Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 11

Mission Statement for the Article
What is the article about? Why is the underlying topic significant? There seem to be several possible answers to that (not necesarily mutually excusive):
 * 1) This is the event that cracked open the global criminal climate hoax conspiracy
 * 2) This dug up information that completely discredits all climatology research
 * 3) This exposed information that calls into question the methods used and the professionalism of the CRU
 * 4) This exposed information that calls into question the validity of some climatology data
 * 5) A criminal security breach was committed upon CRU
 * 6) The fact that an unknown person was able to hack into CRU is of grave concern for security of scientific study and data
 * 7) An unknown person leaked information in an attempt to discredit climatologists and influence Copenhgen
 * 8) An unknown person Falsified information in an attempt to discredit climatologists and influence Copenhgen
 * 9) This is another event in a pattern of criminal harassment of climatologists
 * 10) This was the event that eventually led to a wave of violence and terrorism against climatologists

I think we would benefit by sharing our views of what elements are important and why. If we can come to consensus on this, I think we can more easily discuss what the proper scope and structure of the article should be. MarkNau (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My view: 3+4 are the CORE matter. 5 is a part of the story but of clearly SECONDARY importance. 7 is a big part of the story, but we have no hard facts on it. Everything else is either unfounded, outright crazy, or off-topic and relatively unimportant side issuesMarkNau (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you on this one, Mark. It's notable because numerous reliable sources have found it notable.  Nothing more; nothing less.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We may actually agree. Which ASPECTS of the story have the reliable sources found to be notable? In other words, what is the scope of "it," as defined by how reliable sources have treated the incident? MarkNau (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that as a different question. Notability applies to articles as a whole, whereas weight applies to content within an article.  To answer this question, we're supposed to focus on what reliable sources have focused on.  As far as your list goes, I would say that they're focusing on #3 and #7. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that looking at the focus of RS is the right way to proceed, and should be our first order of business. If I think that #4 is being given a lot of focus in reliable sources, I can make that case. If there is a consensus that a significant minority of coverage is putting focus on #9, then it could be included, but given appropriate weight. And so on. Procedurally, this seems like a way to put "first things first" and have a constructive conversation about what the proper weight should be for each potential aspect of the article. MarkNau (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:
 * 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.

Which matter to give more prominence is, as discussed above, a matter for discussion, and there may be facts to add to the list. Vague opinions such as "This is another event in a pattern of criminal harassment of climatologists" and outright falsehoods like "This exposed information that calls into question the validity of some climatology data" should be avoided. --TS 15:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But clearly, a background section would describe what the CRU is, who their major players are, and, in chronological order, any harassment of climate scientists leading up to the event. There is a pattern, and sources have covered it. Viriditas (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of whether or not we include a background section is orthogonal to this debate, which is about deciding on the topics of the article. --TS 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Tony's outline is the best we've come across so far. Doesn't have to be perfect, but it's useful to identify what we consider the main points.  Viriditas is also right - of course we need to include a proper context and all that.  Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another way to think of it is that Tony has outlined the lead, now we need to match the article to that lead, so that we can then go back and summarise the article into that lead. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support using Tony's outline as the framework. I also support the notion that we will look to the focus of RS coverage to determine weight. MarkNau (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a move in the right direction. --TS 01:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Focus of reliable sources
The weight of various aspect of this incident should reflect the focus each aspect is getting from the mass of reliable sources covering the incident.

So far as I can tell, the main focus in mainstream news articles is
 * to call the incident Climategate
 * to state that the information was hacked
 * to not mention any notion that this incident is framed within a background of harassment
 * to not mention that police are tracking down the hackers
 * to not mention the death threats
 * to call those who question the majority climatology scientific opinion "skeptics"
 * to refer to the incident as a scandal

Now, let me be clear about my personal take on this. I categorically reject the notion that Climategate is an appropriate term for use in the article. It is predjudicial and strongly implies the CRU scientists were engaged in no-good, which is not supported by any hard facts in the proponderence of reliable sources. Same with the use of the term scandal. Newspapers are looking for readers, and so will use more inflamatory language than we should.

But likewise, there is a real dearth of any mention of tracking down the hackers, the death threats, or past harassment of climatologists. My initial instinct was to say that mention of the police investigating and tracking down the hackers should be mentioned, but I'm having a hard time justifying that from the preponderence of RS coverage. And yes, I know there are other RS than news articles.

Note that pointing to several articles and/or dozens of RS blog entries is not enough to establish that the issue is receiving anything more than a slight side-show minority of focus. I'm not claiming to have researched this conclusively, but will be very doubtful of including anything other something getting a primary or substantial secondary focus from the mass of RS covering this.MarkNau (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're an American then you may not be aware of the sub judice rule that operates in the UK. The progress of law enforcement investigations is not being reported because it can't be reported: under English law it's contempt of court to do so. It's not like the US where you get endless leaks, rumour-mongering and speculation. The police here do not usually comment on cases under investigation other than to appeal for witnesses and suchlike. So when you refer to a "dearth of any mention" of issues under investigation, that's because there's nothing to report other than that the investigations are underway. There will be nothing further to report until either the investigations are dropped or arrests are made. The argument that it's "undue weight" to talk about the law enforcement investigations is therefore faulty, since it doesn't take into account the way law enforcement works on this side of the Atlantic. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite a specific policy or guideline that says such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a Wikipedia policy, obviously, it's a UK law. But it's because of that law that the media have not published any more information on the investigations beyond the news that they are underway. They have nothing they can legally report. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not our problem. Can I assume that you concede we are in violation of WP:UNDUE, or are you going to invoke Ignore all rules? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concede nothing of the sort, and I regard your argument as tendentious and self-serving. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-serving? I don't even care about this article's topic.  I'm only here because I get annoyed by editors who abuse Wikipedia to promote an agenda.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only "agenda" that I'm promoting here is documenting the known facts. You appear to have a problem with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Facts as revealed by reliable sources. You've already admitted that we don't have enough reliable sources to support such high prominence of this claim in the lede, yet you still won't admit that you're wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what you're looking for is Wikilawyering. Guettarda (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting point ChrisO. The logic, then, is that because of this law, we should not expect multiple and continual waves of news covering the police investigation. It will be well-mentioned initially, when the police announce there is an investigation underway, but not later. And this is what my cursory search of Google News found to be the case, using the date-narrowing function in the advanced search. As a proportion of EARLY news reports, the fact that police are investigating the hacking does show up a decent amount. So I'd agree that there is support for some weight on the police investigation of the hacking attempt. MarkNau (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the case. You get an initial wave of reporting, then a blackout until what the police call "executive action" takes place (arrests or the case is dropped). Thanks for taking the trouble to look into it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This new article from Associated Press has a lot of information that could be useful. Among other things, it says, "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed under above. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Change requested to lead
Article has been edited by


 * "Those accused issued prompt refutations, and the CRU scientists have accused the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit of December 2009,[10] and categorize the entire incident as a smear campaign."

This doesn't read very well. I suggest the following change:


 * "CRU scientists issued prompt refutations and described the incident as a smear campaign, accusing the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit."

Or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in this particular case, we shouldn't be using the word "sceptic". It's been pointed out several times that we shouldn't be lumping legitimate scientists and journalists in with the AGW skeptics.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that discussion, which isn't surprising considering the size of this page (and archive). Viriditas (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "refutations" implies their lies-on-top-of-lies were able to refute anything.

A better word would be "responses." That's what we usually use to describe a lie covering another lie, anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.69.80 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "refutations" seems correct in this case. A refutation is a reasoned objection to the truth of a factual claim, and we should avoid using vague words like "responses" where a more descriptive word is available. I like Viriditas' alternative wording. --TS 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Were they prompt though? I have read criticism specifically that the lack of prompt response allowed all this to fester to the point that the mainstream media started to give more credibility to the skeptics. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminds me, it might be a good idea to construct a timeline to enable us to structure the article. Here's a start that covers the earliest days of the affair:
 * Nov 17: evidence of the hacking first emerges when somebody tries to hack RealClimate and put the articles there. UEA promptly informed.
 * Nov 19: content published to the Tomsk server
 * Nov 21: Ben Webster (The Times) reports the incident and gives a comment by UEA: “This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry.” At that stage, Webster reports, because of the volume UEA could not report how much of the content of the posted zip file was genuine.  Phil Jones had spoken to a climate skeptic, Ian Wishart, who "quoted Prof Jones as denying that he had manipulated data and saying that he could not remember writing the words “hide the decline”.
 * Nov 26: SolveClimate reports on three scientists, including Michael Mann, describing the affair as a smear campaign, and the CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research, Trevor Davies, putting out an official statement saying "There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."
 * Your mileage may vary, but to me it looks as if CRU had a very complete hold on the nature of this attack and responded appropriately and as promptly was humanly possible. --TS 18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "rebuttals" would be more correct here. The word "refutation" implies proof, and it's too strong to be used at this stage.  I've been thinking that "refutations" sounded a bit odd in that context since I first read it. Simonmar (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I support the improved wording proposed by Vir.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttals is okay with me. I think it is a little clearer. --TS 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, but without "prompt" and with "refuted" replaced with an alternative (e.g. rebutal, response or something else). Prompt: I'm not keen on the word. Those in the public relations industries advocate a prompt response to negative publicity because a quick response can be perceived as a sign of innocence and a delayed response can be perceived as a sign of guilt; both probably with only very limited validity but people are what people are and they tend to have certain preconceptions.

So, with that in mind, "prompt" seems to me to have a POV bent to it - it's making a point that they were quick with their response, which some people might think implies innocence. To me though, prompt would mean the day after someone tells me something (possibly stretching up to the day after that) and, as TS's time line points out, that's not the case with the CRU's response.

Of course my opinion (and, I'm assuming, any other editor's opinion) on whether the response was prompt or not isn't particularly relevant; what we need to know is how reliable sources have characterized the response. Are there any sources that say it was prompt, or not prompt, or even say anything about the time frame of the response? If there aren't I suggest dropping the word.

Refuted: similarly, with the word "refuted", I perceive it to have a slight POV bent to it. The only times I've seen it used (or used it) are when the person believes they have overthrown or disproved the opposing argument - e.g. commonly on forum arguments and Wikipedia arguments. While the CRU scientists obviously believe they have refuted any criticism with respect to the emails (and I would mostly agree with them), Wikipedia should not be asserting that they have refuted (overthrown, disproved) them. Wikipedia should adopt neutral language and state the fact: that they responded (and obviously what their response was).

I don't particularly object to "skeptics" being used in the lead but note that it's the first time it's used in the article so I think it needs a qualification ("skeptics of what?", a reader might want to know). Also, the proposed change says that "CRU scientists [...] accused the skeptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit" but when I read the reference provided, it's actually Kevin Trenberth that is saying that. Is he a CRU scientist? If he's not, then it's not the CRU scientists that are refuting/rebutting/responding with that particular response, it's someone else. You could just drop "CRU" from that bit so that it summarizes scientists' responses in general, or you could leave CRU in and change the text to summarize what the CRU scientists' responses were, rather than what other scientists' responses were. Brumski (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

editprotected Place the following sentence in the lead to replace the sentence starting "Those accused issued prompt refutations..."


