Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 15

Hack or Leak?
This article repeatedly refers to this incident as a "Hack" but this is unverifiable. This incident could have been a leak. No one knows, yet this article refers to this incident as a hack 11 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.63.106 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See Q5 in the FAQ Simonmar (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, if we rename thel aricle, we can cut this down? Eleven "hacks" does seem excessive! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the CRU server was illegally accessed, and data was copied without permission. That is why I feel "data theft" is more accurate than "e-mail hacking". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear to you? Or do we have a preponderance of reliable sources, as we recall for any other piece of disputed content?  Remember, WP:SYNTH and all that.  Illegal dissemination of information (whether in violation of a court order, confidentiality pledge, job requirement, anti-hacking law, trespassing, false pretenses, etc) done in the name of a leak or exposé is not simple theft, and painting it as such is a rather transparent attempt to attack the credibility / validity / fairness of the conclusion.  In general, characterizing an action as legal or illegal, when legality isn't the direct issue at hand, is almost always POV.  For example, calling a strike, protest, criticism, real estate purchase, etc., "illegal", is just editorial slant that does not add clarity.  Even if we accepted that, the article goes into so much repetitive detail about the illegality of the leak that it just looks sloppy.  I can see why people are getting the wrong impression.  Keeping in mind your comment that I use too many words, I'll stop there.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be misunderstanding what I am saying. "Data theft" is a standard legal definition in the UK, which is why it has been suggested here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Then, for the sake of those outside the UK we should make it clear that the article is using a term of art rather than making indirect accusations of illegality or wrongdoing.  A wikilink isn't enough because the data theft article is a little rudimentary and seems to be written from a British perspective, with references to quaint Brittishisms like thumbsucking, podslurping, bluesnarfing, yousnoofing, clueboofing, and such.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has all been discussed before. The Norfolk police (who should know) have said that they are investigating "criminal offences". "Whistleblowing" is completely unsourced speculation on the part of climate sceptics who appear to be uncomfortable with the idea that one of their own did something so blatantly illegal. It has no basis whatsoever in reliable sources or in anything that has been said by the police or university. Moreover, "whistleblowing" is a defence to criminal charges; it does not change the illegality of the initial act. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindented somewhat at this point)

Likewise, AGW evangelists appear to be uncomfortable with the idea that one of their own leaked the e-mails. We have a network security expert who believes it was an insider, but the simple fact is that we don't know if the hacker was an insider or an outsider. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By "network security expert", I assume you mean "climate change skeptic" with an obvious conflict of interest and a penchant for publicity? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, by "network security expert", I mean a published author whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by third-party reliable sources commenting within his area of expertise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's quoted in various RS because he puts out statements and press releases that are picked up by the media (a typical form of self publicity). There can be no denying his conflict of interest, since he self-identifies as a climate change skeptic. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing Graham of compromising his professional integrity? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source's preconceived position on the matter is relevant. Oh, and thanks for the "AGW evangelists" snipe. It explains much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented again somewhat)

Yep, you have AGW skeptics and AGW evangelists. Fortunately, WP:NPOV helps us sort through the nonsense from both sides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more helpful if you stopped calling people names, and discussed improving the article instead. --Nigelj (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing WP:NPOV isn't improving the article? I find that strange since it's the major issue with the article.  18:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can discuss NPOV without namecalling. --TS 19:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I did. We're not supposed to engage in the dispute between AGW skeptics and AGW evangelists, but simply document it in accordance with WP:NPOV.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I and others may have misread you. I find the term "evangelists" unhelpful in this context.  Are those who accept the scientific consensus also "evolution evangelists", "quantum mechanics evangelists" and so on?  I hope you will see my point about the absurdity of such labelling.  The skeptics call themselves skeptics because they are skeptical of the accepted theory.  Those who accept the theory are not evangelists and they do not identify themselves as such.  It's what mainstream means.  In science, global warming is mainstream. --TS 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given that Evangelion is "the good news", the term seems somewhat inappropriate (similarly to "global warming promoters", which much better describes some of the deniers). Anyways, here is the AP, as printed in The Independent, reporting "The emails were stolen from the computer network server of the UEA climate research unit, and posted online last month." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One shouldn't reasonably expect religious fervor to be rational. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So is your point that you think those who accept the mainstream scientific findings on global warming are possessed of a religious conviction? To reiterate an earlier point which you have not addressed, are those who accept other mainstream scientific viewpoints similarly afflicted with a quasi-religious belief?  Do you find it improbable that those who accept the science do so because they think the scientists know what they're talking about and they have reached a consensus on the correct interpretation of their observations which has, so far, been vindicated by all further observations? --TS 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about those that are so overzealous that they're pretending that there's nothing to see here. See George Monbiot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Monbiot is entitled to his opinion. He is not, however, a scientist.  But you seem to be conflating two things: opinions on the science, and opinions on whether there is any scandal. We won't know the truth about the latter question until the independent investigation concludes.  --TS 01:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you seem to be conflating two different things: global warming and Climategate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ..and note that the AP/Independent article already linked above reports on the AP result of just such an investigation by 5 AP journalists who systematically went over all the emais and report "no scandal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read the AP piece and it agrees with my POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, IRRC, I was the one who first posted the AP piece here on the article's talk page and added it to the article, but it was sadly removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented somewhat here)

It was, I think, user:Ratel who first raised the matter, on December 12. See Talk:Climatic Research Unit_e-mail hacking incident/Archive_12. On December 18th it was added as a selection of external links without editorial comment, and removed because of the absence of commentary. I think we're still trying to work out how the material should be used. --TS 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we cover the work and effects of propaganda machines?
The reason this article is generating so much activity and attention is that the right wing echo chamber has created a controversy. There was an e-mail hacking incident, and then there was "climategate", a word invented by disreputable sources and primarily used by disreputable sources. Does the word refer to the hacking incident, or does it refer to the swirl of sometimes-pretended, sometimes-real-and-gullible outrage subsequently generated by right wing media, or does it refer to the actual creation of the controversy by the right wing media? And what is this article about? Is it about the hacking incident, or is it about the manufactured political furor? Certainly we don't want to give the wing nut product legitimacy, but ignoring it or pretending it is of no importance is a weakness, if not a mistake. I've seen a similar dynamic in pages related to Tibet, where China's propaganda machine has produced zealous believers who think that Tibet has always belonged to China and that before 1959, most of Tibet's people were miserable serfs. Eventually, we tried to take some of this head on in Serfdom in Tibet controversy. Maybe Climategate should be more than a simple redirect to an article about a hacking incident. Maybe it should directly address the creation and treatment of the word "climategate", who uses it how and why. Bertport (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's utterly ridiculous to write off "Climategate" as the product of a "right wing echo chamber". Are there elements of the media that are "right wing"? Absolutely. Do those elements hype up "Climategate"? Of course. But that does not mean that basic facts connected to that point of view are disputable. Examine things from the other side: Was Watergate just the product of a "left wing echo chamber"? Was the real "crime" of Watergate the fact that someone sneakily obtained hush-hush information about Republican wrongdoing? Of course not. I know that the issue of e-mail hacking, or e-mail privacy-violation, is more "wrong" than leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein, but you see my point, right? This is Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff here if you think the real issue is the e-mail hacking and not what the e-mails seem to imply. This is only a big story because of what the e-mails say. On the other hand, of course the hacking incident is an important element within the story, but it's not the lead. (Should there be two separate articles? At this point, perhaps. There shouldn't NEED to be two separate articles, but that honestly might be a better solution since certain contributors keep insisting that a violation of e-mail privacy--something that happens thousands of times a week all over the world--is more important than a seemingly gigantic expose of questionable information that is being used as a pretext of restructuring all of human society forever.) Comments such as the one above seem to come from people who are blinded by their dislike of the right wing, and as such they have a skewed view of what is really going on here. They are too caught up in defending "their side" from the enemy, but they are doing a disservice to objectivity and the search for truth. I am not a right-winger; I DO believe that strong efforts should be made to protect the environment. I heard about the strange things going on on the wikipedia page for Climategate and I thought I'd see for myself. Unfortunately I have to say that while this article is not as biased as the "right wing media" might say, there still is a very clear bias as to what the article features most prominently, and this obviously stems from the personal ideology of many of the contributors, who are so on the defensive about this issue that they seem unable to honestly evaluate what makes this story so important (to say nothing of their inability to examine the content and implication of the actual e-mails). As I say, some of this is really Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff. It's almost as bad as taking an article about the harmful effects of tobacco and spinning it so that the whole story questions the morality of whistleblowers for turning in their employers. This is just my two cents. I am not a wiki-contributor. Take me for what I am: if it means anything to anyone, I have a PhD. I am not nor have I ever voted Republican. I am just one voice who is honestly telling you that this important article has something of a bias to it as to how the relative importances of its content are measured. This bias would be very easy to correct if only the contributors would be honest with themselves. I do not expect them to do this, however, because the political fighting seems more important to them than does truth. 66.82.162.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC).


