Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 9

Small earthquake on "Reactions"
I've renamed a couple of the subsections of "Reactions" to sharpen the focus to expert commentary (there is much uninformed commentary and we'd do well to ignore it). I've also moved the newspaper section to the bottom and renamed it "Miscellaneous media". Frankly given the patchiness of the contents I'd rather we did away with it altogether and reassigned any useful material from there to other subsections.

The media coverage of this affair has not been particularly good, and we've done a far better job of covering it ourselves. I don't think we should highlight the media coverage per se. --TS 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Msm (mainstream media) hasn't done a good job of appropriately covering the subject. But wikipedia, which is comprised of the educated masses, has done a much better (still not perfect...but much better) job of covering the subject. Give wikipedia a pat on the back, they deserve it=D.Smallman12q (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that pat on the back, and raise you an ice-cold beer! Chilled in one of those vanishing glaciers, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes we forget this in the hurly burly of editing and discussion: we're producing a really good reference work and it is much appreciated. --TS 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian Hackers
Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is not qualified to give an expert opinion on the hackers' identity, nor is he in a position to have personal knowledge of the event. Moreover, he doesn't even pretend to give an expert opinion; it's just rampant speculation. Even more ridiculous, his speculation that the hackers were Russian adds NOTHING to this article. What difference does it make if the hackers are Russian? Presumably it must be a matter of some importance to warrant the inclusion of speculation that is far more prejudicial than probative. Drolz09 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ypersele is Vice Chairman of the IPCC. As such, his opinion should go into the article.  His opinion on this matter--expert or not--tells us something about the thinking of the scientific authorities about this matter. --TS 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when are "scientific authorities" polled on criminal activity? And again, what bearing does the nationality of the hackers have on the debate? Drolz09 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When it's a criminal matter that targets the scientific community. Much like when labs or homes of academics are targeted by animal rights activists.  Guettarda (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, based on the idea that they have some insight into why they were targeted, as in "do you know anyone who might have something against you?" In this case, he blames paid Russian hackers, with no possible foundation.  We already know the emails were hacked in order to make CRU look bad anyway.  There's just no reason for this comment. Drolz09 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source makes it plain that Ypersele's claim is not without foundation, though it is of course speculation, as we make it plain that the hackers have not yet been identified. --TS 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, what if they are Russian? Does that somehow change the debate?  It's one thing to include a fact like this if it becomes a fact, there's no justification for the speculation. Drolz09 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. So far, it is 4-1 for inclusion, so you need to focus more on persuading people to take your view, and less on reverts against consensus. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You people are obsessed with consensuses. It's 4-2. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope so. Thanks for the compliment.  Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is not a professional in the computer security arena. He is just a climatologist. It is very strange to see how people who are (for a good reason) fighting against including quotes on climatology from statements by people unrelated to the field, turn around and fight for an inclusion of a completely non-professional statement into an article. Delete it. Computer security is just as complex a field as climatology. Dimawik (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Van Ypersele is vice chair of the IPCC, the IPCC is the organisation that is the first, primary consumer of all the research that CRU does. It was the CRU that got hacked. This is going up the food-chain, to people whose job it is to find out what's going on here. Their views are based on an informed top-level overview. This is not comparable with the views of the CEO of some security company that didn't get the job of investigating the hack (as we had until a few days ago) or the views of other people who would have liked, but never did get, a job at CRU etc. (as a lot of the other noise here is based on) --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A statement from Ypersele on this subject at this stage is important. There's no way it's going to be removed from the article.  Arguing that Ypersele isn't an expert in field X or Y is missing the point that he is an expert in the opinion of the IPCC at this stage. --TS 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very serious problem with the sourcing policy in this article. What is going on is basically analogous to treating the Nixon administration as the only reliable, official source in Watergate.  Even though none of you believe that the data actually reveal fraudulent activity in the climate science community, you can't possibly prove their innocence by treating them as unimpeachable official sources and experts. Drolz09 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The analogy doesn't apply. You're treating the entire scientific community as a single, monolithic entity, which is patently not the case. You're also treating this purely as a political rather than scientific issue. Your argument is essentially that of the most extreme anti-science activists, i.e. that because a few scientists have been accused of (completely unproven) wrongdoing then the entire scientific profession is discredited. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, the Nixon analogy applies quite well. In this particular case, Ypersele represents IPCC, not the "scientific community". IPCC is in the very center of the scandal, just like the "Committee to Re-Elect the President" was in the Watergate. Dimawik (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means offer context, but it is bizarre to suggest Ypersele's remarks are not relevant. If his statements are speculation then he surely must have drawn some fire in the media. Track that down and you're set.Dduff442 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, he has a vested interest in CRU being cleared of wrongdoing. A reasonable person could conclude that he is not a completely reliable source on the matter. Also, there has still been no answer to the question of how the hackers' nationality is relevant in the first place. Drolz09 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I remarked earlier, Ypersele is a reliable source for the tenor of IPCC thinking at this stage. His opinion on the matter is relevant. --TS 09:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another great article from Monbiot