 * Climate scientists issued rebuttals and described the incident as a smear campaign, accusing the climate change sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit.

As of TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC), all issues raised below have been resolved.

--TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are Richard Somerville, Michael Mann and Eric Steig (from the first reference "Reuters 25 Nov" ) and Kevin Trenberth (from the second reference "AP 22 Nov"" ) CRU scientists? If not, the proposed edit is not backed up by the sources provided and shouldn't be added in it's current form.Brumski (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't synthesis, but the previous version that I supported (it was removed by several editors due to their misunderstanding of the necessity of attribution for the reasons that you observe above) attributed the claimants directly, rather than this current general formulation. For the reason that you give, I prefer to attribute directly, but this version is still true, in the sense that people other than those named above have made similar claims.  The current article should reflect this.  If it doesn't, then yes, changes need to be made, but the lead is still accurate.  Your observation is a good one, though, and I support changes to bring it inline with the previous version which avoided this problem.  Here is the last good version that I edited:
 * "Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December. Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign."


 * Therefore, please address the problems with this version. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the phrase "CRU scientists" to "Climate scientists" in the request, and put the request on hold. --TS 11:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the revised version that changes "CRU scientists" to "climate scientists". The sentence that will be immediately before this proposed text in the lead states that allegations have been made about climate scientists and this revised version of the proposed edit then makes clear that climate scientists have rebutted the allegations and gives one important example of how they have rebutted it; that seems to be a good way of putting it while being factually faithful to the references used. Note that, on reflection, I'm aware that my last objection to CRU scientists might be slightly pedantic so if others that have already agreed to this text (or yourself) would prefer CRU scientists rather than climate scientists I withdraw the objection; I understand what "CRU scientists" is trying to say and what it is trying to say isn't particularly contrary to the body of the article, even if the references provided with the text don't support it. With respect to Viriditas's version immediately above, WP:Lead says that the lead should be written at a greater level of generality than the body and I feel that version is a little too detailed. Also, the lead should reflect important aspects (that climate scientists reject the allegations) and the reader can read the article to find details of which particular scientist rebut them in which particular way (and that additional particular scientists have rebutted them in additional ways). Brumski (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So where do we stand? Are we good to go? Viriditas (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the revised version immediately underneath the editprotected template and I was the one that objected previously, so I've reinitialized the template so it can be added. If protocol is that I should have done so earlier, apologies for the delay. Brumski (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks oky to me. --TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Error of omission
The suggested source is a blog by a person without relevant expertise, and cannot be treated as a reliable source.

Graphs showing data variation from icebergs over thousands of years have been left out of this article making it impossible for the ordinary citizen to come to his own conclusion regarding so called global warming. I would like to add the link from

This link clearly shows what that the hockey stick is misleading and that the Middle Age warming period was ignored. The conclusion that the scientists involved committed intentional data massaging is unavoidable. Also there should be an inquiry into the financial relationships proponets of Global warming such as Al Gore have. Large corporations may be able to offshore factories into Asia or India to avoid having to purchase carbon credits in the US and hence be able to underprice their competitors. Oil companies may relish hiding the decline in oil production since 2005 (Peak Oil has already happened) by hiding behing a global warming agenda that rations oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livermore10 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly it's a blog maintained by a former weatherman, so it isn't a reliable source. Secondly, it doesn't seem to relate to the subject of this article.  If you find a reliable source (for instance, a real climatologist) it will almost certainly go into a more appropriate article. --TS 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If he was a weatherman, then he might have been published by a third-party reliable source and his blog might be acceptable as a WP:SPS. Is meteorology a relevant field to climatology?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify? Are you suggesting that weathermen are authoritative on climatology?  --TS 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm honestly asking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Meteorology is a close and very relevant field to climatology, just as the study of micro-evolution in viruses is highly relevant to the study of evolution, the study of how a river transports and deposits soil on a daily basis is highly relevant to geology, and so on. Aspects of weather, such as cloud cover, are central to climatology, and changes in many weather phenomena, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and so on, are believed by many to be one of the consequences of global warming. It is meteorologists who study how these phenomena work, and studying climate history is an important part of the meteorological curriculum. Flegelpuss (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The short answer is no. Meteorology deals with short-term atmospheric phenomena (weather), while climatology deals primarily with long-term atmospheric trends (climate) that produce specific types of weather. They are both atmospheric sciences but they are distinct fields. Expertise in one does not translate automatically to expertise in the other. As an aside, people often confuse weather with climate; that's why every winter you get uninformed arguments like "it's snowing therefore global warming must be a myth". -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that Watts had any skills in meteorology? I don't think I did. As far as I'm aware he has no such skills. He was a TV weatherman. I assume this means he stood up in front of a map and waved his arms around a bit, like the character played by Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. I don't think we have enough evidence to describe him as a qualified meteorologist. Assuming he did, I find it improbable that he would be qualified to have an opinion on climate. --TS 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "He was a TV weatherman" Hmmmm...that sounds like his work has been published by a third-party reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, by a television station. Does that mean we should seek out and insert into relevant article Jimmy Savile's opinion on the administration of British hospitals?  He has appeared before the microphone thousands of times and he worked as a porter at Stoke Mandeville for decades. --TS 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should find somewhere to work in Tom Baker's view of theology. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Talking of Romana's various husbands, I wonder if the world's most accomplished Professor Yaffle impersonator has come out with a view on this matter. As the emeritus Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Dawk has a professional expertise to add here. --TS 02:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

TV weathercasters are not prima facie experts in meteorology. Experts in meteorology are published in scientific journals and have advanced degrees. TV weathercasters appear on TV, and may or may not be published in scientific journals or have advanced degrees. Does this specific individual have an advanced degree or publications in scientific journals? Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well no. But he has a blog, so he must be an expert! --TS 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, as TS noted the material original poster linked seems to be clearly outside the scope of the article in hand. --J. Sketter (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder
Policy reminders have been added to the FAQ.

Disputes requiring administrative intervention, concerns about edit warring, editorial conduct, general content, BLP issues, original research, NPOV, and reliable sources should be filed at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is not the place for extended discussion about these topics. A navigation menu is available here. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone add this to the FAQ? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added as FAQ questions 7 and 8. --TS 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add WP:RS to support inclusion of editorial
Consensus to perform the edit proved elusive.

To help establish WP:WEIGHT, me and several other editors have argued to avoid including opinion pieces unless the opinion has also been covered by a third-party WP:RS. Currently, we reference the Nature editorial but don't have a WP:RS to cite. I'd like to add the following news article from The Chronicle of Higher Education which references the Nature editorial. This seems to be a minor change. No content is being changed; my proposal is only for adding an additional cite to the end of the paragraph which talks about the editorial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to the Chronicle ref being added. In regard to the wider question of how we select opinion pieces for inclusion, I agree we need criteria. But I'm not sure that "mentioned by a third party" is quite so important as a criterion as you and the others think. It seems odd that Nature cannot stand as its own source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, as a statement of their own opinions, a quote from Nature's own opinion piece is irrefutable. Giving another ref where someone else has picked it up in more everyday literature adds credence to its notability, if that were needed. --Nigelj (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nature's opinion would be relevant even if nobody else cited it. Nature is Nature.  --TS 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We're agreed on the edit. The principle concerned should be discussed rather than taken for granted. --TS 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Per my objection above. -Atmoz (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, per Tony. Nature's opinion is relevant, regardless of who covers it.  After all, they are the publishers of several of these papers, their name has even been dragged in via "Mike's Nature trick".  References are good.  Additional references that add nothing to the article are bad.  The benefit of adding additional references must always be weighed against the cost of making the article harder to read and to edit (especially for inexperienced editors).  Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What objection above? I don't see it.  Anyway, do you really want to open the flood gates for every op-ed on the subject?  Do you really want to have to explain to every AGW sceptic why their favorite blog, op-ed, etc. shouldn't be used in the article?  Requiring a third-party reliable source establishes a nice framework for eliminating a lot of crud.  Besides, it's not like an editorial from a journal such as Nature isn't going to be mentioned by a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a binary choice. We can include the Nature editorial without cluttering the article with "crud".  Lay off the hyperbole.  Guettarda (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a binary choice, but it is a simple framework for dealing with fringe theorists.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The double standard continues to grow more blatant. A Nature opinion piece agrees with us so they are reliable, whereas the Daily Mail, with an actual news story, comes to conclusions we don't like, so they are just conservative tabloid trash and thus not a reliable source.  Very nice criteria for a left-wing propaganda organ.  Not acceptable criteria for a neutral encyclopedia. Flegelpuss (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately satirical? It's really hard to tell at this point.  Yes, of course the premier scientific publisher in the world, bar none, is a more reliable source on science than any newspaper.  --TS 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what WP:RS says. Please stop making up rules.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're reading it right, then the phrasing of the guideline needs to be tightened up. Because what Tony says is the reality here.  Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, I only care about following policy. If you can get the editors of WP:V and WP:RS to agree, that's fine with me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You say you only care about following policy, but you repeatedly cite guidelines as if they had the same weight as policy. Why do you do that? --TS 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that policies override guidelines when there's a conflict, but I'm not aware of any conflict between the two. Are you saying that they are in conflict with each other?  If not, it seems to be a moot point.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't just the policies override guidelines in some circumstances. Guidelines are just guidelines, they have no intrinsic weight, and it's possible to be a perfectly good Wikipedian while completely ignoring or even actively opposing a guideline or indeed several guidelines.  A guideline, even where it is followed, requires interpretation, and must never be followed robotically.  A policy, on the other hand, is something we all follow.  Policies are in black and white, whereas guidelines are the color of discretion.  If one attempts to impose guidelines on other editors, one does not succeed.  The best one can hope for is to persuade. --TS 00:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...you might be right. WP:V doesn't seem to contain the distinction between straight news articles and opinion pieces.  WP:RS does.  I hadn't noticed that before.  Let me think about this.  We may need to bring this up at the WP:RS talk page.  BTW, one of the reasons why I reference WP:RS so much is that I'm a regular participant at the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature is a reliable source on the opinion of Nature, which is intrinsically relevant to any scientific subject. That's the status of Nature, at this point in time. --TS 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The double standard continues to grow more blatant." Well, of course it does.  Every effort to bring neutrality to this article is being consistently blocked by the same group of editors.  I spent months arguing with fringe theorists to being neutrality to our 9/11 conspiracy theories article so it looks like I have my work cut out for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously AQFK, your persistent failure to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors is very tiresome. But you are now stepping over the line into the realm of personal attacks.  You need to step back from that kind of behaviour, now.  Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have assumed good faith. But when the pattern is blatant and obvious, it's hard not to ignore.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, "A Quest for Knowledge". I wonder if you could possibly cease casting slurs on your fellow editors, who are more numerous than you, at least as experienced and knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies, and as dedicated as your are to ensuring that we produce as neutral, accurate and high quality an article about this incident as is possible. --TS 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda and Tony Sidaway, why don't you just delete his comments or archive them instantly as you did to mine above in the Climategate discussion. You, Guettarda, also attacked me and accused me of all manner of things without any evidence or basis. Perhaps you two buddy's should look in the mirror.99.151.166.95 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda: You are not asking him to "assume good faith," you are demanding that he ignore a pattern of bias stretching out over weeks or perhaps even longer. It's one thing to assume good faith on the first edit, but once there are mountains of evidence pointing the other way, you're talking about willful blindness.  Drolz 09  23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, then how do you suggest we being neutrality to the article? We both agreed yesterday that AP analysis was pretty good.  Hypothetically speaking, if I were to include that in our article, I'd be immediately reverted.  Why is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc.  Drolz 09  23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project.  Drolz 09  23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we are falling out over whether or not to include a reference to Chronicle of Higher education that agrees with and supports a reference to Nature, then I'm minded to report this to the list of lamest edit wars. As I said above, I don't think it's necessary but I see where Quest is coming from and am very happy that we have such a constructive contributor to work with here. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am flummoxed. I support the proposed edit but I think "A Quest For Knowledge"'s broader suggestion is silly.  Others have correctly pointed out that Nature's editorials are always relevant on scientific matters.  And as a result of this very minor disagreement, "A Quest For Knowledge"' launches the most horrible and destructive personal attack against his fellow editors.  Why is this happening? It's completely inexplicable. --TS 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect he'll be willing to clarify his position. Drolz' accusations of cabalism against named editors are quite a different matter. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are a different (and very unhelpful) case, and not of "A Quest for Knowledge"'s doing, and not something any of us will be concerned about. It is "A Quest for Knowledge"'s assumptions of bad faith that really stand to harm the atmosphere here, because he is usually so reasonable. --TS 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not noticing the reasonableness, personally... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. When you see editors who: That tells me there's probably a problem with neutrality. Maybe the editors don't even realize that they're doing this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Routinely remove anything they think makes their POV look bad
 * 2) Only add material that think makes their POV look good
 * 3) and no one is writing for the enemy
 * So you think that adding reliably sourced, neutrally worded information makes one side looks good? That is a very strange position to take. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. By over-emphasizing certain things, de-emphasizing or omitting certain things, it's very possible to write a biased article using only reliable sources.  If I wanted to, I could easily write two versions of the same article, each heavily biased towards a different POV, using only reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response?  Drolz 09  00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Neutrally worded information?" I should think that an editor as experienced as you would be familiar with our policy on undue weight. Five emails are discussed in the article, and in four of them, the only perspective presented is the rebuttals issued in defense of their authors. Defense against what? What are we including these rebuttals for if the allegations they are addressing are not even mentioned in passing? »S0CO ( talk 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say, A Quest for Knowledge, you appear to be making some enormous assumptions here. Have you not seen the recent edits to this article, while it's been blocked? All of the textual edits made so far, were significantly endorsed by people like me, and none of them make any significant pro-science bias--indeed most of them remove text that could be read as exculpatory. See for yourself.