 * The above comment is a wonderful illustration of the absurdly prejudicial nature of the "climategate" moniker. It invites nonsensical comparisons to Watergate.  Nixon went down because he was guilty of serious crimes, whereas the scientists targeted by this inflammatory moniker have not been shown to be guilty of any malfeasance.  Bertport (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to think that the "Climategate" aspect is connected, but still a separate issue from the hacking incident. Although the genesis of the controversy began with the theft of data from the CRU, the "story" has developed into something a little more vague involving the recent IPCC conference, climate change denial and even some ludicrous claims of BBC and Wikipedia bias. I have spoken previously about how much I dislike the idea of creating a content fork, but with other things getting dragged into the general controversy it might now be an idea with legs. I'm not ready to support a fork yet, but I am certainly giving it more thought than I have before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There are several important points in there. I do agree that the main "climategate" article (or whatever we choose to call it - there are varying opinions) should cover the entire phenomenon, minus the underlying background of climate change, scientific understanding of climate change, the research unit, and "skeptics" thereof.  In other words, it would cover: (1) the particular communications and actions of scientists that constituted an aberration from the normal protocol and decorum expected of the body, (2) the apparent hacking and release of the documents, (3) the way in which it became a public scandal / controversy, including the any significant role of agenda-driven media and other political operatives in constructing and/or deconstructing it, and (4) the denouement, i.e. the effects and aftermath of the whole thing, something not yet known.  Done right, I don't think it necessarily gives legitimacy to the thing, but it does give prominence, something that we can't help.  We cover the world as we find it, which does include mountains made out of molehills.  The making of the mountain is itself a notable event in these cases.  It's probably too early to know whether the hacking incident deserves its own article because we don't know what happened or what will be done about it, but note that a vastly larger scandal, Watergate, has generated at least a dozen related articles about different aspects of the event.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, eventually notable subsection get spun off into daughter articles, but we do that as a logical outgrowth of this article. I don't think it makes sense right now though to spin off a new article right now though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettarda (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 December 2009
 * While that is true, the problem with that approach is that the expected expansion of coverage for the wider controversy related to this incident (that might lead to a daughter article) is being prevented from occurring because of undue weight concerns. If a majority of editors think this growth→spin-off is the way to go, one or two sections would need to be allowed to expand beyond their appropriate size in preparation for the creation of one or more daughter articles. I'm not sure that is an ideal arrangement. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. I think sections should grow as due, and then be spun off as approriate. If a topic isn't significant enough, it probably doesn't deserve to be spun off. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I meant. What I'm saying is this: the sections may not be allowed to grow because it would create an undue weight problem. Basically, some of the notable stuff that is related to this incident isn't able to find a home here because it may not be significant in the context of the data theft, but significant in the context of the overall debate that started with the data theft. It's a chicken and egg situation - we don't want the article overburdened with somewhat related coverage of the controversy, but unless it becomes overburdened it is unlikely that aspect of the controversy will get spun off into one or more daughter articles. Urgh - this is making my head hurt again. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no need to "fatten up" a section in preparation for starting a stub. If a subject merits an article of its own, a stub comprising a single coherent sentence is enough to start it.  An article grows organically from the source material, not from some parent article. --TS 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's basically what I was saying earlier. I'd rather see the separate article created than let an undue weight problem arise in this article. I'm trying to balance that with my overall dislike of forking content, because there is a danger that the daughter article will be a magnet for some of the wilder "Climategate" conspiracy theories and fringe views. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey is making a lot of sense. I've not yet given up on a single article covering the event and the fallout, still thinking that the split should only occur later, if and when the fallout discussion start to overwhelm the hack related material, but the subject does deserve discussion.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that encapsulates my thinking. Let us try to keep it to one article for now, but remain open-minded about splitting it up (perhaps using summary style) if it starts to get out of hand. This is something we must bear in mind when we think about rejecting quotes or information with undue weight concerns, because if we do go split it up we will have more room to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done it
Now is a good time to decide whether we want multiple articles. I've gone ahead and created a parent (child? sibling?) article out of the "...-gate" part of the series of events, under Climategate scandal. That's meant to cover the ensuing scandal, public conception, and (if we can source it) the operation of the "propaganda machines", as this section title so colorfully puts it. It is not meant as a duplicate or fork, but rather a separation of different subjects within the larger topic area. I think there's a lot of material about this that has not found a home here, and certainly a focus that has been discounted here, because of this article's stated focus on the question of email hacking. Nevertheless, there is quite a bit here -- too much, I would say -- about the content of the emails, and people's defenses, attacks, and explanation. I ported some of that over to the other article, leaving out the long quotes and the opinions of people who seemed peripheral. That should relieve some of the pressure off of this article to have a blow-by-blow account of what everyone thinks, yet provide room on the project to cover what seems to be a notable, encyclopedic topic, the scandal arising from what the emails are said to reveal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This was an enormous mistake that completely disregarded the apparent consensus in the discussion immediately above. This error has been compounded by a scandalous choice of article title. I am appalled, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good decision. Not great because the title should have been replaced (I don't believe in half honesties but I guess Wikipedia folks need to save face too) Now lets just rectify one more problem: "Climategate" should link to "Climategate scandal". It is as logical as it is obvious. Just ask yourself: If a person searches "Climategate" is he more likely searching for "Climategate scandal" or "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"? Professorteeth (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Climategate scandal
I have nominated Climategate scandal, an article very closely related (and in my view redundant with) the present article, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please consider contributing to the article or the talk page rather than simply piling on at the AfD. jheiv (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't see what there is to contribute to. That article is, by any definition, a fork/duplicate of this one.  Let's work on making this article better and more complete before deciding that a split is in order. Oren0 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I really am neutral on the split at its current state, but I like the idea behind it. jheiv (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree. Many here seem to claim that it would be inappropriate to rename this article "Climategate scandal" as I had proposed earlier, presumably because this topic is somehow far enough removed from the issue that all the media are discussing that THEY refer to as Climategate.  Given this distinction perhaps it makes sense to have a separate article to discuss the fundametal aspects of what makes Climategate a scandal.  --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From the above section you can see that I am the one who created the article, largely as an attempt to tease apart two different subjects that are vying for attention here with the less prominent of them, the actual theft and unauthorized disclosure of data, currently having the upper hand while the subject of greater current public interest, the controversy climate change skeptics stirred up over the actions of scientists, seems to be an afterthought. It is redundant because in addition to the small amount of new content I seeded the new article with about the origin of the name 'Climategate', I also culled, ported over, and (to my mind) improved a considerable amount of content regarding the public scandal aspect of things, as distinct from the hacking incident. The redundancy occurs because having done so, I am not so bold as to delete the corresponding sections here, which would certainly be hasty.  At the end of the day there should not be much redundancy.  We just have to decide what topics belong in one article versus the other.  Splitting unwieldy articles into two halves occurs all the time here, and is generally not a fork.  Assuming the article is kept, it's our responsibility to keep them from becoming forks of each other, but that's entirely a content question for editors to manage.  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"also known as Climategate" in the Lede
This seems to be a recent introduction. Previously we had "referred to by some sources as Climategate". The term "Climategate" is not accepted even by many sources that report that others have used that name. and it is not accepted by the more reputable sources. In particular, it is a product of lazy journalism. We are not lazy sub-editors, and we should not give the false impression that we are, by adopting this phrase as an alternative.

I suggest that we were better off with the more accurate "referred to by some sources as Climategate". --TS 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Or just, "referred to by some as Climategate" --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree with "by some". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem to leave "by all" or "by none", neither of which has the virtue of passing the verifiability test. --TS 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with those as well. Just keep it simple.  "Also known as" is the common English expression.  No need to change it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * George W. Bush. also known as "Dubya", wouldn't be accepted because, despite this widespread nickname, it would make us look unprofessional. "Also known as" also implies a universality which is not the case. "referred to by some sources as" is in this instance both verifiable and professional. --TS 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor analogy. "Climategate" is the WP:COMMONNAME name for this article's topic, whereas "Dubya" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for that article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 From the source, it would appear that "dubbed 'climategate' in the context of claims made about the emails by climate change skeptics" would seem right. That's the implication of the way it's put in the source, and as far as I know the "skeptics" are the only ones using the term so that should be made clear. . . dave souza, talk 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. Checking what the cited source says is, as always, a stroke of genius :-) --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good. --TS 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And this source says "dubbed Climategate" while this source plainly calls it "the Climategate scandal". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no actually - the second source uses the word in quotes for the first two occurrences, and only drops them for the phrase you quote. There is more to writing a good article (and even more to writing a good opening sentence) than finding an isolated quote to use out of context. Re-read Dave souza's comment above and you'll see it is well argued, based on a full reading and understanding of the substance of what the sources are actually saying.


 * Come to think of it, how many reliable sources do we have for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need a reliable source for a descriptive title, although I personally do not like the one we have because I am not convinced that it succinctly describes the facts. "Climategate" describes nothing, and is simply the product of climate skeptics and lazy journalism. It is also less well understood in parts of planet Earth not familiar with the stupid "-gate" suffix. I am not in favor of "also known as" (which implies a truth that doesn't exist), or "dubbed" (which is an unusual word that can be confused with other meanings). I prefer "referred to by some sources" (which is accurate, and supported by sources). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if we're building consensus, with one or two strong instances of dissent, against the blunt "also known as." I suggested "referred to be some sources" and ScJessey and Nigelj concur.  Dave Souza suggests "dubbed 'climategate' in the context of claims made about the emails by climate change skeptics" and Nigelj and I find that acceptable.  Is that about right? --TS 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would concur. I would also add that "Climategate" should remain in quotes, and there is no reason I can see for it to be in bold type. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's no consensus doing this change. Nsaa (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wouldn't be a "change". "Referred to by some sources as..." was in the article without complaint for a considerable time, and only changed recently by the skeptic crowd. It created an edit war that got the article locked. So what you need to do is form a consensus to not have it say "referred to by some sources as..." if you want something different. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nsaa. There's no consensus doing this change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's wrong. You need a consensus to change it from the "referred to..." language. Look right back here to see where it was brought in. It stayed that way for ages before skeptics started edit warring a different version. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, can you please stop attacking people by stating "skeptics started edit warring"? Please consider what has been said and yes theres no consensus going back to the version you wish. Nsaa (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite wrong, and I'm simply calling it like it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a cn to the title. It's very bad that this title has not been renamed to something in general use and it is in itself starting to look like a scandal. See one of our five pillars Naming_conventions Nsaa (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems deliberately disruptive to me, and it has been quite rightly reverted. You should also consider self-reverting your change to the "referred to..." language, since that is the prevailing consensus and you will need to build a new consensus to change it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed that. It doesn't make sense in terms of our policies.


 * On consensus, obviously it's a good idea to wait a while and see if consensus continues to build for a more accurate characterization of the usage of the term "Climategate". --TS 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Lets read together then: "[...] guided by the usage in reliable sources. [...] When no consensus exists, it is established through discussion, always with the above principles in mind. The choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Naming_conventions so please don't play that game "It doesn't make sense in terms of our policies.". Nsaa (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Disruptive? What do you call making this change without reaching consensus on the talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was restoring the version that previously existed with no complaint. Besides, a consensus had formed until Nsaa came along and decided otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording that was changed was the subject of a huge edit-war. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"also known as" is the more appropriate language given the prevalence of its use in the MSM at this point, especially in light of the fact that the article's title is currently so lame as to make the entire article a laughing stock in the media. --GoRight (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Also known as..." implies an truth that doesn't exist, as I said earlier. We must refer to sources explicitly. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there was no consensus on the wording in the lead--there was an ongoing edit war over this when the article was protected a few days ago. Let's continue to discuss with a view to getting consensus on a form of words for the lead. --TS 03:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like Dave's wording; failing that I would go with the long standing "some" version. Guettarda (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A Quest for Knowledge, GoRight and Nsaa have argued quite strongly for retaining "also known as." Guettarda, Nigelj, ScJessey, Dave Souza and I have argued for a change.  I think we need to keep discussing this until we have a clearer idea of our thoughts and perhaps consensus emerges. --TS 03:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article is simply about the hacking / leaking / whatever of the emails, that specific incident is not known by that name. If we mean the article to be about the overall series of events, the broader incident is often called "Climategate".  "Sometimes" vastly understates the frequency.  Four million google hits and 5,000+ current google news hits is not "sometimes".  The term seems to be used across the political spectrum and, most importantly, by most of the large mass-market nonpartisan press.  Attaching quotes to something does not mean they are disputing its validity.  Quotes are used in many different situations - to define new or unfamiliar terms, for example, or to indicate that a usage is informal or colloquial.  We shouldn't speculate on the reason without some proof.  If we're not going to call the incidate climategate ought to make clear it is one of the alternate terms used for the incident, or we run the risk of spinning off in an idiosyncratic direction on our own, without following the sources.  Regarding the rather strained current title, that is not a common usage at all.  However, rather than dropping it I think we should follow up on the earlier discussion of how to rename the article.  Although no alternate name got consensus, several were better favored than the current one.  There is no status quo here to fall back on - the article is a month old and the names have been under continual discussion and debate.  - Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we're not discussing an appropriate name for the article here. We're discussing how to treat the word "Climategate" in the lede.