The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public is full of links to case studies, books and websites that show what we're up against here. The first half of that article is about this e-mail incident, then we have links to four case studies (US coal companies targeting specific socio-economic groups with sound-byte denialist quips they can use, Patrick Michaels getting paid 'lavishly', the Heartland Institute with its list of 500, and the Bush presidency working with oil companies). There are also books about it all (The Heat is On, Boiling Point and Heat) and websites devoted to the subject (http://DeSmogBlog.com and http://exxonsecrets.org). --Nigelj (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What we're up against on wikipedia is NPOV editing by people whose opinions have overcome their objectivity, not some crack team of exxonmobil spin doctors or outsourced meatpuppetry. For God's sake don't make it into more of an us vs. them than it has already become. Ignignot (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As encyclopedists, we're all opposed to attempts to misinform the public. --TS 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We're simply here to report back what reliable sources say about the subject without introducing bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting article, but does not provide much help in this story. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The NPOV issue is people frantically trying to exclude anything that suggests malfeasance on CRU's part, while trumping up the hack element of the story to detract from the issue people actually care about. Drolz09 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no proof of any malfeasance on CRU's part, but there is plenty of proof of the hacking incident. So I'm afraid you have the neutrality issue backward. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is the CONTROVERSY. A person who came to this page to understand what Climategate meant could reasonably conclude from it that Climategate is a scandal revolving around computer security, which is ludicrous.  Climategate is notable SOLELY because of what it does or does not reveal about the climatescience community. Drolz09 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with this point of view. There are two facets to the notability of the issue. In terms of newsworthiness, the issue of the scientific scandal is paramount though issues like who organised the hacking etc are very important. The criminal investigations etc are the other facet -- less prominently reported but more important in many ways in terms of the public record. Eds may conclude the emails don't undermine climate science and they may be correct, but the scandal is genuine as Monbiot very correctly points out.Dduff442 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are actually wrong there, Drolz09. This is a hacking incident and some reaction to it. If you are here to try to bring down the whole of global warming science (or the whole of science, etc), that will be why you are having so much trouble. The science has not changed - glaciers are still melting and people are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Luckily, world leaders are also still at Copenhagen trying to get agreement to do something about it, otherwise, as you were told above, billions of innocent people could die in the next 100 years or so. Try not to argue for the impossible. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're hobbled by our verifiability policy, our policy on biographies of living people and the fact that we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. It's a terrible burden.  Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nigelj has summed it up far more eloquently than I ever could. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, you can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century, but not that there is controversy over the content of the emails. Makes perfect sense. Drolz09 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can say with absolute accuracy that billions of people are certain to die in the next century, just as billions of people have died in the last century... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't think this immortality thing is going to pan out? Silly scientists and their incompetence at making such basic breakthroughs :-( Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Had a similar thought, but then realised it probably wouldn't help. See .  Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors: immune to context. Drolz09 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hans von Storchs comment and comparision with the German Forest die off hype is worth while a read. I think it should be inserted here. --Polentario (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What context? You're the one who said 'you can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century' which we can say with extremely great certainty would be yes. If you had wanted to say 'can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century due to climate change' you should have said so. Don't blame us because the question was inherently silly. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the merits, I would be inclined to reject this opinion piece by Monbiot because it doesn't fall into any category of expert commentary that I regard as acceptable for inclusion in this article. Everybody has an opinion in this matter, and Monbiot is just another man with an opinion. --TS 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, it seems a bit odd that we included one of his comments and not the other. Many insisted on including the first comment though, and perhaps one could say that was more influential? but I haven't investigated it closer. I'm not all that familiar with Monbiot to be honest, but as I've said before I think we should be able to motivate why someone is notable and relevant enough to have his/her opinion included. Right now he has his own section.
 * I have also argued for the removal of the other Monbiot comment (and have actually removed it at least once). He's a pundit, and the press is plagued by pundits. He doesn't bring any facts or expertise to the table, only his opinion. --TS 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about Wiki rules on this, but I'm a Monbiot fan. Expertise is the plague of the modern world. Monbiot is not afraid to do what any good barrister does: pick up a brief in short time and make a good job of it. He argues the facts and I admire his intellectual courage in weighing into debates in widely different fields. Yeah he's a pundit, but he's a specialist pundit. I only admire a tiny handful of journos in the world and he is one. Point me to places his courage lead him into error and I might revise my opinion. My 1c (there's a sale on).Dduff442 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hack Unproven
See FAQ Q5. We report the facts from reliable sources.