 * If I were really engaged in any bad faith exercise, why would I have devoted so much time to removing all possible bias in favor of my own point of view? --TS 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, look at that. Editing is blocked.  When did that happen?  I don't see a section headline announcing the reason for that.  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just from a quick survey of the article, I note that:
 * Death threats still in the lead
 * Title, "Hack and Theft," etc. still favor the notion that "it's an article about a security breach," as some of you have claimed
 * Section on the emails still devotes far more space to explaining away misconduct than to explaining what the allegations even are
 * There is still a massive, essentially unreadable section on the response of like 20 scientists, who all say essentially the same thing, and practically never actually address the email content
 * There is basically no coverage of what the allegations of misconduct actually are, or coverage of what Climategate has been, or what people think about it, etc.  Drolz 09  01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you say, for instance, that "there is basically no coverage of what the allegations of misconduct actually are?" That is the subject of most of the article.  The section "Content of the documents" contains fairly detailed explanations of the main accusations.  --TS 01:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Police investigations (not just "death threats") are in the lead, as they should be. We can't very well mention the investigations and then not say what they're investigating. Your argument effectively implies that we should not mention the police investigations in the first place, which isn't an option.
 * Title and "Hack and Theft" describe how the files got released in the first place. That's essential.
 * E-mails - there's always room for improvement, but please be aware that WP:BLP places tight restrictions on how we can cover allegations. As the very first section of BLP says, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" and "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The authors and recipients of the e-mails are the subject of considerable vilification at the moment, but there is little to no corroborated evidence of actual wrongdoing (and there won't be until the investigations into the affair have been published). If we underreport damaging, uncorroborated, possibly libellous accusations, then that is as it should be - as BLP says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper."
 * Scientists' reactions - I'm sure this can be looked at, but since the incident centres on scientific matters and a major scientific institution, it's only natural that scientists' reactions should be a major part of the article. They are in a far better-informed position to comment than semi-educated bloggers and hyperventilating op-ed writers. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No AQFK, you have not been assuming good faith, at least not in the last several days. You've repeatedly made (mostly unfounded) accusations of bad faith against other editors. You have also refused to take advice on policy from more experienced editors. In addition, you've been guilty of a heck of a lot of wikilawyering. This is just the latest and the most egregious. And it needs to stop. That's all. Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What needs to stop, really, (among many other things unfortunately) are these ludicrous accusations of 'wikilawyering' every time someone points out that policy you cited doesn't support you.  Drolz 09  01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Let's name the guilty ones who are throwing this word "wikilawyering" around.  Flegelpuss, Flegelpuss again, A Quest for Knowledge, hmm ues and Guettarda above.  Naughty boys.  Stop making these silly accusations. --TS 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should read that essay Drolz. Guettarda (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But the point is that we're supposed to be writing a WP:NPOV article. That doesn't change. We can't throw out the pillars just because we feel like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is throwing out any pillars. Wikipedia's policy framework is complex, particularly when it comes to sensitive topics that affect individual people's lives. You've been an active editor for about 11 months. Drolz has been an editor for 6 months. Tony, Guettarda and I have sixteen years of editorial experience between us. We've written multiple featured articles. We've written policies and guidelines. We not only know how Wikipedia works, we're among the people who made it work. We've repeatedly provided detailed advice on how those policies and guidelines affect this article. And yet we have a series of novice editors, sockpuppets and disruptive IPs claiming that we don't know what we're talking about. Can you understand why this is frustrating for us? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are. Chris, when was the last time you wrote for the enemy?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't "write for the enemy" (a dreadful phrase, I don't consider particular sides of a dispute to be my "enemies"); I write what can be reliably sourced about the various sides of an argument, with due respect for weight and the "do no harm" philosophy of WP:BLP. I haven't written much on the contents of the e-mails simply because others have been doing a good job of that without my intervention. But I'll repeat what I said above - we have to be cautious in writing about poorly substantiated accusations. If you don't like that key requirement of BLP, tough. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you should as that's one of the reasons why so many editors have complained about the bias of the article. As for WP:BLP is concerned, as long as we're following WP:RS, we should be alright. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sixteen years? Wow.  That's so sad :)  Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People can, in good faith, disagree about what constitutes an NPOV article. In fact, they do it all the time.  When you decide that you know what NPOV is, and everyone who disagrees with you is engaging in POV editing, it creates a problem.  Because, once you decide that you know who's right and who's wrong, it pretty much guarantees that you'll be wrong.  That's why WP:AGF is such a key social policy.  Most people are here to write an NPOV article.  Sure, there are always a few people who aren't.  And disproportionately many of them are SPAs and "returning editors" - "new" editors who arrive here well versed in editing Wikipedia.  But we assume good faith even with them, because there are also SPAs who are excellent editors, and returning editors who are actually looking to turn over a new leaf.
 * AGF is importance because it allows people with different opinions and different perceptions to maintain a certain minimum level of collegiality. Our social policies are important because our goal of collaboratively writing an encyclopaedia, is a social endeavour.  Good content editors who are unable to abide by our social policies soon run into trouble.
 * You can't always be right. And if you find yourself in the position where almost everyone is wrong except you, that's a good cue that some more introspection may be needed.  You make claims of cabals - while I have known of Viriditas and ChrisO for years, I don't think I have edited with them in the past.  I have run into Tony often enough, but I'm sure I've disagreed with him as often as I've agreed.  Guettarda (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually knew Tony some time before either of us became Wikipedians, but I don't think I've edited much in common with him over the years, and I've certainly not crossed paths very often with Guettarda or Viriditas; I don't usually edit scientific or environmental articles. I only got involved with this one because someone renamed it to a name that violates a policy and guideline that I wrote, prompting me to move it to a move neutral title. And then of course we got overrun with fire-breathing newbies, sock puppets and IPs. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we knew one another from around '95, but not in the biblical sense. --TS 02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record that I agree that the scientific consensus is that global warming is real and is primarily caused by mankind. I also agree that this controversy hasn't altered this consensus. However, this is not an article about global warming. It's an article about the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails. We need to explain what the controversy is all about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And the difficulty in doing so is that few to none of the accusations have been substantiated, the accusations come principally from poor-quality sources such as blogs and op-eds, and the statements made by the accusers are often misleading or rely on selective, out of context quotations. Media outlets (particularly of the overtly partisan kind) like to spin issues to meet their favoured ideological biases; we have to aim a lot higher. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And we have no deadline. We can afford to wait months, or even years, to get this article right.  We can definitely afford to wait until the criminal investigations and the independent inquiry finish. --TS 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "few to none of the accusations have been substantiated." This is the problem, and the double standard I have brought up. WP:RS for an accusation is not whether it is justified, or true. If this were the case, you wouldn't be able to write that someone in a murder trial had been accused of murder, because the allegation hadn't been "substantiated" yet. Meanwhile, death threats are in the article just because they have been made. There are plenty of WP:RS for the fact that allegations have been made, and these should be in the article.