 * I take exception to the notion that the word "Climategate" is used widely enough for us to endorse it. It's used by the lazier journalists.  Those who have at least some standards mention in passing that it is known by that name.


 * Moreover the "also known as" phrasing is a very recent addiion, its addition to the article led to edit warring which was only abated hy a bout of protection (the protection involve mainly a separate edit war in which it became entangled in the later stages). There is no consensus for the current wording, and the endorsement by Wikipedia of this lazy bit of journalese is one that has caused some five editors, at this point, to express opposition, and a sixth to just up and remove it.


 * The previous wording seems to have lasted for a quite a while. Most of those who object to the current wording are reasonably happy with the old wording. It is thus simply false to say that there is no status quo to fall back on.  Alternatively we could settle on another form acceptable to a wider range of editors. --TS 13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Also known as" implies that both names are in common usage, which isn't the case. Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a bold edit and replaced the wording with "widely known as "Climategate" in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists." Let's see how that fares. --TS 14:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the use of "widely", but I would prefer "widely referred to as..." if we are going to also drop mention of sources. "Climategate" should definitely not be in bold type in this construct. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "widely referred to as..." might be an improvement, but for now I want to see if this basic form can command consensus. If it does then a tweak or two may be merited, again subject to consensus.  --TS 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an odd approach. We shouldn't waste time with trying to seek consensus on incremental changes to a single sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just any sentence, it's the first sentence of the lead section, so we really do need to ensure that it has wide support. --TS 16:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm getting at. My problem is that I don't see the point of seeking wide support for something when we know we are then going to try to seek wide support for something slightly different immediately afterward. Surely there's a pointless extra step in there somewhere? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this as an essential part of diplomacy. Although it might be nice to have your proposed wording, the wording I have just put in hasn't yet been in the article for long (though long enough for us to know it isn't so utterly unacceptable as to get it immediately reverted).  We should allow everybody time to get used to the idea and see if it works.  --TS 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. The whole thing seems unnecessarily wordy to me. The problem with trying to reconcile differences between two sides that are diametrically opposed often leads to wordy, dreary language on Wikipedia. This one is no exception. "Climategate" is just a bad construct that uses guilt-by-association to imply there is something sinister going on. "Climategate" has become popular because, as has been proven here, it is difficult to come up with an acceptable term to call this matter that is neutral and accurate. So now we find ourselves jumping through word hoops to make everyone happy. I'm starting to think we should cut out "Climategate" from the opening sentence completely, and then actually have a section that discusses how and why the term "Climategate" became widely used. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the "widely known as "Climategate" in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists." wording. --mav (please help review  urgent FAC and FARs) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey made a comment above that the reason we don't need sources for the current title of this article is because the title is "descriptive." According to Lead_section, "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface". This suggests to me that the name of this article shouldn't be bolded. The section goes on to say, "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." It seems to me that Climategate is an additional name, so it should be bold, correct? It seems like a strange outcome to bold "Climategate" and not to bold the title of the article, so I think the reasonable thing it to bold either both or neither. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Climategate is a bit of lazy journalese. We won't be endorsing that as an alternative title because the notion has been repeatedly discussed and rejected as a title on the grounds that we're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag given to endorsing the principles of yellow journalism. --TS 20:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearly an alternate title. Whether you like the journalists or not, many of them use this name primarily or exclusively.  Ask Google News.  This is why there is a redirect here.  This is why it appears that most other language Wikipedias title this article "Climategate".  "Journalists are lazy" is not a justification to exclude this as an alternate title.  You also still haven't responded to the issue about descriptive titles not being bolded. Oren0 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I have mixed feelings on this, while I agree that we're not a tabloid, one side of me is worried that by distancing the article from "climategate" we're not reflecting the actual way its being reported in WP:RS, but the other side of me realizes that if "climategate" ends up being the accepted term in the media when referring to the incident (as I expect it will, perhaps because of Tony's cited lazy journalism) then the article will reflect that when the term has solidified. [If it is ever bolded, however, I don't think it should also have quotes like it did   :-)  ] jheiv (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that's it's widely used (and we acknowledge that in the article). "Journalists are lazy" amply explains why the term is common in journalism but not common in the usage of the experts in the field and those intimately involved.  I don't mind unbolding any part of the lead, but if we bolded "Climategate" that would be a very serious lapse of the Neutral point of view, because of the connotations of wrongdoing which have not been substantiated.  In short, there are BLP implications to any appearance of endorsement of the term by Wikipedia. --TS 20:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats an interesting point, I never considered that referring to the incident as climategate inferred anything, but rather just keeping in line with the way it was being reported. After reading  this article however, I realize there are deeper implications as you noted.  Thanks Tony. jheiv (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend that others take a look at the same article - specifically List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. The term is heavily loaded with implications which require us to be cautious in using it, as Tony says. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a result of your comment, I reverted my bolding of climategate until this can be further discussed. Sorry for the premature edit. jheiv (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) The cited section does seem instructive, however, and while the wording surrounding climategate is being debated, I think it probably should be bolded and the quotes removed.  I do concede, however, that removing the quotes may give the term legitimacy that editors may not agree with.  I went ahead bolded the term in the meantime, hoping that we could narrow down what is contested, apologies if that too is contested. jheiv (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think we need to distance Wikipedia from that term. There are careers at stake, on no serious evidence of wrongdoing.  This is, I think an issue of import to those who are falsely accused, and against whom we can ourselves summon no reliable source to justify the comparison with the scandal that destroyed the career of President Nixon. We should say that it has been so named, and we should identify the context, but for reasons I hope will be obvious, to endorse the name is unacceptable. --TS 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the feeling about WikiDemon's removal of "in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists" from the opening sentence with the edit summary "remove loaded language from lede"? I'm not aware of any loading here. There have been accusations against scientists and that is the context in which the term "Climategate" is used to the best of my knowledge. Without the accusations, this would be no more than a hacking incident. --TS 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, its a clear edit war and thanks for bringing it to talk (although Wikidaemon probably should have). I'm not sure I'd agree with calling it loaded, but its not as concise as I'd like to see in an intro.  I mean, the title of the article contains "e-mail" so it would seem that "private e-mails" is redundant.  Maybe:
 * The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, often referred to as "Climategate" when referencing the public controversy that ensued, began...
 * or:
 * The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, often referred to as "Climategate" when referencing the accusations that followed as a result, began...
 * or:
 * The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, often referred to as "Climategate" when referencing the resulting allegations, began...
 * Admittedly, I'm not the best wordsmith however, but I do agree that there should be a differentiation between the title (hacking incident) and climategate (the "controversy") jheiv (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a small issue here with what you wrote tony.
 * in the context of accusations concerning the content of private e-mails from climatologists
 * The e-mails were not private, never were. They were all subject to freedom of information requests as the taxpayer funded the research. They should never be called "private" because of this fact --mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this issue has not been settled. In the US, it has been established in a few state supreme courts that private communications by public employees (or in this case, employees who are supported by public funds) are not subject to FOIA requests.  I'm not sure about the caselaw in the UK jheiv (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the uk all publicly funded bodies are subject to foi requests. In fact the released files were more than likely zipped up in response to one and then it got pinched and released online. Hence the name of the .zip file --mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the story of the word 'climategate' is one that can be told. If we did so in the body of the article, we may be able to summarise it better in the lede? The story is that it was very quickly coined, within hours or certainly a day or so of the hacking being made public. (Where is the first use in print?) The term was created by those sceptics and deniers who expected/hoped/intended that something would be found in the CRU e-mails that would bring down climate science as surely as Watergate brought down the Nixon government. This clearly hasn't happened. The irony is that it was Nixon's (men's) men who were the Watergate burglars, but here it was those who hoped to gain from 'climategate' who committed the initial crime. If that little tale, or something like it can be reliably sourced, how about a short sub-section somewhere, that is then summarised in the opening line? --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's needed. Most people can figure out on their own that Climategate is a reference to Watergate.  I guess a section on the term's etiology wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems like a little much. While the term may have been created as you say (and I do recall the sources originally distancing themselves from the term), most all media has stopped qualifying the term and are referring to the incident as climategate. jheiv (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX?
It looks like this talk page uses NOINDEX (i.e. so nothing is indexed by search engines). Why and where? Nsaa (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all article talk pages are set to NOINDEX. I randomly checked a couple that couldn't possibly be politically or legally sensitive (specifically, this one and this one) and they also were noindexed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We obviously don't want talk space indexed. It contains no encyclopedia content, and instructing search engines to index would produce a lot of noise that would tend to drown out our articles.  --TS 03:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The talk page is no-indexed becaused it has Template:BLP I believe (perhaps other reasons too). No-indexing talk pages of articles covered under BLP was discussed here Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 5 & Template talk:WPBiography/Archive 5. It makes sense since they can include discussions and content which isn't suitable for the article and even some stuff which violates BLP but isn't deleted for various reasons. I've seen various discussions here both of the people involved in the controversy and climate change sceptic/denier commentators and the like which tells me it was also the right thing here. While some may feel noindexing all talk pages makes sense, that proposal basically failed AFAIK (or at least it received sufficient opposition that it was difficult to pass without significant effort which no one put in to it). See NOINDEX for a bunch of discussions Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ q4 thoughts
From the official UK government Crown copyright site.