The simple fact is that there is currently no proof a hack occurred. I didn't bring this up before because I always assumed that one had. However, it looks increasingly likely that this is not the case. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/ This is a professional sysadmin's opinion on the issue, and he believes that the structure of the file makes a hack very unlikely. I don't claim that this is probative by any means, but the salient fact is that no hack has been proven. In absence of proof, this article should not state explicitly that a hack occurred. At most, it should note the investigation. Drolz (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 07:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The blog doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Most news use words such as hack, stolen or theft. Some news articles have even had details on the hack actually, but since there is an ongoing investigation it's still a bit thin...
 * See this link. Drolz09 & Co.  are pushing Conservapedia talking points (they call them "takeaways") in contravention of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. So, if a conservative believes something, it can't possibly be accurate. I never heard of "Conservapedia" before now. Regardless, my point here speaks for itself. Drolz (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just keep open ears about this. Some editors would like to close out this discussion, but the topic keeps coming back up, even redundantly in multiple concurrent discussion topics.  Drolz09's cited source might seem outside credibility b/c of the domain name and barebones page formatting, but the information is quite good - the author's expertise in unix server administration speaks for itself (I'm qualifying the source from my own professional experience).  It's far more qualitative than any press releases from the MSM that I've seen so far.  So even though a lot of news reports are claiming hack/theft, their information isn't justified by any actual analysis. Static623 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I didn't intend to use the article as probative evidence. The relevant fact is that there is no proof a hack occurred, or even reliable evidence indicating that one probably occurred. You guys are maniacal about source quality whenever someone posts something that you don't like, but you're happy to rattle on about this hack for which you have no evidence. The most you can say is that CRU claims they were hacked, and that news outlets have reported this claim. Drolz (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have heard it was a leak by a whistleblower...in that case, the term stolen does not apply. Zooktan (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * — Zooktan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user created their account at approximately 07:57, seven minutes before posting this message.

Michael McKenna?
Does anyone else think that mentioning the views of Michael McKenna a redlink and some random lobbyist is unnecessary even if it was mentioned in the New York Times? How about we remove the McKenna quote, and put the Daily Telegraph and NYT part in the same paragraph? If we do want to take something from the NYT article, Lawrence Rothenberg unfortunately also a redlink but at least "an environmental politics expert at the University of Rochester" would probably be a better person to quote (in the expert section I guess). Rothenberg is also quote much more extensively in the NYT article then McKenna (who's only quoted twice). The best quote would probably be ""This will help confuse or muddle the debate in ways that the public then says, 'I don't really know, I'm not sure". There's also Joseph J. Romm but while some of his points are interesting they're not that directly related to the incident. Some may feel this removes any view from the other side, something I'm not unsympathetic too but if we do want to have something, can't we find a better example then some random lobbyist? Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing the entire "Miscellaneous media" section because it is prone to random additions like this. The media coverage itself, including opinions by paid lobbyists, shouldn't really become part of the story in an affair like this (unlike, say, events such as the George W. Bush military service controversy where the media coverage did become a highly significant part of the story.) --TS 10:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in the end, if it turns out this was planned to cause confusion and distrust before the Copenhagen summit, then the media coverage might be a major part. But we will probably have to wait before we know more about that.