 * The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. I freely admit that I am an AGW skeptic, and acknowledge that I have a POV. You guys refuse to admit that you have a POV, and because of this you see whatever you believe as being NPOV. I know that the balance in this article does not lie with what I personally believe to be the case. Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something.  Drolz 09  05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks and baiting. Last warning. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something" - I don't think anyone is claiming anything of the sort. But you do have to bear in mind that on scientific topics, NPOV means that we abide by the scientific mainstream.  NPOV does not mean giving equal time to non-mainstream positions.  Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree fully that minority and fringe views don't get equal time. In our article on global warming, I would argue that any mention of a global conspiracy by scientists to perpetuate a hox shouldn't even be included.  But this isn't the article on global warming, it's an article about a scandal.  We have to at least explain what the scandal is about.  In part of the quotes section, we have the quote and then a rebuttal, but no allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs)
 * What scandal? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I can see where the AQFK and Drolz's frustration comes from, I've felt the same way with the way this article and talk page has progressed. IT seems to me that some editors are attempting to hide their "politics" (for lack of a better word) by tailoring Wikipedia policies whichever way it suits them.  I'm sure that they actually believe that the policies apply as they argue they do, but it easy to see from following the discussion how editors can become frustrated.  Certainly one can also see how editors could interpret the goings on here as editors acting in a  cabal.  It seems (on the surface) that you can predict certain editors' responses to source suggestions not based on the quality of the source but on the material in the source, specifically whether it enhances or downplays the seriousness or damage that the incident has done.  I write all this to ask everyone to try to remain neutral, and remind the other editors to do the same, as I'm sure the suggestion would mean a lot more coming from someone who has made similar edits to the page than conflicting. The only thing that has put me at ease is that Wikipedia has a tendency to work things out in the long run, in that an article that is weighted on way today will most likely be pretty balanced a few months from now.  jheiv (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jheiv, please take a moment to read the article on the politicization of science. You seem to either be ignoring this state of affairs or enabling it.  Neutrality does not involve using biased, politically-motivated opinionated sources with a poor record of fact-checking as a basis for encyclopedia articles on science-related topics.  I'm sorry if some editors feel "frustated", but this isn't Conservapedia.  Tell me, jheiv, is this what you want our article to look like?  Please be honest. Viriditas (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to make this a one-on-one conversation -- feel free to write on my talk page if you want -- the message was for everyone but apparently has fallen on one set of deaf ears. I noted that "politics" might not be the best word, perhaps "views on AGW" or simply "views" would have been better, but thanks for the link anyway.  To answer your question about Wikipedia looking like Conservapedia, absolutely not.  I would, however, like to see a more balanced discussion here and hope that you'll re-read my previous comment. jheiv (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My question was about their article on this topic. Do you see anything in that specific article that you would like to see here?  Please read it and get back to me.  I am certain that if the people you are defending had their way, our article would be identical to the one on Conservapedia. Viriditas (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I really can't read that article (I tried, twice)-- traditionally leaning somewhat conservatively myself, its frustrating that that view is what is associated with conservatives. I guess groups are often defined by their most radical though.  Similarly unreadable is this (thought it would be funny to include).  If I find anything I think might be worth including here I'll be sure to mention it though (as I  have before). jheiv (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is why WP:AGF matters. Your angry response to my proposed outline was based not on what I said, but on your failure to assume good faith.  You chose to read things into what I said that weren't there.  Similarly, you say that you can predict the responses of "certain editors" to a source based on the content rather than the source.  Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, has it crossed your mind to consider the alternative hypothesis that there's a correlation between certain types of arguments and sources of a certain quality?  Again, this is why its important to assume good faith.  Guettarda (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)You'd be wrong to characterize my response as "angry", just wanted to clarify. With regards to assuming good faith, I have, in fact, I said "it seems" and further qualified it with "on the surface" hinting at the fact that there may be deeper initially unclear reasons.  Of course the correlation has occurred to me, and if you want to know I haven't ruled it out for everyone.  I'm just not convinced that the same level of "attention" is given to all of the edits.  If Drolz said something like this, there would have been many responses from editors questioning him, instead the odd comment has kind of just languished there and slowed progress of the page.  I assume good faith, it doesn't mean that I pretend that editors don't come across as clearly biased and have a hard time remaining neutral.  jheiv (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want this article to look anything like the Conservapedia page (which really is how it looks right now, except from the other side). I want it to say "emails said this, skeptics say this, AGW people say this, political and scientific fallout has been this." Then, someone who wanted to know about Climategate could actually learn something from this page.  Drolz 09  17:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You write I want it to say "emails said this, skeptics say this, AGW people say this, political and scientific fallout has been this."  I was under the impression that this is pretty much what we're aiming at--all of us.  Of course, don't expect the sceptics to get equal time irrespective of qualifications.  If a prominent climate scientist states an opinion on the scientific merits of a discussion in a leaked document, it is intrinsically better informed than the same opinion expressed by a blogger, a taxi driver, a politician or a journalist.  We'll aim for a fair representation of the affair, but will not grant equal time on question of scientific merit to minority points of view or to the uninformed. --TS 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take a little look at the scale of the article right now. It's something like:
 * Hack 15-20%. Emails 5-10%. Skeptics analysis of emails 0-5%. Scientists saying emails don't indicate misconduct 50-70%. Effect of emails on public opinion and science 0-5%.
 * Really impossible to get any clue about what "Climategate" is or has caused to happen by reading this article.  Drolz 09  23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So what would you add and what sources would you use? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to go looking for sources until we establish some reasonable bright line rules about what can be allowed in.  Drolz 09  02:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those lines are already established by our policies and guidelines. You simply refuse to acknowledge them.  Which is fine, you know.  That's why we have WP:IAR.  So get cracking with the sources, and we'll evaluate them for you, since you aren't willing to do it yourself. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Images show how they used a "trick" to "hide the decline."
Interesting but scientifically flawed science backgrounder in a British tabloid newspaper known for its strong political bias

The green line in this graph, which shows a decline in temperature, mysteriously disappears during the duration when it showed a decline. This set of images should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, because an editorial in the Davey Grail is such a reliable source on the nuances of science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really have no comment on the picture, but if the standard is that they need to be "a reliable source on the nuances of science", would any of the reporters quoted fit? I'm not sure that is the standard that we have. jheiv (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To report, sure. To analyse?  Probably not.  Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clearly categorized as a news story, not an opinion piece or editorial. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a very interesting piece and does contain some new information. However it's not pure news. For instance the writer David Rose overplays the prominence of climate scepticism and overemphasizes the significance (and perhaps the meaning--I would have to check the context myself) of legitimate doubts expressed in the emails. This is in keeping with the traditions of British journalism, where news stories are often slanted towards the opinions of the editorial staff and proprietors of the newspaper. Daily Mail, I should add, is a tabloid that has always been notorious for its extremely right wing politics. I'm not ruling out citing this piece, but we would have to find a way of circumnavigating the obvious editorial stance. --TS 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:


 * Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he [McIntyre] says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.


 * There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant...


 * Briffa knew exactly why they [IPCC] wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’...


 * Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.


 * According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.


 * This is the context in which, seven weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.


 * All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.


 * On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.


 * ‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.


 * ‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’


 * ...as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.


 * On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

Flegelpuss (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail is rather notorious for editorialising in its news pages. The British press is far more overtly partisan than that of the US, and the Daily Mail is one of the most partisan (Conservative) newspapers in the country. Daily Mail "investigations" are often overtly editorial in nature, as is this one - note the use of derogatory terms such as "global warmists". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't the Daily Mail the same paper who was making a big fuss about Paul Hudson supposedly getting the hacked e-mails even tho he'd clarified 2 days before their story that he meant he received the e-mails criticising his story and even though his (1 day) earlier message was a bit unclear many commentators had pointed out this was likely what he meant already? Ah from the archives, thought so Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where has it been declared that the Daily Mail is not WP:RS? There are 5,000 references to remove.  -- SEWilco (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we speak English please? The phrase is "reliable source".  The Daily Mail is a reliable source for the opinions of some people, specifically the proprietors of the Daily Mail.  It has never been a reliable source on factual matters, and if we've ever cited it as the sole source for any factual matter we've erred (and that applies to any single newspaper). --TS 22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a mainstream media publication with editorial control and as such is for Wikipedia purposes as reliable a source as other mainstream media publications. To make an exception to this rule  invites ideological cherry-picking.   For example objections are stated above that this is a "conservative" rag.  So what?  That's no more a legitimate objection than an argument that the Washington Post is not a RS because it is a left-wing rag whose writers suck up to the local population of federal bureaucrats.  As SEWilco pointed out there are over 5,000 references to the Daily Mail in Wikipedia articles, most of them regarding factual matters. Flegelpuss (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything wrong with this content provided we adequately explain the Divergence problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 December 2009

Where did we get this idea that a newspaper is a reliable source on the science of climatology? This is entirely false. --TS 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Particularly a tabloid newspaper. What's next, using The National Enquirer as a source for evolutionary science? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We might use it as a source for a specific topic, and you can see there are several subjects mentioned in the paper's article. If Weekly World News covered Bat Boy then they're a source for that.  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are other articles about specific scientific issues. This article reflects the RS coverage of events related to the CRU material, whether computer security, CRU bureaucracy, politics, carpentry, or science.  If one or more RS touch on a topic, we report here was is stated and link to more specific articles.  Should we remove from the Watergate scandal articles all sources which are not from police, burglary, and security journals?  -- SEWilco (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point. We shouldn't get so narrow in scope that we lose the feel of the story as it unfolds.  On the other hand, an encyclopedia trying to cover Watergate or the Cuban Missile Crisis as it happened would probably have said "woa, let's wait for more data."  We really are not a newspaper.  We really do not need to write whatever it is the newspapers are saying now (and they've changed tack a couple of times in the past week).  All we need to do is to present the known facts. The speculation and opinion will, for the most part, sort itself out once the investigation concludes. --TS 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get this idea that this article is about climate science? That notion is entirely false. WP does have articles about the science of climate. This isn’t one of them. Newspapers are reliable sources for this article. SPhilbrick  T  14:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't directly about climate science, but it does contain representations about climate science, and where it does it should not mislead the reader about the state of the science. Nor should it misleadingly present the views of non-scientists (and those scientists who have dissenting views) when they make statements on the science as representing a mainstream critique of the science.  That is the nub of the problem with the Daily Mail piece discussed here.  It misrepresents the science and presents a misleading and somewhat eccentric critique. --TS 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick, I cannot tell if you are actually serious, but if you are, then you really must back up what you are saying. The fundamental disputes involving this article, from opinions to investigations, to research ethics and datasets, all have to do with climate science.  For you to claim that this is false makes me question your understanding of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vir, your claim is so absurd, I seriously wonder if you are debating in good faith, or just trying to throw a spanner into the works. One of the allegations is that some of the climate scientists attempted to evade FOI laws. This allegation is unproven, and hopefully will turn out to be false, but it is one of the disputes. Evading FOI is a legal matter and an ethical matter. One need zero training in climate science to comment responsibly about the ethical issue. It only takes one such example to refute your emphasized “all”, but there are many others. You know this. why are you tendentiously claiming otherwise? SPhilbrick  T  00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up the FOI issue, because we are going to have to address it sooner or later. So, start a new thread and present your version of content we should add and supporting sources.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you can bring to the table. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled. If this isn't about climate science, especially this part, which is about a specific technique, I'm not sure what it is supposed to be about.  What do you see this article as being about?  Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m absolutely serious. Global warming contains statements belonging to climate science, but not this article, except in a very tangential way. This article is about an incident, where some emails and source code appeared, and various people are discussing what it means, why it happened, who is responsible, and a whole host of other issues that are not science. While there are many allegations that the emails will affect the science, most of those claims haven’t yet stood up, so until one does. there’s no science. If something does affect the science, it deserves mention at another article such as global warming. This article will mention it as well, but mainly in terms of the media coverage, not the science itself. I understand why some would desperately like to characterize this as a science article, so pesky reporters who know nothing about science can be ignored. But isn’t largely about science, anymore than metaphysics is physics. metaphysics can talk about physics, but that doesn’t make it physics. In the same way, discussion of the ethics of climate scientists is tangentially related to the science, but isn’t science itself. SPhilbrick  T  23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SPhilbrick, you know very well that many editors are using this incident as a coatrack article to criticize climate science. It's not even up for discussion.  However, you do make a good point that the current article has not addressed all of the other issues, usually because we lack good sources to do so, but let's address each issue on its own in separate threads, and use good sources to argue for their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This Daily Mail background article is where they try to educate their readers in the subtleties of how climate scientists put together disparate datasets with known and unknown calibration problems. We use peer-reviewed science to explain that sort of thing in other articles. We have no need to reproduce the Mail's misunderstandings and obfuscations in any detail just because they have put them into print. Later, when all the investigations are in, we may say that they tried to explain it during Dec 09, by I can't see how their attempt will remain notable at that point. It is just another non-notable attempt at explaining, while at the same time muddying, the waters around what will need to be investigated. --Nigelj (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why anyone would consider a tabloid newspaper to be an authoritative source on a scientific issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Denial is not refutation
The problematic word has been replaced in the article.