Chapter III of The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 88) describes circumstances when copyright material can be reproduced without infringing copyright. These are generally referred to as the fair dealing provisions. The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2498) amended certain provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. One of the most significant changes was to specify that the fair dealing provisions for research only applies where the copying is for a non-commercial purpose. This guidance reflects these changes. Under fair dealing, copyright material can be reproduced for the purposes of:

Research for non-commercial purposes and private study; and For criticism, review and news reporting.

Later on the same page is a reference to a further government site, unfortunately which has been closed. Searching on the successor site led to this fair dealing definition:

Fair dealing In certain circumstances, some works may be used if that use is considered to be 'fair dealing'. There is no strict definition of what this means but it has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing.

So, it may be within the scope of 'fair dealing' to make single photocopies of short extracts of a copyright work for non-commercial research or private study, criticism or review, or reporting current events.

I would suggest that A4 in the FAQ is inadequate because the fair dealing concept is vague, indeterminate, and very well may apply. So far as I am aware, the fair dealing status of the documents has not been yet adjudicated. We should add to the FAQ a short reference making it clear that fair dealing may apply and the documents may be usable in extract form without license but not reuse for profit as a public domain document would. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we don't know whether the crown copyright here would be covered by fair dealing. The question really is just addressing the notion that, like some American documents produced under Federal government contract, their contents are in the public domain.  Perhaps some clarification would be in order.


 * We do of course publish brief extracts from the documents when referring to relevant commentary and fair dealing would almost certainly apply in those cases. We certainly assume so. --TS 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that the material was stolen would certainly have a bearing. There is case law on the subject: the issue of fair dealing in leaked documents was addressed in Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] 1 All ER 241 (Ch D), which concerned the leaking of a document obtained by Private Eye. The court ruled that because the document had been stolen, fair dealing did not apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the FAQ is adequate for our purposes. Regardless of fair use/fair dealing laws, the messages remain outside of the public domain, the remain non-free content. Fair use/fair dealing laws address permitted infringements of copyright.  They don't put an end to copyright.  I think Q4 is adequate. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put. We aim to create free content, so permitted infringements are a bit beside the point. --TS 21:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the newbie-like question, but do the laws of the UK even matter? I thought that Wikipedia's servers were located in Florida? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to demonstrate that content used on Wikipedia has been freely released in the country of its origin. That's why we have various templates for the copyright status of content from various countries (see Image copyright tags/All). Otherwise you would end up with a situation where editors could rip off content from one country and hide behind the US copyright regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hacking" or "Reported hacking"
Where is the proof that an actual hack occured? Why is this wiki so quick to simply parrot the assertions of the center and its media-driven echo-chamber? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that RMHED is now edit warring over this on the article. Do I explain WP:BRD here, or do I edit war back, or do we still have an admin round here who's going to sort this out while we can discuss it? --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here to report what is found in reliable sources, rather than to correct them. If you think that the media have got it wrong then you should complain to them.  Once they change their reporting, we will be able to change the article to reflect what they say.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is embarrassingly full of seemingly defensive references to the "stolen" emails, "hacked" files, "illegal" actions, etc. It looks like a clumsy way of trying to discredit the controversy.  If you actually read the whole thing from start to finish, slowly, it is very sloppy in this way.  The encyclopedic thing to do is to sequester the question of how the files were obtained and released and put that in its own section, not to hammer the nail twenty times throughout the body of the document - even if true or likely true, that is not a good way to go about it.  This appears to be a content dispute, so threats to edit war on either side are not going to help any one side prevail, and certainly would tend to undermine any calls for administrative intervention against the other.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the "hacked" and "illegal" qualifications appear inside quotations (unless I missed one). "Stolen" and "leaked", however, do appear:
 * Line 12: "...a copy of the stolen files."
 * Line 21: "The stolen material comprised more than..."
 * Line 79: "The stolen files also included temperature records..."
 * Line 95: "...had been damaged by leaked e-mails, the Met Office..."
 * Line 141: "...ejected the view that the leaked e-mails had..."
 * ... although not at a frequency that is alarming to me.jheiv (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones inside quotations are a problem too, as well as a bunch of other peripheral comments. It's giving the quoted speaker a free penalty kick rather than simply saying what their assertion is.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ownership
I don't own this article but I've been accused of ownership. I'll be "on leave" from editing the article or talk page for a couple of weeks, and we'll see if my absence makes a significant difference. --TS 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a shame Tony, your administration on the talk page has been exceptional and will be sorely missed. jheiv (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary, either - you've contributed a lot, and been earnest and fair even in disagreement. But I can certainly understand any burn-out.  I'm feeling that way myself :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a sensible move. Thanks, Tony. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is necessary and would like to see you come back before then. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 05:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your involvement has been essential for keeping the article on the rails. If you're going to take a break, please keep it short! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking to AfD'd article
Some tendentious editors seem to want to link to a POV fork currently under a deletion discussion. I'd like to formally propose that the link to the "scandal" article be deleted until such time that it survives the AfD (which is unlikely, but that's academic). I tried to delete it earlier, but my deletion was disruptively reverted (surprise, surprise). -- Scjessey (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored some material that was added by several editors and then tendentiously removed. --GoRight (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no support for your reversion to the POV "scandal" language. Please self-revert, or show me where this non-neutral language was approved by consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See regarding whether this is POV or not.  It is widely referred to as a scandal.  --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you are joking. You need to actually look at the articles themselves and see what the context is. They may be quoting the same skeptic over and over again. You need to build a consensus for using "scandal", backed by cast-iron sourcing before you introduce such a loaded, POV term into the article. Without that consensus, you are simply editing with an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reversions
I am being reverted without even explanation in edit summaries. How can this be happening? I am restoring a NPOV to the article. If you disagree, say so here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, reverts without explanation (or ones that are not helpful at all) without discussion on the talk page has happened with increasing frequency and from "both sides". I've requested full page protection for a few days to force the editors reverting to discuss -- we'll see if anyone will listen. jheiv (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, for the avoidance of doubt, I want people with whom I seem to agree to behave well also. Despite having been at WP for quite some time I am disappointed that there seem to be "sides".  All we need do is document in unemotive language (i) that which is known to have occurred with the unauthorised publication and (ii) what the released docs and e-mails say and (iii) why there is a controversy about this.  I am disappointed that the unauhorised publication of the documents and the revealed behaviour of the scientists are being discussed in one article, especially one as poorly named as this one.  I am also disappointed that so much effort is going into demonising the supposed "theft" when everyone, surely?, thinks that there is a public interest issue here.  And there is double standards.  Those who insist on calling it a theft are very careful about not tarring the allegedly misbehaving scientists.  I want to do neither, I simply want that this article reveal what is known.  A climate warming sceptic friend of mine says WP has taken a particular POV here, and I would like not to think this is correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was protected for one week -- with the admonition "not again..." -- I do hope we can come to some sort of consensus on the process so we don't have to keep asking for the page to be protected. jheiv (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "All we need do is document in unemotive language" - This made me laugh, because "Climategate scandal" is rather obviously emotive language, and Paul supported it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Claims of biased editing go unmentioned
There are serious challenges to the credibility of Wikipedia flying around and I don't see any reference to it in the article. The full lock viewed in conjunction with no mention of claims of biased editing and abuse of admin tools is proof of a WP:CABAL of WP:ROUGE admins preventing the spread of The Truth. I propose mentioning the claims that WP has been subject to biased editing and trimming the article down to a bare bones description of the events to avoid a perception of "apologist PR". Let the bloggers handle this one. Dhatfield (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See FAQ Q10. The claims have been investigated, as you will see. --TS 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if my joke was not appreciated, but I find the claim that my comment is soapboxing rather strange, and according to FAQ Q10 the claims have not been investigated, the self-reference has simply been avoided. Is it really necessary to get this high-handed? A little assumption of good faith (which applies, BTW) would go a long way. Dhatfield (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing down discussions goes on all the time here, sometimes without explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, damning . I am not taking this further, but I note here my objection to the way this was handled by TonyS and Wikidemon. Transcluding and/or archiving other people's opinions to entrench your own is simply not on, regardless of how you may view the situation. Dhatfield (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ. After you've read it, read it again. --TS 22:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will that solve the problems I have with your aggressive conduct? Dhatfield (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a qualm about other editors' conduct please work it out directly with that editor and, if necessary, the dispute resolution forums. I closed this discussion because there's no valid proposal here.  It's written in the form of a rant - accusation of bad faith and complaints about WIkipedia followed by a WP:POINT-y proposal to gut the entire article.  Anything that starts off accusing the editors on an article of being part of a cabal is dead on arrival. That's not going to lead to any improvement in the article.  If it's instead a parody of a rant, mea culpa, I should have made a snarky comeback and then closed it as an off-topic joke instead. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a parody. The suggestion to gut the article was more serious and I don't believe it was disruptive - I think it will solve many of the problems people have with the article. Dhatfield (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have known and can see that in hindsight. Apologies accepted.  Oops, I think you're supposed to say that.  - Wikidemon (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, another lesson for me in irony not working non-verbally. A Merry Christmas to all (if that's your cultural preference). Dhatfield (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any aggressive conduct, but if you have such problems please take them to my talk page in the first instance. --TS 00:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion posts I've made on this page have been repeated deleted within seconds by one of the regular posters on this page without prior discussion. There is no way that this article can in any way be considered a consensus point of view when discussion posts are being deleted.24.87.71.192 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked your past contributions, and noted that here in your very first edit you claimed that the BBC "had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked." That comment was read by me, and I responded to it and I went to the trouble of writing a FAQ question and answer about that: see FAQ Q9.  So I really think you're pushing it a bit when you say that you haven't been permitted to contribute to the article.  How many people have had a whole FAQ written up based on their first comment on Wikipedia? --TS 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't excuse deleting discussion. I took the time to file a formal complaint.  How many people before and after me will simply have their discussion deleted and give up - their voices unheard?24.87.71.192 (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at this diff, you will see that you made two successive identical edits within the space of four minutes (both begin "The BBC reports they had the material "). One of those edits remains on this page, I'm not sure what happened to the other. Perhaps it's in the archive, perhaps somebody noticed the duplication and removed one.


 * Half an hour later you made another identical comment, at which point there were two copies of the comment on the page. Why did you do that?


 * A few hours later you said on Editor assistance/Requests that you believed your "comments in favor of expanding the article on UEA emails to "Climategate" have been unfairly removed". . You accused ScJessey of censoring you, despite your open quoting of ScJessay's statement that "You are ramming your skewed point of view down other people's throats by posting the same information twice (and now three times). That is soap boxing, and also rude."


