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen",
 * 2) as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen",
 * 3) The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""
 * 4) The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"
 * 5) Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist, "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"
 * 6) Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"
 * You have a very pragmatic way of looking at the situation, 99.144.192.74. I respect that.  Drolz 09  05:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for edit warring. Technically you should not even be editing as you are evading a block but as long as you don't edit war perhaps no one will bother to block you again. But if you continue to edit war you can be assured you'd be blocked again, probably even longer Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems you were blocked again for 1 month. Rereading your first post and considering you apparently were edit warring again, I'm not surprised and think calling you 'pragmatic' is a bit far fetched. More like precisely the kind of user who makes people suspicious of any contributions from new users and IPs and which make collaboration and work on this page difficult at the best of times. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)