The article claims that 'prompt refutations were issued'. This is evidentially incorrect as investigations are continuing. To refute means to disprove. No refutations presentaly exist, only denials do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.79.176 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion germane to your comment above. --TS 11:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a result of that discussion, several changes were made to the article including substitution of the word "rebuttal" for the more ambiguous "refutation". --TS 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

CBSNews "Wikipropoganda On Global Warming"
The piece referred to antedates the hacking incident by well over 12 months. See also: Articles for deletion/Wikiproganda on Global Warming


 * Here is a RS opinion piece "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". --  The Pimp Hand    ' 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — The Pimp Hand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   ''' 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — [[User:The Pimp Hand|The Pimp Hand]] ([[User talk:The Pimp Hand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Pimp Hand|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic.
 * Let's see what you've got there: It's a column written by Lawrence Solomon, a global warming skeptic, for the National Review Online, a Republican/conservative news magazine that takes a strong stand against the consensus on climate change, and it appears to be mirrored on the CBS "Opinion" pages.  The entire article says nothing about this incident and everything about Wikipedia and its editors, and it was written in July 2008, a year before this incident ever occurred.  I fail to see how we could possibly use it in this article, so maybe you could help me understand its relevance. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we always attacking the author of pieces that we don't want to see added? It seems like the first method of disqualification is it needs to be in a reliable source.  If thats met, then we go after the author, make them look like like a fringe loony, because they have a personal agenda in writing the piece.  I have no comment on the article yet but does the author matter to the extent you suggest it does?  Following that logic, it seems, you could disqualify the scientists who similarly have an agenda.  I'm not suggesting for a second that we disqualify the writing of the scientists, but I'm not sure its fair to marginalize some articles from reliable sources just because you think the author is publicly or in your opinion a "contrarian" or "skeptic". If you ask me, if the only argument you can come up with against inclusion of a source are arguments that attack the author, then your position really very weak and should be interpreted as such.  jheiv (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? This article does not meet a single basic requirement for inclusion. It was written one year before the event even occurred!  Jheiv, how can I take you seriously when you write things like this? Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? I wrote, "I have no comment on the article yet". To be honest, I haven't even read the article.  I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the article bur rather questioning your argument for exclusion.  If the article doesn't meet a "single basic requirement" then please list those (which would be much more effective) than attacking the author. jheiv (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I listed all of them above, and if you didn't understand them, then I suggest you read about how to evaluate reliable sources. We've been over this so many times on this page, I am not going to repeat myself.  Please take your concerns to another noticeboard if this isn't making sense.  The article fails evaluation in terms of authoritativeness, accuracy, and currency.  It cannot be included, and there is nothing further to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (adding new subhead so this can be archived without affecting the rest of the discussion)
 * You did not list a single Wikipedia policy. In fact, the first sentence was really nothing but your summary of the author (whom you insist on marginalizing) and the method in which it is displayed (which you also attempt to discount because of their views).  The second sentence actually makes a good point about the timeline of the article and this event, but it is hidden after a sentence of literally zero worth.  So by listing all of them, I guess you only meant the one argument about the timeline.  My admonition in the previous post was simply to avoid attacking the author and stick to the reasons why the article should be disqualified -- in this case a statement about the timeline seems like a perfectly reasonable reason for disqualification. jheiv (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jheiv, do you understand what I wrote at 03:32? That is precisely what needs to be written about every source we ever use on Wikipedia.  Is this making sense?  It's called source evaluation, and is an essential step in determining whether a particular source can be used on Wikipedia.  It is not an "attack" in any way, shape or form, and your continued insistence on this point tells me that you do not understand how sources are used. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a one-one-one at this point, I'll leave a message at your talk page.jheiv (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Jheiv. There is nothing to talk with you about on my talk page.  Source evaluation forms the basis for how we choose to use sources.   Here is how it is done:
 * Noob: Hi! I think we should use this source .  Bye!
 * Boob: Hi. Let's take a look: Authoritativeness: Column written by Lawrence Solomon, a global warming skeptic. Accuracy: It's published in the National Review Online, a Republican/conservative news magazine that takes a strong stand against the consensus on climate change, and it appears to be mirrored on the CBS "Opinion" pages. Currency: It was written in July 2008, a year before this incident ever occurred.
 * Boob: Sorry, but we can't use this source as it doesn't meet our basic criteria for inclusion. This article is about an incident that occurred in late 2009.  The reference you provided is a biased editorial that attacks editors on Wikipedia, and it was written a year before the topic of this article even occurred.  Please review our policy on WP:NOR and WP:RS.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoggan and Littlemore cover Solomon in Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (2009). It's eye-opening reading. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[Adding this bit because of an e/c and because I think it's crucial point that needs to be made, over and over again, if we want to ever manage any kind of successful editing here]
 * "You did not list a single Wikipedia policy". I know this is a good way to get scolded for being a bad boy, but I think there's an important point to make about guidelines and policies here.  It's not about citing policies and guidelines to justify your every point.  Successful collaborative editing depends on people being familiar with policies and guidelines, or if they aren't either taking the word of other editors, or taking it upon themselves to education themselves about the issue.  To begin with, the Solomon article is from 2008.  That's obvious from the URL.  If you're doing AGF right, you start from the assumption that Viriditas is acting in good faith, and he isn't making things up.  It's hard to assume good faith and still rip into someone before you even read the URL of the link provided.
 * Of course, the normal way to deal with this would be to mention that the Solomon article was extensively discussed last year, I believe on RS/N, and based on those discussions, there's good reason to handle that article very carefully. Normally, that would be good enough - either people would take you at your word, or they'd realise it's their responsibility to track down the discussions.  Of course, in a case like that I'd be expected to do everything I could to help find the article.  Instead, we have this poisonous atmosphere here.  Seriously, WP:AGF isn't just some suggestion that you can take or leave.  It's how you're expected to behave.  Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good source
Duplicate discussion topic.


 * Borenstein, Seth, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter (Associated Press), "AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty"- appears to be a very balanced, informative article on this topic. If this source hasn't been used yet, I suggest that using it be considered. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Take a look at AP review of stolen data and join in. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom article
I had added Climate change in the United Kingdom to the See also section of this article but it has since been removed. I would like to have it put back, but in the meantime how about all the talking here is turned into expanding the stub page into a something better. Two hundred edits have already been made on this page today!!-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alan, thanks for this comment. I'm going to try and incorporate this material into a background section, including a link. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Death threats in lead
Duplicate discussion topic.

Sorry to bring this up again, but it looks to me like this is symptomatic of major problems here. After a long discussion, we agreed to remove death threats from the lead, but not from the article itself. Good decision, reflecting different opinions reaching a reasonable compromise. I see the issue was raised again, with a little more heat than light this time, but no consensus to restore the mention of death threats to the lead. yet there they are. I hope I missed something, and someone can point me to the consensus to this reversion – if so I’ll be happy to remove this section. SPhilbrick T  16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, at no time have we developed consensus to remove death threats from the lead. There is still an open RFC on the question and that reference remains in the current version of the lead.. --TS 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we did Tony. It was in the lead, and then it was removed. I was hoping not to have to track it down, because I didn’t imagine there’s be any dispute over straightforward facts. I’ll look for it. SPhilbrick  T  16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still in the lead. The relevant sentence is:
 *  Norfolk police are investigating the incident and, along with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are also investigating death threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails.
 * --TS 16:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any consensus to remove it. Can you give us a link to that conclusion. --Nigelj (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nigelj, I don't recall any such resolution. Links?  Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the assertion (quoted above) isn't supported by the cite given -- cite gives one DT, of rather dubious credibility. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the RFC. I thought it was an attempt to return the wording to the lead, but I see that that has already happened. Any honest reading of the RFC would conclude it is not supported, so I request that it be removed until such time as the consensus may change. (For example, I would support it if an actual arrest lead to a conviction.)  SPhilbrick  T  19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC says nothing about the current status of the lede and I assume any honest editor commenting on the RfC actually takes the time to read the article before doing so.
 * ?? The very first sentence is “Yes, I think this belongs in the lead.” The second comment starts” No, it is tangential at best. Inclusion in the lead only…”. I don’t understand why you claim otherwise. Are we talking about the same thing? SPhilbrick  T  21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of verbiage on this page, it's entirely possible that you aren't. Presumably this is the section you're talking about?  Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, aren’t they the same? Other than the fact you linked to the section heading above the notice, and I linked to the discussion content about 3cm below the notice. At one time, I thought an RfC took place elsewhere, but now I think I understand that you post a notice in a centralized place, but the discussion takes place on the talk page, i.e. here. Is that correct? SPhilbrick  T  22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry - somehow my brain didn't register that was a hyperlink. Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The way you are framing this is wrong. What is in the lead is the law enforcement response to the controversy. That response has two elements: an investigation into the hack and an investigation into the death threats. The involvement of law enforcement agencies is always significant and is all the more so in this case since it's (so far) the only formal state involvement in the controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, framing is important. And your attempted framing is pure spin. The incident was alleged hacking (not yet proven). The legal response is a law enforcement investigation of the allegations, both notable and deserving of mention in the lead. The allegations of death threats aren’t the incident, they are alleged responses to the incident. The proper law enforcement investigation of these idiots is a responsible investigation into an allegation of an alleged response to an incident. Without a single RS confirming that there is any meat to the allegations. Using your logic, we should have a mention of law enforcement investigations of death threats in every BLP where there have been death threats. You make the changes to the tens of thousands that are more credible than this case, and we can talk. Start with Obama, then Bush, then Carrottop, all of whom have had more credible allegations of death threats (OK, I’m making up the Carrotop incident, but surely I’m right.)  SPhilbrick  T  22:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe death-threats are so common in the US that they're not worth reporting, but this happened in the UK, to scientists, where such a thing is definitely notable in its unusualness. --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've already been over the "alleged" point ad nauseam, so I'm not going to address that canard again. There have been plenty of RS reporting the investigation (not just the "allegations"). You're welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. Get back to us when (if?) you've returned to reality, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is about how important it is. We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, that’s non-responsive. The used of “alleged” isn’t central to my point, I’m using it because I’m sticking with facts. The central point is that the death threats are not a major issue, and you haven’t provided a factual basis for claiming that they are. And you’ve totally ignore my point – if death threats are prima facie evidence of a point so serious that it belongs in the lead, why isn’t it in the lead for Obama or Bush or Carrottop? And don’t even try to push otherstuffexists. It isn’t in those articles because the factual existence of death threats isn’t notable. It is even less notable here. You haven’t provided a scintilla of evidence explaining why it deserves mention here, despite not reaching notability in thousands of other articles. Sorry, this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and we ought to start taking NPOV seriously. SPhilbrick  T  00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Something I am still a little puzzled about: "The involvement of law enforcement agencies is always significant..." I keep seeing variations on this phrase and I have to ask: Why? I mean, the phrase has bite, to be sure, but it's not at all obvious to me that the involvement of LEAs is always relevant. What if, for example, a prominent AGW scientist was being investigated for tax fraud? Would you mention this is the GW article? To me, it would seem that an investigation into someone directly involved in the issue at hand would be more relevant than an investigation into someone who mailed a threatening letter to someone directly involved in the issue at hand. What is everyone's view on this?  Drolz 09  01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's based on the assumption that our own personal opinions should override reliable sources. As I mention below, it's Not even wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's based on nothing of the sort. The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant.  A separate investigation into the personal life of a scientist involved in this incident is irrelevant.  Very simple to understand, so I'm astonished at your inability to grasp this basic requirement for avoiding coatracks and sticking to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(indentation reduced at this point)