 * Please stop acting in this insulting fashion and stop falsely accusing people of censoring you, when you've been repeatedly posting identical messages and at least one copy of the message remains on the page. --TS 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but there's no such thing as a 'formal complaint'. If you think you took the time to 'file' a 'formal complaint' that's a problem right there since there's no such thing. I suggest you take the time to learn how wikipedia works rather then wasting your time 'filing' a 'formal complaint'. In this particular case, it appears that you've misunderstood what some blog said. While as an editor, this is more understandable then the crappy journalists, you may want to read more carefully since the issue was discussed in the comments of the blog you are I presume referring to and in the very next blog entry. As is obvious from the fact it's in the FAQ, it is also addressed many times in the archives Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have stated, you are not sure of what happened. Yet, you accuse me of fault.  That is illogical.  If you don't know for sure what happened, there is no way you can know for sure who is at fault.24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have established that you have falsely accused others of censoring your contributions. Stop doing that. --TS 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, it seems we have also established that 24.87 is responsible for adding the same discussion multiple times to the page while it remained on the page (i.e. it appearred on page multiple times). I'm willing to WP:AGF that this was an accident, but accident or not, it was still 24.87's fault in so much as we can assign blame. Definitely no one else can be blamed for 24.87 adding the same discussion multiple times and any deletions of the discussion which may or may not have occured are understandable if 24.87 keeps adding the same thing, accident or not. Perhaps it would have been best to leave one version, but the best way to handle this would have been for 24.87 to calmly and rationally discuss the matter, apologise for adding the discussion multiple times, promise to take more care next time, and apologise for accusations against other editors. Under that circumstance, it would likely be okay for one version to remain. But it doesn't seem necessary now since from what I can tell., the issue 24.87 is one in the FAQ and which has been addressed multiple times Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a double posting, why not request the author to remove the posting? Here is the original message I received (below).  I read this to mean my discussion posting was deleted due to the content, not frequency.24.87.71.192 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please don't use the article talk pages for soap boxing your point of view. Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Section "Unauthorized publication" - cherry-picked information from cite
The following text from section "Unauthorized publication" has cherry-picked an attack on scientists from its cited article and fails to mention an attack on a climate science sceptic that appears in the same cited article:

Climate scientists in Australia have reported receiving threatening e-mails including references to where they live and warnings to "be careful" about how some people might react to their scientific findings.[24]

I suggest the text should read:

Climate scientists and climate science sceptics in Australia have reported threatening e-mails including references to where they live and warnings to "be careful" about how some people might react to their scientific findings.[24]

Cadae (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is a lot of cherry picking going on. The resultant flavour of the article DELIBERATELY (in my view) goes on and on and on about the "stolen" docs to gloss over what the docs say. Your remedy re your example above is to fix the article when it is unfrozen.  Note that the cherry picked death threats are in the summary at the top, but the discreditable behaviour of some scientists is not.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is worded in a way that implies that the sceptics have also received the threatening e-mails. Is that in the cite too?  I might have missed it.


 * And Paul - the "discreditable behaviour of some scientists" is not in the lead because they didn't do anything wrong. Read the e-mails (not just the ones the news and the blogs keep talking about).  What they did was normal - just largely misunderstood by the public.  And being that the police are investigating a theft, then the docs are, by definition, stolen.Farsight001 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That they did or did not do anything wrong is the question. Many respected mainstream scientists and climatologists have expressed unease at the conduct exposed. You really are out on a limb here.  Some stuff is easily explained, other bits are easily excused, but some remains, glaringly embarrassing.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the question. And we already know the answer - they didn't.  If many of these respected mainstream scientists and climatologists have expressed this unease, then please, by all means, provide WP:RS for it.Farsight001 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you really denying that unease has been expressed by respected mainstream scientists, including mainstream climatologists? I cannot believe you cannot know of this.  Were you referring to trolls earlier?  Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say or imply that I didn't know of it. (though I don't - not from any respected scientist in a relevant field at least) I was just pointing out we need something that qualifies as WP:RS to include such information in the article first.Farsight001 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FS- Do you even know the difference between suspected and established? The police are investigating a suspected theft. And why is it suspected? Because the center has made allegation(s) that emails with taken without proper authority. Police investigators ARE NOT the arbiters of the truth of allegations. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the investigative process. PS: Did you ever ask yourself what to call this if the police determine that no authorities were violated by the acccess / dissemination of the emails? In other words, when the police are finished investigating, then we can wait and hear what they have to say. That's why investigations are performed - to acquire a batch of information with more veracity to it than the initial accusation/allegation. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TROLLplease don't feed the troll.Farsight001 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Even the UEA is not sure there was a theft. The ref cited in the article quotes the UEA as saying there "appears" to have been a theft.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Farsight - you have missed the threat to the sceptic - read the cited article to the end. If there was no "discreditable behaviour of some scientists" then why on earth did Jones resign ?  Cadae (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah...don't know how I missed that. However, it's still a little misleading.  The article says one skeptic reports that one e-mail contained a threat to punch him in the face, among other e-mails with other threats.  I must conclude that those other e-mails would be less threatening, as there is no reason not to produce the most threatening e-mail.  More threatening=more sympathy for him and more hits on the article for the news source.  The suggested change above, however, implies that even the skeptic received e-mails containing his address and warnings to be careful.  That, however, is not implied by the article.Farsight001 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed - my proposed changed wording could be a bit misleading - I'll make the correction allowing for your point when the page is unlocked. Cadae (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The e-mails are just a distraction, it is the code which is a scandal, just looking at the "fudge factor" and "apply a very artifical decline" in the comments prove beyond doubt that these guys were faking their results. Look to the code not the mails. mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Orginal research; there are no reliable sources saying that. What's more, the evidence is very flaky. The allegedly dodgy code is not even active, its use is commented out. There is also no evidence that this code was used in the preparation of any scientific publications.  Why on earth has the section on code re-appeared in the article, I thought it was discussed recently and the conclusion was that there are still no reliable sources to cite? Simonmar (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I fully agree that it's not our place to start talking about what scandal is which - it would correctly be original research - you're wrong in that the code in question was commented out. The same source file was available in several revisions in the leaked material, and in at least one later revision it was not commented out. It, of course, means nothing - but facts are facts even in the talk page ;) see the update at the end Troed (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. As you say, it makes little difference though. Simonmar (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. And as soon as some reliable analyses of the code are published, we'll get to that.  There's no rush, there's no deadline for Wikipedia articles.  If you're right, we'll see lots of analyses published in the literature over the next year.  Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC requested
I propose a request for comment, to seek input from the wider wikipedia community regarding the following question:
 * What is wikipedia policy regarding the description of unproven allegations of criminal activity?