No, we would not. See Coatrack and WP:NPOV. Official investigations, police reports, review boards, ethic inquires into the actions of scientists directly related to the event, are all relevant. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, which is my point. The police investigations here aren't into the scientists. They are into some anonymous nuts who mailed letters (or emailed? do we even have this information?) to scientists. Seems highly irrelevant to the article to me.  Drolz 09  02:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop with the distortions. I explicitly stated that the police investigations are directly relevant to the scientists due to the event, in other words, the theft and release of data, harassment, etc. Ancillary issues, like the personal life of the scientists, are not relevant.  This is very clear. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is Not even wrong. It's  based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect.  Namely, that our own personal opinions matter.  Please stop arguing the Truth.  Tell us something we can verify.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFK, you are not even making sense now. Please try to at least address the topic under discussion. I'm starting to worry about you. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal attack. How about we just stick to WP:NPOV, shall we? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Worrying about the welfare of another editor is not a personal attack. Your comment did not address a single thing I wrote. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Do you really believe that?  In any case, nobody can respond to an argument that based on faulty assumptions other than to point out the faulty assumptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do believe it, and I've been following your comments in other places. Your comment still does not address what I wrote at all.  You seem to be trying to distract the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, OK. Nobody can address an argument that doesn't make sense.  Perhaps you would be willing to present an argument that does make sense?  Also, why do you believe that focusing on the issues is a distraction from the discussion?  The issue here is WP:NPOV.  Are you familiar with it?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've explained your confusion in simple terms above: The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant. A separate investigation into the personal life of a scientist involved in this incident is irrelevant.  Got it? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the discussion is about Sphilbrick's point about the death threats in the lede. Did you read the opening post?  Or any of the subsequent posts?  Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the thread before weighing in on it?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now you are just disruptive. The "discussion" you were directly responding to was in response to points made by Drolz09.  I think I understand the problem now.  You didn't even read the discussion, you just responded to it out of ignorance.  No problem, but just don't do it again.  It appears that the concept of "threading" may be giving you some problems.  Viriditas (talk) 0

"The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant". Yes, you're made your personal opinion abundantly clear. But our own personal opinions don't matter when determining weight. If you disagree with WP:V, that's fine, but this is not the venue to do so. Instead, you should bring this up with the editors of WP:V. If there are any relevent changes to WP:V, please let us know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)4:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Now you are reduced to making out of context quotes and addressing straw men. How childish.  The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant, in comparison to Drolz's hypothetical assertion that the personal life of the scientists was also relevant in some way, but it isn't.  Your continued misquoting of this discussion is very troubling.  This opinion was based directly on our avoidance of coatracking, which goes against the NPOV policy.  I shouldn't have to explain this to someone as smarte as you. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack Please explain why this active discussion was closed down so quickly? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of "Death threats in lead"
Why was this section closed down prematurely? Was it because of Viriditas's repeated personal attacks? If so, isn't the proper course of action to report the personal attacks rather than close down legitimate discussion to improve the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a duplicate of the RFC, which now has an entire page of its own. In order to keep this talk page reasonably well organized it makes sense to keep all discussions on any identical topic in the same place.


 * It is also my perception (apparently shared by others, according to comments on my talk page) that this particular branch of the discussion had dissolved into unproductive bickering. --TS 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, fine, So then why shouldn't we address the personal attacks and not the legitimate efforts to improve the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if there's discussion relevant here, it should be discussed here and not on your personal talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This page isn't for discussing interpersonal issues such as personal attacks and other aspects of user conduct. Please follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional.  In the course of talk page maintainance, threads that drift into unproductive exchanges may be closed. --TS 13:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's my question, isn't it? Why is your talk page being used for  discussing interpersonal issues such as personal attacks and other aspects of user conduct?  If people keep making personal attacks on their fellow editors, you should bring it up at the appropriate forum, not your personal talk page.  Have you reported Viriditas yet beyond your own personal talk page?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

FSB
Speculative piece from a single source

More information has come to light regarding the accusation that the FSB were behind it. In the Daily Mail today we learn: -

“Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link. They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible. A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation. ‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0ZaDsUbTH

It appears that the Russians know who did it and presume the UK authorities do as well and so this could be a possible blackmail attempt to keep the UK authorities on their toes and may well result in some interesting developments. It is for this reason that I would appreciate it for someone with ‘permission’ to edit the article could include the factual elements that are mentioned in this article regarding the FSB’s denial. Cheers80.47.207.46 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This could well be just line-dangling by a tabloid newspaper out for circulation. Extremely vague.  Wait until it's picked up and expanded by a more authoritative source. --TS 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony. Intriguing, but needs more meat before it can be included. SPhilbrick  T  14:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Something sober
Duplicate discussion topic.

Associated Press spent some effort by assigning several of their reporters to sift through all the material and consult external expert, where required. Their analysis can be found here: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty. I#d suggest to add that under the media section once the protection is lifted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been discussing this in the section above. --TS 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"This article is not..." Part two. :)
See also the earlier discussion J.M. Archer refers to, at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive_9, and the formal move proposal at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

The thread starter agrees that the natural process of editing has moved the article towards his ideal during the intermediate period between his first thread and this one.

Since I lacked the free time to return to the last discussion on this, I would like to clarify the points I attempted to make the first time. One of the earlier comments seemed to get the gist of what I was saying, but not quite. I've included his or her comment below:


 * I would like to see a broader article here -- and that is being prevented two ways:
 * Saying that anything that falls outside the scope of the article title is inappropriate (as Archer pointed out at the top of this section)
 * Resisting changing the article title to something that will allow a broader article.

In fact, I don't have a problem with either of these enumerated facts. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this article is squatting on the most appropriate title for an article specifically covering the controversy that so many people claim is being excluded from the article on the email hacking incident. I'm willing to accept that the "cartel" is justified in focusing this article specifically on the alleged criminal activity, but not with them appropriating the best namespace for an other article to do so.

Is there some reasonable justification for appropriating the "Climategate" page--that being the most commonly accepted name for the controversy stemming from this alleged crime--for no reason other than to have a more search-friendly redirect (I'm assuming there is no more nefarious motive) for the (apparently) completely unrelated email hacking incident chronicled here?

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I could swear you never left. This is the same POVFORK argument we've grown so accustomed to, with the shiny new thread and new subject to boot.  Why don't you just get it over with so we can move on to the AfD? Viriditas (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you see what this is leading up to. Man the AfD, full speed ahead.  My bet is on the 17th. Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember. It's not a 'hacking incident', but a glorious liberation of true knowledge that puts the whole oily world back as Conservapedia liked it. --Nigelj (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the 17th the day Obama arrives in Copenhagen? --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste our time trolling active discussions with meaningless !comments. These should be deleted. jheiv (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other people hold views similar to mine has nothing to do with whether or not I spent the whole weekend putting a new floor in my parents' house.

I fail to see how moving the article to another similar title would alleviate the issue I raised above--although edits while I was not looking have helped to some extent. I think the article still attempts to draw a few more conclusions than are actually warranted for an encyclopedia, but it's much improved over the past few days. I still question the goal of squatting the other title, however: if an article on oranges is not intended to discuss apples, why redirect "apples" to "oranges"?

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Get it over with. Viriditas (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, what's AfD? J.M. Archer (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A: Articles for Deletion jheiv (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What would be the idea behind nominating something for Articles for Deletion? ... and what would be nominated? J.M. Archer (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas is saying that your proposal is a proposal for a content fork. I think so too and would oppose it. Please see [WP:FORK]]. The best news sources are still consistently dealing with the email theft/hacking and the controversy about the content of the emails tgether. He is suggesting that if you were successful in splitting this article in two then you or someone would put the article on the hacking incident up for deletion. This need not detain us unless after reading the talk pages archives and familiarising yourself with policy you seriously want to suggest that this page is split. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They're suggesting (if I may) that you should go ahead and create the article at Climategate, at which point it would be nominated at WP:AFD. After a page has gone through and been deleted through the AFD vote, either the page needs to either change substantially or the context under which it was deleted needs to change, otherwise it can be deleted speedily. jheiv (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohhhh. I will note that the two responses I've received here are actually not in agreement with one another, and that therefore the original meaning of the comments above is still somewhat unclear to me... However, the answers I've received were quite helpful.


 * In point of fact, I don't think forking the article would be a particularly good idea. Neither do I think creating a new article at "Climategate" would prove productive (as you've pointed out, it would simply be deleted). However, I do feel that--though correlation and causation aren't one and the same--pointing out this hypocritical catch-22 has been helpful so far. :)


 * Simply on the grounds of usability, I agree that a fork would be a crappy idea; a person doesn't come to Wikipedia to follow a trail of crumbs across the intarwebz (even if they wind up doing it anyway). The information should be here, where the other information can already be found. What bugged me last week was simply that I scanned the talk page and found so many instances of "We can't include that because the article isn't about that." I don't think it's quite so bad anymore.


 * J.M. Archer (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadening Article
I would like to see a broader article here -- and that is being prevented two ways:
 * 1) Saying that anything that falls outside the scope of the article title is inappropriate (as Archer pointed out at the top of this section)
 * 2) Resisting changing the article title to something that will allow a broader article.

Now, to be honest, I could care less about what the title of the article is, but I would like to see the article broadened. Specifically, the controversy that has ensued -- whether it is a factually supported controversy or a controversy masterminded by Glenn Beck and right wing lemmings, I simply do not care -- it has been evident through this talk page that if this page is not the place to discuss the controversy then perhaps it should have its own, leaving this page to discuss simply the hacking (and lets be honest, every RS I've read has reported it as hacking, not a release or a leak) incident.

The problem with broadening the article, it seems, is that editors have used one of the two tricks (not tricks like the everyday, commonplace, use of the word, but tricks as defined by Mann :-) ) to restrict that content. Now I am assuming good faith and that the edits, which technically fell outside the scope of the title and the article were indeed just that, outside the scope of the title and the article and thus removing the content seems logical.

My question is this, would these editors have a problem with a page separate from "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" (this page) called something like one of the following where these discussions that fall outside the scope of the hacking incident can take place? (Please don't nitpick about my decision to use "Controversy", the spirit of my question should be clear.)
 * Climate Research Unit Controversy
 * Climate Research Unit Email Controversy
 * Climate Research Unit Research Method Controversy

Thoughts? jheiv (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought: Quit trying to hit the dead horse. If the controversy is discussed in high-quality reliable sources then it may be included - otherwise it is question of waiting (and we have no deadline) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kim, that makes a lot of sense. jheiv (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this and consensus was that it would be a WP:POVFORK. The short answer is no. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats fine Chris, as long as we're "allowed" to expand the article here without being restricted by the title. Thanks. jheiv (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's nothing to stop us proceeding along those lines. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Working from Tony's outline,

An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:
 * 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.

I would see the article developing something like this: Summary of the major points of the article Why the CRU is significant here, mention of/links to the hockey stick issue, and the FOIA issue (if we can find reliable sources for all of that); context with Copenhagen. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident Theft of the docs; posting to RC and all that. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident Accusations and death threats. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
 * Lead
 * Background
 * Timeline
 * Reaction to the release
 * Analysis of the emails
 * What they were alleged to mean, what they "really" mean. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident.
 * Reaction of the scientific community.
 * Investigation into CRU.
 * Investigation of the hacking and the death threats.

Guettarda (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And, of course, what you mean by "what they 'really' mean" is "what the scientists say they mean", right? I'm afraid we'll never be able to tell what a few of them mean as one side will say they're incriminating and the other will say they are not -- obviously both have reason to diverge from the truth. jheiv (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I used "really" as shorthand for "what their authors/authors supporters say they really mean". Hence the scare quotes.  Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's impressive, I think we can work with that. Read 'what they "really" mean' as "what scientists say they mean". A lot of people have had a go at interpreting the statements of the CRU scientists in email, so it's as well that we clearly distinguish between interpretations by those who have relevant expertise from those who do not. --TS 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice start, Guettarda. I like it, especially the addition of a timeline, which may prove to be very useful. A couple minor comments:
 * You indented “Analysis of the emails” – if this implies it is a subsection under “reaction to the release”, I disagree, as it is a different subject; I support it as a section parallel to the others.
 * “Investigation into CRU” is a relevant section. However, there is an announced investigation by Penn State into Mann’s work, which is not really an investigation of CRU. I don’t think the PSU investigation deserves it’s own section, perhaps the title “Investigation into CRU” could be broadened slightly. SPhilbrick  T  14:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of these are good points. The latter is obvious, and you're probably right on the former - I went back and forth on whether it was a subtopic or a topic on its own.  Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Trenberth link to article?
I've heard that Trenberth's email linked to the article he had written on the same subject. Can anyone verify that? Evercat (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Move references down to the reference section – Jones email of 2 Feb 2005
editprotect In the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident section replace

with

and the following added under the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident section


 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Faq #1
Accusations of bad faith that have turned up repeatedly on this discussion page are bad for the atmosphere of discussion, and are explicitly banned from all Wikipedia discourse. Please avoid this discussion-killing tactic.

Faq #1 reads "Why is this article not called "Climategate" or have the word "scandal" in its title?" If someone were to come to this page and ask the question, is there any other answer they would get? Now, I should note that the FAQ does not preclude someone from, yet again, proposing that we rename the article. I will go ahead and modify the FAQ to make that clear. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will suggest a nice long block for the next person who reverts the FAQ without discussing - or even reading what they are reverting. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple truth is this is not an article about climategate, it is about the theft of some emails that led to the scandal called climategate. These are two separate events and there is no article on climategate - wikipedia is pushing POV trying to tell people there was no scandal - its all in your imagination - just as there was no decline! It's a bit like having an article: "the theft of some tapes from white house" - that isn't a notable story nor is the alleged theft of emails, that kind of thing happens many places almost everyday and the alleged (even unfounded) allegations are totally unnotable. The only notable thing is the worldwide scandal Watergate => alleged theft of tapes, climategate => alleged theft of emails. Rediculous obvious POV! So I vote, delete this stupid non-article, and let's start one on climategate. Isonomia (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the nature of the Watergate scandal appears to be wanting. This article currently reports on the police investigations and the independent investigation announced by the University of East Anglia, and reports on a range of opinions by prominent politicians and scientists.  If and when something else happens it will change, but trying to push an account of a Watergate-style scandal (even the idiosyncratic and fact-challenged version of Watergate that you seem to favor) prematurely into this article isn't permitted because we don't have any facts to support the notion. --TS 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was a bit confused by Hip's comment until I remembered that the FAQ is a separate page. Seriously?  Edit-warring on the FAQ?  Shit...this has really gotten out of hand.  Guettarda (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just reread wp:block to see if I had missed something. I didn’t see any support for the position that someone can be blocked for editing the FAQ without discussion. I’m not supporting that action, we’d all be better off if there were more discussion before edits in this place, but if you can point me to the basis for your threat, I’d appreciate it. SPhilbrick  T  17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss the merits would be the request for a block, should Hipocrite ever file one.  Editors can be and sometimes are blocked for egregious behavior such as edit warring. --TS 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like anything else, there's a lot of "admin discretion" is using blocks. That's half the reason RFA is such an involved process.  People can be blocked for edit-warring, and in the past there were quite a few blocks for "exhausting the community's patience" (though that language seems to have fallen out of favour).  Of course, the more judgement a block requires, the more you'd want solicit the advice of others first.  But if things got worse, I could see someone making a case for a block like this.  Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is why it's important to treat policies and guidelines as what they are - incomplete, usually lagging indicators of "best practice". Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:EW says "Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." I suggest reverting the FAQ without discussing is edit warring, particularly WP:POINTful, and spectacularly worthless, and suggest that anyone - anyone involved in just bulk edit warring over the FAQ as opposed to either seeking consensus wording through edits or discussion is due for a break. If the answers in the FAQ aren't correct, then correct them, sure. Does anyone disagree that the frequent answer to the "Climategate?" question isn't "words to avoid?" No, we all know that's the frequent answer. Removing the question (it's frequent) or the answer (it's WTA) is just counterproductive. A statement about prior attempts to move the article? That's fine. A statement about future attempts? Fine also. A statement that future attempts are almost certainly doomed to failure unless a broader consensus is first reached - fine. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While edit warring over a talk page faq is somehow both silly and reprehensible, I think there is a lot of behavior that we just have to deal with and work through because if we blocked people for every trespass we'd have no one left to edit the article, apparently. Ignignot (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think any kind of edit warring is an absolute no-no. Only the reversion of irrefutable vandalism is acceptable, and every other instance of edit warring should result in a block of some kind. Even blatant violations of WP:BLP should not result in edit warring, when all that is needed is for someone to contact an administrator. In this instance, changes to the FAQ should be discussed before an edit is made, and a consensus for any changes sought right here. It's the only reasonable way to approach things when you have such a contentious subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I say the reason x-gate is to be avoided is that it generally looks like yet another lame parasitic reference to Watergate. Usually, I agree. But given that Watergate gets 4 million hits, and ClimateGate gets 20 million hits, there’s a distinct possibility that future generations will view ClimateGate as the source and think WaterGate was the derivative. I’ll emphasize that I am not arguing to rename this it Climategate (although the present name is ludicrous), I’m simply arguing that people who are arguing for ClimateGate have a far better argument that many accept, and the thread of blocking someone over a single edit sounds reactionary and shrill. It is no wonder many people outside WP view this article as a joke. I’d like to make it so it isn’t a joke, but it’s my believe that there are many here trying to push a POV, and don’t mind running roughshod over established policies because they think they can get away with it.  SPhilbrick  T  22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out that Wikipedia does not have an article called "Watergate". Anyone typing that in gets redirected to Watergate scandal. Why? Because there was a scandal that eventually involved a US President resigning from office. That's orders of magnitude more "scandalous" than a few poorly-chosen words in a handful of emails. The notion that this article should be called "Climategate" is utterly ludicrous, and completely against the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. People wishing to label this "Climategate" are doing so because they wish to artificially inflate the incident to the level of a scandal, which it isn't. This isn't even worth the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am appalled by the veiled personal attacks in that post from User:Sphilbrick, and its revelation of such complete disdain for Wikipedia, its methodology, policies and current content. People outside WP don't regard this 'as a joke', and the present content and title are far from 'ludicrous', thank you. Please withdraw those unfounded claims. Watergate was the name of a building where a burglary took place, and then the investigations that followed the burglary brought down a corrupt government. CRU is a place where a burglary took place, and the Copenhagen summit went on, hopefully, to be a great success. There's your difference - there is no vile mastermind of the calibre of Richard Nixon whose wickedness waits to be uncovered here. I think you'll find the reason why Watergate gets so few hits on Google is because it happened well before the invention of the World Wide Web, let alone of Google. --Nigelj (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you don't get to take a cheap shot, then declare I cannot respond. I made no personal attacks, veiled or otherwise. If you want citations explaining why outsiders consider this article a joke, ask on my talk page and I'll respond on yours. In the meantime, if you refactor your unfounded and false charge against me, I'll happily remove this post. SPhilbrick  T  02:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove redundancy in "Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009" section
A clear consensus has not emerged for this edit.

This is pretty minor, but in the "Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009" section, we mention that Trenberth wrote the e-mail twice in the same sentence:

"An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," Trenberth wrote.

I looked at all the other quotes in the article, and none of them have this trailing attribution. I propose we remove the trailing "Trenberth wrote". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose this removal, although I understand why it has been suggested. The current form is desirable, actually providing a better model for the other quotations. The effect can be softened by changing the following sentence to "However, the climatologist told the..." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed innocuous so I did it, but I hadn't seen your opposition, so I've reverted it back to the way it was. Evercat (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the WP:MOS give us any guidance? I skimmed through it quickly and didn't see anything.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One possibility is to remove the first “written” so it says “an email by Kevin…Trenbeth wrote.” SPhilbrick  T  00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I prefer to follow established precedents. If WP:MOS doesn't give us any guidance, perhaps we can find some WP:FA articles that have similar sections on quotes and see what they do.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We really don't need to sweat this. It's okay, but not ideal as it is.  It would be nice to edit it for flow, but that will be easier to do by normal editing than to arrive at a decision by committee while the article is still protected. --TS 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition to FAQ
Please avoid launching broad-brush attacks on other editors.

AQFK added the following to Question 1 in the FAQ:
 * However, since then a request was placed on the Neutral point of view noticeboard and an uninvolved editor has said that article title is not appropriate: "The article title "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is inappropriate for the information that nearly any person is likely to be seeking. Currently, this page is the top ranked page for 'Climategate' on a Google search. If it is possible, someone should look at the referral logs from search engines and determine if 'Climategate' is used significantly more often than other search terms arriving at this page. Certainly, if you have logs showing that people arrive here on the heels of a search for 'Climategate' ten times more often than any other, then you should at least create a 'Climategate' page describing Climategate as such rather than the particular partisan beast that you have in place.".

I'm curious about this addition. For one, there was no prior discussion. More importantly, it's misleading: the quote added was not from the NPOV noticeboard, but rather from this page. It's also the opinion of an anon. The IP address has no other edits, and I see no reason why so much weight should be given to any single person, let alone someone who understands either the underlying issues (for example, the IP says "A Google search for +"Climategate" yields 3,050,00 pages", when in fact, if you click through you get about 650 actual hits), nor does the person appear to know anything about our page naming policies.