I contend that "hack" and "stolen" are criminal activity and therefore should be prefaced as "alleged" until such time as a reliable source reference shows these points to be proved true. As it stands right now, we have a group of editors who seems to be willing to accept that we MUST deny the use of the word "alleged" because the mass-media is not using it. It's all well and good that the mass-media is willing to publish "news" that gets ahead of the official investigation, but I advance the question: What is Wikipedia policy on open allegations of criminal acts? Is the absence of the word "alleged" from news reports sufficient to excuse us from noticing that NONE of the reliable sources have contended that the investigation is complete or that the allegations have been proved? The media seems content to advance the original storyline without deviation, but they are clearly leaping to conclusions. I am pretty sure WP:RS does not force us to also leap to conclusions. We can read the sources and since none of the sources have reported the allegations proved, it's not WP:OR to use the word "alleged". Not so far as I see anyway. That said, I think we need to limit the debate to a single question: What is wikipedia policy on how to describe unproven criminal allegations? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You will need to phrase the question much more clearly if you want to get a lot of useful outside input from an RfC. Having said that, I do think that an RfC could be a good thing. I hope that those of us who have already edited the page will refrain from flooding the RfC and let other views come in. There is nothing more off-putting than trying to contribute to an RfC that is dominated by an existing row. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I leave the precise wording to be formulated jointly, hence I offered in several nuanced flavors. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support your proposal. --DGaw (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment, an RFC may be overkill. The lede does have "alleged"; we now need to copy edit the main text to match the lede (if someone still thinks that the word alleged is no longer needed, they can make their own case, but the citations support the qualification.)-- SPhilbrick  T  19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet others disagree, and I see no sign of consensus emerging from the debate. It seems to me that an RfC provides a possible mechanism for resolution.  Meanwhile, those who don't believe an RfC is necessary are under no pressure to participate. --DGaw (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see little merit to this proposal. Perhaps if there was a specific someone or a group of someones who were suspected of committing a crime, then yes, we would have to take steps to be careful of being accusatory of criminal wrongdoing.  Since that isn't the case here, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tarc - it matters from the standpoint of editorial clarity. Either the allegations are just that - allegations or they are facts. And in either case, we have to decide how to present them. The sources used so far do nothing more than parrot the several piecemeal assertions. If it's a fact that these were stolen, then there has to be an informational basis to support the fact and we need to cite that information basis. So far, all the citations selected do nothing more than lead back to assertions - unsubstantiated ones. And unsubstantiated assertions are by definition allegations, not facts. Substantiated facts do not need qualifiers, but unsubstantiated allegations do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that an RFC is more than justified what we have here is a loophole that is being abused. How we deal with criminal allegations is quite clearly defined by BLP policy. However since there is as of yet no suspect those opposed to the use of the word alleged argue that BLP as well as many libel laws do not yet apply so we are in a both a legal and wiki policy limbo where criminal allegations can be made with 100% certainty. Of course if a suspect is ever named or charges ever brought the entire stub will have to be rewritten to comply with BLP rules and the law. This loophole needs to be addressed and closed. Bigred58 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
What happened to the " ... neutrality is disputed ... " tag? I wasn't aware that they expire, and I am unaware that the neutrality of the article was no longer contested. Nightmote (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was removed by Viriditas here, but I do not see any indication is was discussed. Can someone point me to the discussion? If not, we should request it be replaced, and Viriditas admonished.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur we should request it be replaced; the ongoing discussion and periodic edit warring serve as ample evidence that the neutrality of the article is disputed. --DGaw (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The removal of the POV tag seems premature, and I move for it to be re-instated at first reasonable opportunity. Perhaps Viriditas did it by accident. That's the only good faith explanation I can come up with. After reading the comment on your link, I have absolutely no idea what good faith explanation could be tendered. Nightmote (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the grounds for including the tag? Are there serious, ongoing disagreements over NPOV?  Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You seriously wonder whether the neutrality of this article is questioned by a significant minority of editors? Nightmote (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. But I'm questioning whether there are serious questions.  You know, ones that don't require us to cite blogs or insert OR.  Can you point to any serious, unresolved questions?  Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How many archive pages are there, now, for this article? How many reverts have there been? How many edit wars? How many protections? How many names have been proposed for this article by editors on both sides of the issue? Is the data leak/theft/hack the central point, or are the ramifictions the most important point? Was this the result of a whistleblower or carefully-scheduled disruption of Copenhagen? TS has started an outline for a completely new article, and that stupid paragraph on Rielke (sp - which I put in, to my chagrin) has been reverted a dozen times by folks who can't decide if Rielke hates the IPCC, *hates* the IPCC, or hates the IPCC. Half of the editors maintain that this was nothing more than a university data theft with no fallout. The other half of the editors believe that this is a Watergate-style exposure of scientific malfeasance with earth-shaking consequences. There has been little or no consensus on *anything* in this article, which is why it keeps getting longer and longer instead of better and better. So, yes, I believe that there is a POV issue, here, and that until we can agree to prune this rose bush there will be no flowers. Nightmote (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have outlined content disputes, you have outlined disagreements over article format. But I'm looking for unresolved NPOV issues.  Guettarda (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, editors on this article have been routinely seeking "consensus" by stating that other points of view are "fringe", don't exist, or are biased. Some people believe that the scientists involved behaved indefensibly. Others disagree. And the article is being repeatedly disruptively edited to reflect these positions. Your activities relating to this article are archived, and there can be no doubt that you are aware that questions of neutrality exist, and go well beyond "formatting". Nightmote (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If the POV tag hasn't been replaced withing 24 hours, I will request that an editor administrator review the situation and replace the tag. Nightmote (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many serious WP:NPOV issues with the article. There's the WP:UNDUE weight given to the death threats in the lede for starters.  I can't believe anyone's even asking if there are WP:NPOV with this article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Before adding the tag, would you mind detailing precisely your concerns? The tag has been there for a long time, but there hasn't been any recent discussion to establish what the issues are and how they could be resolved. Simonmar (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. We are unable to agree on a title. We are unable to agree on what to call the method by which the data were removed from the servers. We are unable to agree on the consequences of the dissemination of the data. Finally, we are unable to agree on which experts opinions are relevent. Have I missed anything? As for how they can be resolved, that is another issue altogether, and far thornier. But it has nothing to do with whether or not POV questions exist. I believe that they do, and I think that Viriditas should have - in good faith - disussed the tag removal. Nightmote (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much as I dislike NPOV tags on articles (too much like a badge of shame), there is little doubt that disagreements exists on both "sides" about the neutrality of a number of aspects of the article. At this point, I would endorse the restoration of the tag with the proviso that we seek its removal as soon as possible, by working out our differences amicably. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the NPOV tag belongs on this article, for the reasons Nightmote so colorfully outlined above. As for a badge of shame, the shame is on us for not being able to work through our differences collegiality, without attempting to defend or advance our personal agendas. --DGaw (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some reasons why the article might not be viewed as neutral:
 * 1) Undue emphasis. The opening paragraph, presumably where the most important aspects of the article are summarized, includes a reference to personal information being compromised. While compromise of personal information should not be trivialized, in the context of a controversy with literally trillions of dollars at stake, to mention this item in the lede sounds like emphasis on the wrong aspects of the incident, in an attempt to create sympathy for the alleged victims.
 * 2) Undue emphasis. Similarly, the opening paragraph mentions death threats. This inclusion has been the subject of intense debate. Not all agree that the very unspecific charges deserve inclusion at all, but many of those supporting inclusion feel this aspect deserves minor coverage in the main article, not the prominence of a mention in the lede. After prior discussion, the aspect was removed form the lede, but it has crept back in again. One more example of an attempt to create sympathy for the alleged victim, over the goal of presenting the most important aspects.
 * 3) Misleading conclusion. The second paragraph properly summarizes some of the charges arising from the material, but the construction of the paragraph can be summarized as: "charges made, charges refuted."  In fact, it is far to early to leave readers with the impression that this was merely a smear campaign intended to sabotage a summit. Perhaps it was, but until investigations are concluded, a neutral POV would leave readers with a sense that the issues are open, not resolved.
 * 4) Questionable word choice. The debate over whether "hack" and "stolen" can be used in an unqualified way has been intense. While those in favor of the unqualified term can point to RS without the qualifier, those who feel that crimes should be proven before assumed to have occurred can also point to more circumspect RS. I don't know whether WP has definitely settled how to address word choice when RS disagree, but many readers feel that the choice most sympathetic to CRU seems to win the day in most cases. It is hard to understand how a qualifier such as alleged, when not a single person has been arrested, or even charged, is clearly the only wording option. Some feel it would be more neutral to take more care, and state as fact those things which are known to be fact, not those things which may turn out to be fact.
 * 5) Balance. The section on Climatologists includes many examples which translate to "nothing to see here. move along", while containing almost no examples of critical comment. In 13 paragraphs, I find only three including criticisms of the actions of the scientists. I do not for a second argue the mix has to automatically be 50/50, but has someone established that the reaction is so overwhelmingly critical of the release?

There's more, but this is a start. I'll emphasize that one should be careful about imputing my position to any of the above comments, I've attempted to summarize what I think those concerned might believe. To some extent, it does reflect my personal view, for example, I do not feel that the name of the article should be Climategate, and some who do might add that to the list.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly presents one "side" of the reason why it needs a neutral tag, rather pointlessly if I may say so. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think so, why don't you add a list that presents the other side? It might be helpful having the list of issues to be resolved together. --DGaw (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is supposed to represent the story as reported in mainstream media (MSM). While it may be that the media has failed to recognize the significance of the case, it is not the role of this article to correct that.  Is there any reason to believe that this article is reporting the case other than how it has been presented in MSM?  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces. With all due respect, did you read the list? Not a single item attempts to make the case that the media are getting it wrong and we should get it right. Every one of my points can be substantiated with media references.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, these points have been made, but not how they rise to the point of violating of our NPOV policy?
 * Personal information compromised
 * there's actually a dispute over this that has reached a stalemate? In the most recent mention of this, it is unchallenged.  It's also mentioned in a long complaint by an anon, but it isn't discussed by anyone else.  I don't see how this deserves
 * Death threats in the lead
 * This is a discussion related to an interpretation of the MOS, not of NPOV.
 * Misleading conclusion.
 * Where was this issue raised? Where did we deadlock on how to resolve it?
 * Questionable word choice
 * No matter how you choose to slice this, it's not NPOV issue. To me it boils down to "should we follow sources, or replace them with the opinion of certain editors?"  At a most charitable reading, it boils down to "should we ignore WT:WTA?"  A disagreement as to whether we should follow or ignore guidelines is not an NPOV dispute, no matter how far away from consensus it may be.
 * Balance
 * Again, where was this discussion, and how did it fail to resolve it? I don't recall a deadlock over this.
 * Seriously, I see disputes, but not nothing over NPOV that rises to the point of requiring that template. Guettarda (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I contest your summarization. On item 4, it is not a case of following sources or following certain editors. Some sources use the word "stolen" without qualification, but many others point out it isn't yet clear the documents were stolen and still others use caveated language. So we as editors should have a discussion about how best to represent the consensus of the RS. In the absence of a consensus that the unqualified word "stolen" is absolutely correct, a fair person would agree that taking the cautious approach is a better choice. That isn't the case here. Certain editors who want the article to convey that illegality has certainly happened have prevailed. That doesn't sound neutral to me. Does it to you?-- SPhilbrick  T  23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WRT #2, it is clearly a matter of WP:WEIGHT, which is very much a part of NPOV. Where is the documentation that the death threats have been mentioned in so many articles that it deserves mention in the lede. There's really only a dozen or so points in the lede; I seriously doubt that a formal analysis of the RS coverage would place the death threats in the top ten or so issues.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of those seem fairly straightforward to address. For instance, the third point could be addressed by simply concatenating two paragraphs, turning "charges made, charges refuted" into "charges made, charges refuted, investigations ongoing".  Personally I don't think it's necessary - the reader ought to be able to avoid forming a conclusion until the end of the lede - but it wouldn't hurt much.  The final point about balance in the climatologists reactions seems straightforward too: just find some critical climatologists and quote them.  If the section got too long, then some of the less notable quotes would have to be cut, of course (perhaps it's too long already).
 * I agree with Guettarda above that there doesn't seem to be much actual NPOV disagreement. Simonmar (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that all points can be addressed, including the possibility that in some cases, the evidence will show that no change is needed. However, the point of the template is to show that we haven't yet achieved agreement that the article is neutral. Accordingly, the tag should be there until we reach such agreement (which is obviously not the same as saying we have resolved every open issue, that will take longer.)-- SPhilbrick  T  23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of is for NPOV disputes that cannot be resolved.  I don't see anything that merits this.  Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is obviously not true, or the template wouldn't say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". It most obviously applies to situations where a dispute exists, but has not yet been resolved. As in this case.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are confusing NPOV with the Disputed tag. The burden is on the person adding the tag, and there is currently no reason to have a NPOV tag.  Based on the discussion above, most disputed aspects of this article can be easily solved.  Is there a reason, Sphilbrick, you are not working towards resolution of these issues? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is there a reason, Sphilbrick, why you have not stopped beating your wife?" Gah. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, you removed the NPOV tag from a hotly-debated article without seeking consensus or demonstrating that the neutrality issues were resolved. To suggest that Sphilbrick is not working to resolve consensus and resolution is uncalled for, as there was no issue until you acted unilaterally. In the absence of a formal statement to the contrary, how about we get rid of the NPOV tag when there have been no major edits for one week? Nightmote (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Viriditas, "There is currently no reason to have a NPOV tag". Are you saying that you haven't read this article's talk page, not to mention the multiple complaints about the lack of WP:NPOV that have been levied by numerous editors in this archive?  If not, I suggest that you go through this page's talk page and archives and familiarize yourself with the issues.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying I've read this discussion and see no reason for a NPOV tag. Is there a reason you aren't working here to resolve the disputes?  It looks like you are intentionally promoting and creating disputes to promote your POV.  This can be best described as dispute whoring. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you even being serious? I've been working to resolve the dispute from day one.  Because this is not a topic I don't particularly care about, your personal attack of intentionally creating disputes to promote a POV falls flat on its face.  My only POV is in making sure that WP:NPOV is followed.  Do you have a problem with WP:NPOV?  If so, I suggest that you try to get the editors of WP:NPOV to change the policy.  Please let us know how it goes.  Until you convince the WP:NPOV editors to change policy, we should follow this policy regarding this article, don't you agree? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been working to resolve the dispute? Really?  That explains why there are multiple instances of the same, exact discussion in the archives and on this talk page.  When a particular issues is resolved, it is immediately raised again, and again, and again, until you get the answer you desire.  That's not a resolution. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been working on resolving the dispute. The reason why the same issues keep being brought up is because they remain unresolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so... you have read the discussion and see no reason for a NPOV tag. Unfortunately, other people have read the discussion and believe there is a reason.  If you can convince those people to agree with you--or, better, work with them to address their concerns over the article's neutrality--a consensus can be reached, and the NPOV tag can be removed.  --DGaw (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the burden is on the person adding the tag. Your contribution history gives you away. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, at several places throughout this talk page statements are made by several editors (administrators) to the effect of there being no WP:RS referring to the incident as anything but a "hack" and that the material was "stolen". This is factually incorrect, which I've shown by providing the necessary sources. In spite of those sources having been added to the discussion, some editors/administrators continue to claim that they do not exist (in this sub-thread, for example). That is the (current) problem. Troed (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's address it, again. This has been discussed many times, so let's get a survey of the discussion results for this particular "dispute". Looking at just the FAQ, there is a related entry for Q5:
 * "Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?"
 * "A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are 'investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia', and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair."
 * Troed, what's wrong with this FAQ entry? Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. An investigation into the incident is not a conclusion. Until the investigation has something to report it's all allegations, unproven. Thus, even the name of the article is questionable - we do not know, and there are no WP:RS who do either, that this is indeed a "hack". Additionally, WP:RS do refer to the incident in several ways (which is the reason I'm here, I saw editors claiming otherwise in error) - "allegedly hacked" and "leaked". We should strive for WP:NPOV and we do that by refering to what the MSM is saying up until we indeed have WP:RS resolution on the issue. That can, at the earliest, happen when the criminal investigation has reported - or a non-disputed source says otherwise (which for example could be if a whistleblower steps forward). HOWEVER, claiming (as some editors have done) that the MSM isn't at all refering to the incident as anything else but a "hack" or that there's been a "theft" is clearly in error, and continuing to do so after sources have been provided indicates POV. Troed (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