I strongly feel that this does not belong in the FAQ. Given the recent discussion, I think that AQFK's actions here are extremely inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're free to revert, however, according to Hipocrite, the next person who reverts the FAQ should have "a nice long block". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you're unwilling to make a case for the changes you made? (As for Hip's block, I'd say that honour belongs to Heyitspeter; Gamaliel reverted, quite properly per WP:BRD.  Heyitspeter, on the other hand, appears to simply be edit-warring.  Guettarda (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Won't even defend against these insinuations. Just check the FAQ edit history yourself.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that these qualifiers or something very like them should be included in the FAQ. Barring that, those entries should be removed. They currently give the impression that there is a consensus or an "obvious answer" and that's simply not the case.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is consensus. These issues have been discussed.  If you're going to edit-war in favour of a totally unbalanced FAQ, at the very least you need to make a case for the changes.  An actual case, not one that ignores the past discussion here.  Guettarda (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you've gotten the impression that there was a consensus. Consider me breaking it. I gave an explanation of my edits and a redirect to this discussion while respecting the 3-revert rule. As to the "case," you're commenting on it right now.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've modified it to remove the false statements. I've also left an extensive rationale for my changes on the talk page of the editor who originally made them. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the rest. We don't list random opinions by random strangers. It's "hacking" and "stolen" in several reliable sources - that's good enough. It's quite possible that the data was collected internally for some purpose (e.g. one of the zillion of FOIA-requests), but that's a different question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, actually, since a lot of the material (such as purely personal correspondence) would never have been releasable under FOI. A point that many of the commentators on this issue have missed is that the UK FOI regime is very much more restrictive than, say, that in the US. You can't simply request something like "all correspondence sent by A between dates X and Y." Requests and returns have to be quite narrowly focused. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is very simple. Wikipedia's policy on article naming is clear, and names like "Climategate" are explicitly disallowed. We don't use -gate for other controversies, other than a few long-ago historical ones like Watergate. That is not arguable. It's what NPOV, a non-negotiable policy, requires; the first three sentences of the FAQ are direct verbatim copy-and-paste quotes from the relevant policies and guidance. This is not a partisan issue: we didn't allow partisan Democrats to use "Attorneygate" and we didn't allow partisan Republicans to use "Rathergate". There is zero chance that the article will ever be moved to "Climategate" and it's about time that some people accepted that and moved on. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then can we stick with those three sentences and delete the rest of the "answer"?--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel the rest of the answer is not needed: "Climategate is a redirect to this article, so users typing that in the search box will be directed here. You are not prohibited from proposing a rename, but renaming an article requires consensus. Proposals to rename the article to "Climategate" have consistently been rejected in the course of multiple discussions. However, concerns may be raised on the NPOV noticeboard, where discussion is ongoing." Which of these sentences are personal opinions or inaccurate? They all seem to be statements of undisputable fact. Isn't it more useful to include them rather than have to repeat them every time someone raises them? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV notice fromt FAQ question 1 because we already have a notice about this (two, in fact) at the top of this talk page. How many times do we have to mention the NPOV noticeboard in connection with an article? --TS 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, what case is there that needs to be made? The issue was brought up at WP:NPOVN and the WP:CABAL lost.  In any case, Hypocrite said that the next editor who edit-wars should be be banned.  Has Hypocrite reported this editor yet?  Have they been banned yet? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see only one editor who actually reverted the FAQ wholesale without discussion. I have given them a final warning. I suggest that if you can see no way to include the dispute in the FAQ neutrally, you should probably take a break. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * AQFK, enough of the sniping and personal attacks on other editors. Guettarda (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, which editor do you think I attacked? I didn't check the page history yet, so I don't even know who reverted my additions to the FAQ.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the word "skeptic"
Discussion stalled two days ago and there is nothing to suggest that a productive proposal will arise.

The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians. They are a small, but vocal minority, and the media provides them with a lot of airtime. There are a number of very close similarities between the relationship the contarians have with the media and the vocal anti-vaccination movement. I suggest that the word "skeptics" should not be associated with these contrarians, as it implies that their skepticism is based on actual science. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hate to generalize... and I'm also not convinced that their skepticism is not based on science. You may have strong feelings, but can anyone really state this as a fact.  More importantly, however, this really seems like a pointless section on a page that otherwise has some interesting debates on it -- I suggest eliminating it (feel free to take my response with it). jheiv (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest discussing it, not ignoring it. What is a climate skeptic?  Please define it for me.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A climate skeptic, in the context of this discussion (the one about AGW, etc) is someone who does not believe that AGW or GW in general is founded in reality. Macai (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, that's the funny thing. I've tried to find information that supports that idea, but I can't.  Some of these so-called "skeptics" believe in global warming, but don't believe in anthropogenic GW, and quite a few simply take the position that GW is a good thing and promote the benefits of a warmer world.  Some go so far as to argue that the planet is cooling.  But I really don't see any actual "skepticism", which is a trait of most good scientists, not deniers or contrarians.  So, I don't think your definition holds or is true.  In fact, I wager there is no such thing as a climate skeptic. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is 'deniers' is obviously POV, not to mention a bit sly given the evocation of Holocaust denial. Many sceptics are just deniers but proving this reliably by reference to secondary sources is problematic. Certainly labelling all sceptics as deniers is counter productive. Look beyond the narrow debate between scientists and single-issue commentators and you'll find many of the sceptics are simply poorly informed, stupid or just unreasonable. Blanket criticism then just serves to drive these people into the deniers' arms.Dduff442 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the closure of this thread, as I specifically proposed using deniers or contrarians. The word "denier" has been reasonably disputed, so therefore, I await to hear from somebody about the word "contrarian".  What is wrong with this word? Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I closed it citing Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/Archive_8. I'm sorry if that was inappropriate. --TS 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. And, if you can answer the question, you can once again close it.  Looking through the literature, I see that the term "contrarian" is used to describe climate skeptics. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Skeptic" might not be the best word to use, but nevertheless, it is the term that reliable sources are using. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer Viriditas' question, I have used the word "contrarian" colloquially on talk pages, but I'm not satisfied that it's an appropriate word to use where the phrase "climate change sceptic" is more descriptive and neutral. I'm opposed to using it because it's the kind of word we would classify among words to avoid, even if for whatever reason this particular word is not currently listed there. --TS 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if some of the so-called "sceptics" aren't even calling themselves that? There was an article in the NYT just recently, where they were calling themselves "climate realists": "They call us skeptics - we prefer climate realists". Viriditas (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "climate realist" monicker hasn't taken hold. This could change over time but so far it hasn't. --TS 16:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a footnote could explain or mention the different terms? Something to think about.  Viriditas (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A much more neutral, and in my opinion, emotionally appealing wording, could be "climate change opponents" or "AGW opponents" or whatever, depending on what exactly you're talking about. It happens to be exactly what this group of people is; they're opponents of climate change. It doesn't whitewash the nature of the subject and it's not like we're insulting them, either. Macai (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - collapse this section as irrelevant. This section is a monumental waste of time. Viriditas with a nonsensical claim, "The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians". Nonsensical, because the targets aren't even identified. Impossible to prove or refute, and irrelevant to improving the article. I suggest this section be collapsed so others aren't forced to waste their time reading it. Any objection?-- SPhilbrick  T  18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * May I recommend Bud Ward's Communicating on Climate Change, specifically the section "A Word About Words" (p. vii–viii) Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Maxwell Boykoff's "We Speak for the Trees": Media Reporting on the Environment, especially the section staring with the last paragraph at the bottom of page 442. Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first link is a book that, by my read, is advocating for a change in the way environmental policy is covered and discussed. Unless we can show that these recommendations have been adopted in current practice, this is not useful for establishing what the current "best-practices" are among reliable sources. In addition, the section you highlighted ("A Word about Words") is a description of why certain terms are being used "[f]or the purposes of this report." It is not a statement as to currently-accepted proper style or usage.
 * The second paper, in one section, uses the terms "Alarmist" and "Denier" as labels the two opposing extreme positions on a graph. We can't draw any conclusions from what the properly accepted style and usage is from this. Earlier in that paper, the same author says that "Research by McCright & Dunlap (88, 94) has focused on the opposition movement dubbed contrarians, denialists, inactivists, or sceptics." So, if anything, all this paper you cited does is leave us with an array of possible terms, without the author claiming that any of them is definitive or more proper than the rest. MarkNau (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we call conspiracy theorists "truth sayers" or "truthers"? I hope not, nor should we use the word sceptic here. Denier and contrarian has indeed been used in the literature. However, in the interest of neutrality I think the suggestion by Macai is a good one: "AGW opponents" or "opponents of AGW" etc. —Apis (talk ) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Um... it doesn't make sense as grammatical English. To be a "climate change opponent" or an "opponent of AGW" means that one thinks climate change or anthropogenic global warming is a bad thing and presumably should be reduced. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. How about climate science opponent then? Hmm, maybe contrarian is best so far.
 * "Contrarian" indeed is the term that many thoughtful people recommend, though the inaccurate "skeptic" has unfortunately become so entrenched that we may need to use it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ward's advice for "journalists, scientists and educators" (link above) is useful, IMO:
 * I think there's value in taking advice aimed at journalists into consideration, since ideally our aims should coincide with the aims of journalism. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's value in taking advice aimed at journalists into consideration, since ideally our aims should coincide with the aims of journalism. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, if we set our sights too low then we will end up with mere journalism. We aim to be an encyclopedia.  That requires an encyclopedic perspective that journalists cannot, because of various constraints, aspire to. --TS 09:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. But we need to think about the language we use.  "Skeptic" may be too well-entrenched a word for us to abandon it, but we need to be clear about the language we use.  I think we do our readers a disservice if we use such a potentially misleading term without clarifying what it means.  Since there are sources that address this issue, we should use them to explain what we're talking about when we say "skeptic" (or contrarian, or whatever term we use), since this is not the normal English usage of the term.  Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "climate sceptic" is well enough established, and well understood to mean something distinct from scientific scepticism or rational scepticism. The phrase is clearly understood to imply contrarianism of the most antediluvian kind. --TS 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it really? I think it's jargon that's understood by the "in" crowd, but it isn't apparent to someone who isn't familiar with the issue. I think at the very least it requires a note that clarifies what it means in this context. Much like we explain 'theory' in the evo articles.  Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, what form of words do you have in mind? --TS 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with skeptic, but I'd encourage the editors to avoid blanket assumptions like Viriditas made in the first comment of the section. While it may be your view that a group, despite being primarily referred in WP:RS as one thing, should actually be referred to as another, adding your own view is clearly WP:OR and we should stick to what it is being reported as.  If you want to "clarify" the word, I'm not opposed, so long as the clarification fits WP:NPOV.  Also, if clarified, it should be clarified so as to explain how it is being used in the average cited source, not how it is being used or is defined in a single source that is cited specifically to "clarify". jheiv (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the term "skeptic" is that it's a name, not a simple descriptor. It's jargon (which we're supposed to steer clear of).  It diverges from the commonly used meaning of the word, and as such should not be used without explanation.  Much like "Truther" doesn't mean "someone interested in the truth", but rather someone who has a particular (fringe) opinion on the destruction of the WTC.  As for reliable sources, I provided two sources which describe precisely this problem - how language is used in communicating climate change -  and why this usage can be misleading.  Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Denier and contrarian are also names, and highly prejudicial ones at that. Are you prepared to prove that every scientist who questions global warming is one of these?  Drolz 09  20:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it be necessary - or even useful - to "prove that every scientist who questions global warming is one of these"? Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)