←Jeez. This talk page is like the United Nations or something. Obviously there are various editors who think there are neutrality issues, and that's enough to decide whether or not the article should be tagged. Why do we need yet another gigantic thread on the matter? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, and it seems this has been resolved by an administrator already. The tag has been readded. Whether Viriditas acting knowingly out of consensus in this matter or not I leave to others to debate. I still feel there are serious problems with POV statements at the talk page, however somewhat less so at the current article. Troed (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No one should be happy that the neutrality of this article is questioned. It behoves us to fix the article. It would not be becoming of someone to be happy with the article being the way it is because it reflects their POV, so surely that is not the case! :-) [Hey, isn't the United Nations a good idea?]  Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I hate seeing that tag (I refer to it as the "badge of shame"). I created a todo list a week or so ago (see top of this page) that mentioned the need to resolve issues and work toward removal of the tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography of a living person
Whose idea was it to put that warning on this article? How can we possibly harm Mr. Incident here?Jarhed (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with that warning. The article contains allegation of wrong-doing by a number of real, live people, and accordingly, the BLP concerns are valid.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be dense, but could you please point me to where in the reference it says that BLP rules apply to non-biography articles?Jarhed (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of WP:BLP says, "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.". This article has information about living persons.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so accomodating. Here is what I don't understand.  The allegations about Connolley in the Solomon article have been picked up by hundreds of sources.  A discussion about the allegations does *not* belong on Connolley's bio, but it *does* belong here.  I have read the archived discussion, a distillation of which seems at least reasonable, and I don't understand the rationale for not including such a description in this article.  I think that Wiki users should be able to expect to find here a reasonably NPOV article on just about any controversial issue, not silence.Jarhed (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does Connolley have to do with this article? Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are getting at. Connolley emails are in the East Anglican reveal.Jarhed (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do allegations about Connolley have to do with this article, specifically? Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the same question again, and I already said I don't understand what you mean. Try asking it differently and I will try to answer you.  Frankly, your repeated question is pointed and confrontational.  I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith.Jarhed (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing whatsoever. It's merely that WMC is the latest hate figure for the far-right, irrespective of anything he's actually done. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What has "far right" (which is your POV) do to with anything? Connolley is named in the emails this article is about, especially in reference to the work he's doing on Wikipedia. Now besides the actual emails themselves there are no good WP:RS as of yet and thus any inclusion would have to be carefully worded and sourced, but your comment above is clearly out of line. Troed (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be attacking me personally, which is pretty strange since it is a policy violation and I haven't even said anything yet. I will thank you in advance for keeping your comments to me civil.Jarhed (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory BLP applies to every page with respect to article content about living people. I think the notice is just a courtesy to let editors know there may be special BLP concerns.  That's obviously true with every page on the subject of a living person, but there are reasons to take extra care in an article like this, where living people have been accused of things.  Is that right?  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am fresh from reading the talk page on the Sarah Palin article, and there are many editors there who will be glad to tell you that anything that can be reliably sourced is fair game for a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, that's correct. Particularly as there is no confirmation that said living people have actually done anything wrong. By all means document wrongdoing once the "verdicts" are in, but in the meantime it's a case of "innocent until proven guilty". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find this discussion frustrating. Some of you act as if this notion of yours that reliably sourced allegations and investigations are off-limits for a WP article is something that is settled and that everyone here already agrees with you. I do not and I would appreciate it if you could show me your policy source for that. As I mentioned, on the Sarah Palin article, there are plenty of editors that disagree vehemently with you. Personally, I agree with you. Unproven allegations clearly should not be put in a BLP. However, I will point out again: THIS IS NOT A BLP. This is an article about a controversy, and it is absurd for editors to not be able to include reliably sourced information about allegations and investigations. I am really having problems understanding your stance on this, and I would like to know more. To the point, I would like to know how you justify your rationale in light of the fact that what you are doing can be used to push a POV just as easily as including unproven allegations and investigations.Jarhed (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As has already been explained to you, BLP applies to all pages on wikipedia. This includes talk pages, user pages and wikipedia pages. In terms of this specific case, I've seen no evidence of any particular relevance of the allegations against WMC that have only appeared in opeds and blogs (and which have been widely discredited by wikipedians to boot) to this article. If anything, adding them here is even worse then adding them to the WMC article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be adopting a condescending tone toward me, but I will let that go. Of course slander should not be allowed anywhere in Wikipedia.  However, you are wrong if you think that BLP applies to non-BLP articles, and in fact, I can show you instances where BLP *barely* applies to BLPs (Sarah Palin).  When an investigation or allegation is reported in a reliable source, you have *no* policy grounds for excluding it, especially on a non-BLP article.  I have a whole list of reliable sources that I am ready to put into this article, and I would like to get it straight right now that this is the correct thing to do.  If it is not, I would appreciate a clear explanation of why not, and not "as has already been explained to you" and what other editors have said to "discredit" these sources, of which I most certainly am not one.Jarhed (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he's right - BLP applies everywhere, not just in biographies of living people. BLP isn't about "ground to exclude" something, it's about standards for inclusion.  BLP simply means that the standards for inclusion of information are higher when it comes to statements about living people because the things we say about living people can hurt their reputation.  Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The classic BLP issue was the Siegenthaler affair. The statements that led to the creation of the BLP policy would have been equally unacceptable even if they had been made in the JFK article, which is not a BLP.  Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me, but I can't shake the feeling that these arguments are disingenuous. I say for the third time that I agree that defamation should not occur anywhere on WP.  However, (please forgive me if I don't say this right) BLP stands for **BIOGRAPHY** of a living person.  Inclusion of the BLP warning on this article seems absurd to me, it not being a BIOGRAPHY.  I was unfortunately personally affected by the Siegenthaler incident.  It is disingenuous for you to claim that Siegenthaler would have felt the same about the defamation being in the JFK article as he was about it being in his own bio.  He was at press confrences saying, "And this was in my *OWN BIO*!!!"  And also, the Siegenthaler incident was a libelous slander, not an accurate report about an ongoing controversy, so your comparison is wrong anyway.  I say for the fourth time that I agree that defamation should not occur anywhere on WP.  However, citing a reliable source that reports about an ongoing investigation is not defamation.  It can be harmful if not properly qualified, "alleged" etc., but it is the *truth* and truth should not be a disqualification.  If I am wrong about this, I would like to understand why.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're talking a little past each other. BLP is used as a shorthand for our policy on biographies of living people.  Not biography articles but biographic information.  Since biographic information is being discussed, it's an appropriate warning.  When you say that "citing a reliable source that reports about an ongoing investigation is not defamation", it suggests to me that you don't understand the point of the warning here.  The point of the BLP policy is that we need to cite reliable sources when we talk about living people (and, of course, that these sources need to be of a slightly higher standard than those which don't apply to living people), especially when we are dealing with potentially damaging information.  It doesn't say that we can't discuss potentially damaging information.  Nothing of the sort.
 * As for the Siegenthaler reference, you seem to have missed my point entirely. While his reaction prompted the development of the policy, arguing that he would have felt differently if it had been on another page quite frankly misses the point.  We don't have a policy to satisfy him.  Siegenthaler's role in this is simply that he raised an issue about a weakness in the way we policed our articles.  The information about him would have failed WP:V even in its earliest for.  But it prompted a debate about the way we dealt with information about living people, which led to the development of our BLP policy.
 * I think it's rather insulting to accuse people of being "disingenuous" when they answer your questions about Wikipedia policy. The policy is based on a Foundation directive, there isn't much we can do to change its application here.  No one is paid to answer your questions here.  If you want a more thorough discussion of the policy, try the policy's talk page.  But it would be nice not to insult the volunteers who gave up their own time answered your questions.  Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to watch your incivility toward me: stop accusing me of insulting people when I have done no such thing, and stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. In plain English I said: "Please forgive me, but I can't shake the feeling...."  I said I had a *feeling* of being disingenuous *not* an accusation that someone was being so.  As for your insult to me about "paying" people to answer my questions, perhaps you should take notice that this is the *talk* page for the article in question where such disagreements are supposed to be discussed.  Please forgive me but I can't help shake the feeling that you are telling me to shut up and stop discussing discussing this article.  I will ask any question I please to elicit the information that I in my own judgement need to edit this article, and if you don't care for my questions then you can simply ignore them.  In fact, judging from your incivility to me and other people, I would prefer that you do just that.  That said, your invocation of some unnamed "Foundation directive" that applies in this specific instance, please forgive me but I can't help shake the feeling that such response is disingenuous.  If you care to respond, I would appreciate a link to said directive, and I would appreciate it if it were in an article that does not start with the word BIOGRAPHY.Jarhed (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See first infobox on top of this page. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section for the page.
As I was reading through the page I noticed that there wasn't really anything on the implications of the incident. I was thinking we could add a new section discussing the role that groupthink and confirmation bias played in causing to the incident. What do you guys think? Spoisp (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Spoisp


 * I posted a number of such suggestions, now at User talk:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal after the last round of renamings and deletions.


 * I can't say I'm optimistic about getting anything into the article that's critical of the AGW Saints. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anyway to subvert their will? Surely there must be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep using the multiple SPA accounts, you know the ones that were created years ago, but showed up out of the blue en masse to edit this article in December. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have for that claim of multiple SPA accounts Viriditas ? I suspect you've misunderstood the new public interest in climate science that climategate and COP15 has awakened. Cadae (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More than enough good evidence, all supported by ANI, SPI, and CU reports. Welcome back. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the subject of spa accounts, I was looking at the vote for the AfD for "Climategate scandal" and being bored at work (patients were all asleep), I decided to look at the edit history of the voters. It was a casual look, not an investigation, so I didn't keep exact tallies, but I'd have to estimate that about 2/3rds of the people who voted "keep" are either accounts created about a month ago that have edited only global warming related articles, or accounts that have been inactive for months until about a month ago and have only edited global warming related articles since.  In contrast, I recall only one account that looked like an SPA that voted "delete".  That article is not this article, but there is of course quite a lot of overlap in contributors.  There may not be any formal wiki investigation into SPA accounts right now, but Viriditas is definitely right in at least saying something fishy's definitely going on here.Farsight001 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is true, this is disgusting. Sockpuppets are intellectual maggots and should be banned.Jarhed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can confirm what Farsight says. I had a look at the "keep" !voters as well; many of them look very much like sleeper sockpuppets. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I thought about the "delete" voters too! (Actually I did not, but that's the quality of debate here.)  As soon as people wade in then somehow there's a conspiracy of sock puppets.  Now, there might be some SPAs, but what you're actually doing is calling into disrepute the reputation of those who voted against your POV.  And that is a dishonest trick.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't really matter in an AfD discussion. The closing admin is supposed to consider the implications of !votes by possible socks and obvious SPAs, but obviously that doesn't always happen. That is why it is so important for regular editors to note the existence of SPAs with appropriate tags like "", and point out obvious or suspected socks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please AGF Paul. If you read Farsight's comment, it's clear that s/he looked at both sides.  Making unfounded accusations - both against 'delete' !voters and Farsight - really isn't cool.  Stop trying to get a rise out of people.  Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the story?
Prompted by the above section I have re-read the opening paragraphs of the article again. Anyone would think that the story is about the theft of personal information, about a violation of the Data Protection Act. But violations of this magnitude are reported weekly. Bank databases are accidentally left public; a hacker reveals the criminal records of everyone called Smith. Countless, countless examples not noteworthy enough to be in the encyclopedia. But we *all* know that the theft/leak of personal information is not this story, the story is about the conduct of the scientists revealed in the leaked information. If this article is not about that, then where on WP is the description of that controversy to be found? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you peruse the archive, you will find several discussions that cover this ground already. The article is about the theft and dissemination of data from the CRU, the investigation surrounding that theft, and the impact of that theft (which covers the controversial aspects you seek to highlight). You must understand that the controversy largely arose because misinterpretation and misinformation was hyped by skeptics, giving it disproportionate coverage. This article must acknowledge that controversy without adding to it, which is quite a difficult balancing act. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your guidance on this matter, but I have already perused. I bring the matter up again. I note your repeated opinion that the matter has been hyped, and thank you for it. I see it for what it is, your opinion.  My opinion, which I ask you to take as my opinion, is that the matter is being squirrelled away here on WP, and that you seem to be in favour of that.  If the matter is hyped and there is no story then it would be consistent to suggest this article be deleted, as it is not noteworthy.  But we all know that the story is noteworthy.  The story is that for the first time since almost ever have scientists of this pre-eminence been under investigation for alleged misconduct.  By their own Universities!  That is the story.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you want that to be the story, but it isn't. Get over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Simply a conclusion drawn from coverage in a preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With "reliable sources" being colleagues of the scientists against whom these accusations have been made. »S0CO ( talk 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. If you are unfamiliar by what is meant by "reliable sources", I recommend reading WP:RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have worked on Wikipedia for years, and am quite familiar with what constitutes a reliable source. The issue here is the trend in this article of discounting as non-notable any source which does not meet an unwritten set of extra criteria. Other sources discussing the controversy surrounding the content of the emails cannot be included, even if they are clearly attributed to their specific authors, if they suggest scientific misconduct at East Anglia. I've no wish to become embroiled in the politics of the thing, but this is a trend here that is becoming difficult to ignore. »S0CO ( talk 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You put a needle on it.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some people who believe that this issue is not getting enough coverage. For example, because of these emails, Dr. Mann is being investigated by Penn State on the orders of the state legislature.  That is a notable fact that should be covered in this article.Jarhed (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I am not familiar with the ins and outs of every aspect of this matter, but it would seem that something like that would need to be covered at Michael E. Mann and then briefly summarized here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that! Last I looked, the See also link to here had been removed (repeatedly) by The Cabal, and the only mention of Mann's involvement was (wait for it) Yet Another Whitewash of an AGW Saint. Truly absurd, and why no-one (with any sense) uses Wikipedia for info on any controversial topic. Sigh. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a matter for whoever edits Michael E. Mann, not here. And please assume good faith and quit the "cabal" bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you think that mention of an incomplete investigation belongs in a BLP. I think that it absolutely does not.  On the other hand, I do not understand why you think that mention of an incomplete investigation into a controversial matter does not belong in the WP article about that matter.  If you have an explanation for this, I would be glad to have it.Jarhed (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it belonged in a BLP. I said it was a matter for the BLP. Unless Mann is found guilty of something, it shouldn't be covered anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand what you are saying. I want to emphasize that what you are saying is *not* policy, nor is it even settled on this article.  It is your opinion only, and my opinion differs.  I think that editors would be foolish not to mention what is already known by anyone who is following this issue in the news.  I think that we editors can cover it in an NPOV fashion that would make this a halfway decent article that all editors could be halfway ok with.  What I think is *wrong* is the exclusion of reliably sourced information for a POV reason.  I just don't think that is fair to anyone or a good idea.Jarhed (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that just about the biggest GW story of the year be subdivided up so as to hide it away. This story, covered here at this article not called Climategate becuase of it's -gate suffix or some other manufactured reason, will be covered here.  and if not, please tell me the title of the article where Climategate will be documented.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough of the "manufactured reason", "hide it away" bullshit please. Assume good faith or go and edit somewhere else. There has already been a discussion about whether or not to move toward a summary style article in order to give us more room for the extra detail you are seeking, so obviously editors (including myself) are aware of your concerns. Although a consensus formed for holding off on that for the time being, someone went ahead and created an article called "Climategate scandal" anyway - and you know how that turned out. Clearly anything about an investigation of an individual should first be worked out on their BLP (to ensure proper treatment). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My reading of the BLP policy is that editors should take care not to introduce defamatory information into one. Clearly, a discussion of unproven allegations do not jump this hurdle.  At least I think it is clear.  Can you explain your thinking to me?Jarhed (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm? "biggest GW story of the year" - hmmm - strangely enough no matter what measure i use, the biggest GW story of the year was COP15. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on where you are standing. For some people, the biggest GW story of the year was getting a White Christmas, proving beyond all doubt that the Earth is getting colder!  -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "just about the biggest" is what I said. But maybe "biggest" would be correct: The damp squib of Copenhagen delivered nothing except a 1,000,000 airmiles of CO2. 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psb777 (talk • contribs)

Implementing the recommended title change
In the closing assessment made of the discussion as to whether there could be both a "Climategate scandal" article and this article the recommendation was (1) that the former be deleted and (2) the name the latter (i.e. *this*) article be changed. I think the suggested name was a reasonable compromise, and I intend to implement that name change when the article is unfrozen. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing (and nauseatingly dull) discussion about the title of this article. I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to seek consensus before making any change like you propose. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the closing assessment made of the discussion as to whether there could be both a "Climategate scandal" article and this article the recommendation was (1) that the former be deleted and (2) the name the latter (i.e. *this*) article be changed. I think the suggested name was a reasonable compromise, and I intend to implement that name change when the article is unfrozen.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am getting a weird sense of having heard this before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that.Jarhed (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Titling this article with -gate is a fine example of flagellating the equine carcass. Per accepted Wikipedia naming conventions on neutrality and NPOV, linked to in many places on this talk page I'm sure, it just isn't going to happen. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt, I recognise that the consensus is that this article will not be called "Climategate", I am not suggesting the article be named that. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what are you suggesting? Even though you posted the same thing twice, I still don't know what your intention is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the closing assessment made of the discussion as to whether there could be both a "Climategate scandal" article and this article the recommendation was (1) that the former be deleted and (2) the name the latter (i.e. *this*) article be changed. I think the suggested name was a reasonable compromise, and I intend to implement that name change when the article is unfrozen. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think posting the same cryptic message three times is deliberately disruptive. I have requested a clarification, and I do so again. What title specifically are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To the title recommended in the ruling you welcomed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which was what? Spit it out, man! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any title change should reflect consensus at the RM for this page. If we can build consensus for a move, it should be moved.  Until such time, any attempt to short-circuit the discussion would be disruptive.  Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Rd232's AFD close, obviously any opinion he expressed on a page move was just his opinion, not a part of his close. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I didn't express an opinion. My AFD close said "Appropriate followup to issues of titling and article content/focus of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident would be at... drum roll...Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Possibly using appropriate dispute resolution, most obviously Request for Comments." The only recommendation is to discuss here and to use appropriate dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 17:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS FYI, both Climategate scandal and Climategate controversy now redirect here. Rd232 talk 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (after ec) - My point exactly. User:Psb777's repetition of the same paragraph didn't shed any light on what title he was talking about. In fact, I still don't know. Another thread of wasted time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that there are editors on this article that are not willing to come to any reasonable common ground and that insist on pushing a POV agenda. I have seen this happen before. One side will just keep up the contentiousness until the other side goes away in disgust. I am curious to see which side wins.Jarhed (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agenda-driven editors are unlikely to be able to oust neutral Wikipedians, because ultimately there are more of us. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we will win in the long run, but in the meantime we all look like idiots running around in circles.Jarhed (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this helpful? Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Scjessey and I was not trying to be helpful. It was a lament.Jarhed (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)