Removing "e-mail" from the title
I think there is general agreement that not only e-mail was involved in this issue, but my previous suggestion got buried under other title discussions. I think we should remove email from the name of the article, and change the first line to match. Thoughts? (please, please, don't bring up hacking vs not hacking! get your own section) Ignignot (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed here.Dduff442 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat my earlier expression of agreement to the suggestion of changing it to something like "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." --TS 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd submit that the word "hacking" might even be presumptuous, as there is speculation it may have been leaked. "Climatic Research Unit data exposure" or something like that seems pretty neutral to me. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter for weight of reliable sources again. I have to admit that when I Google for this, I find something like 'CRU e-mail' usually gets me quickly into the right area. I think the media have, so far, focussed on the e-mails - it is what defines this incident in a great many reports. TS's proposal just sounds a little vague to me, putting all the emphasis on the hacking, and none on the subject of most media discussion. I propose we keep the existing title for the time being. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In deference to Ignignot's request, we should try and keep the hacking and email issues distinct.Dduff442 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with nixing the word "e-mail" if removing the reference to hacking as well is too controversial. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can stay with the current title too, as Nigelj's comment that "the media have, so far, focussed on the e-mails" has a lot of truth. It's not just the media: the expert commentaries have all focussed heavily on the emails.  --TS 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is at least one exception to that - many of the articles reference HARRY_READ_ME.txt Ignignot (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting suggestion. So far I've only encountered the reference here, on Wikipedia, and I have read the document and am a programmer of some several decades experience, much of it with Fortran and much of it with the entire spectrum of languages from assembler to Lisp. If we're missing a commentary on that document from a reliable source, I've not been made aware of it--indeed most on-wiki references have been in the form of innuendo from people who, it seems to me, wouldn't know a Fortran program from a shellscript.


 * But if there are reliable sources, let's see them. --TS 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Harry, whoever he may be, comes off as the most sympathetic figure in the pilfered computer annals of East Anglia University, the British keeper of global temperature records. While Harry’s log shows him worrying about the integrity of the database, the climate scientists are e-mailing one another with strategies for blocking outsiders’ legal requests to see their data." NYT (not blog) He is explicitly talking about the text file.  Ignignot (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone, and I mean everyone, is calling this climategate, and with the latest revelations proving that there are serious problems with the data these events aren't going to fade into history. The article name is doing a lot of harm to wikipedia because it looks like a mouthpiece for those involved in the events rather than a NPOV encyclopaedia. What is more, the hack is clearly POV and clearly unsupported because it now looks increasingly likely the information was gathered internally and then released rather than "hacked"., so change it to whatever you like, because the neutrality of wikipedia will be judged by whether it is given the name everyone knows it by or the one the "climategate gang" would prefer it to be known by. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: the second link, I don't believe it's disputed the file (or a similar file that was maybe edited after compilation) was compiled within the CRU. CRU compiled the information for FOIA purposes -- that fact has no bearing on whether the affair resulted from an internal leak or the result of hacking, however.
 * With complex issues like this, progress becomes impossible if the different strands are permitted to run one into the other. It would help to try to make remarks in the most appropriate segment of the page.Dduff442 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Picking up on Tony's suggestion, and Gigs observation, what about "Climatic Research Unit data incident" ? (If specific charges are filed against hackers in the future, I'll go on record as supporting a change to Tony's suggestion.)-- SPhilbrick  T  16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, AFAIK, one thig that wasn't hacked was the data, i.e. the climate data. So that just muddies the water, I think. (yes I know e-mails and source code and other docs are data too, it's just that the word already has an important meaning 'round here) --Nigelj (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You think people will see data and assume it means temperature data? "Data" is a nice, neutral term, encompassing the emails, the programs, the Word docs and whatever else was in there. and I don't believe anyone think a reference to data means every scrap of data. Good grief, we have an enormously misleading title at the moment. Let's come up with an improvement. It was an incident, it did involve data, and it did happen at the CRU. People will not be mislead, as they are by the current title.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion of "CRU data exposure" doesn't have that issue. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this suggestion does not have consensus, somehow. Ignignot (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for derailing it. I suggest that there may indeed be consensus to remove email from the title... after all, it's factually incorrect! Gigs (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Saudi negotiator
I've removed the following qualification from a citation of the opinion of the Saudi negotiator: "who has demanded that wealthy nations pay compensation to oil producers if oil consumption is cut to combat global warming".

Mohammad Al-Sabban's main qualification on this issue is that he been chosen to represent his country at Copenhagen. His statements may well reflect his personal opinion, but on this matter he is stating a political position that can be attributed to his country. --TS 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If he's stating a country's position, shouldn't your edit have changed "who" to "which", so as to refer to the country rather than the speaker? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hack Discussion Not Finished
"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." This is not proof that a hack occurred. There is no proof that a hack occurred until someone is convicted of hacking, or at the very least, the police say "So and So hacked CRU." What the police say here means: "Data got out when it wasn't supposed to, and we are investigating." It does not preclude that data having been leaked by an insider, or even confirm that any criminal activity took place. Drolz (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are speculating. Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. --TS 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not speculating because I am not drawing a conclusion. YOU are speculating by assuming that a hack occurred without proof.  I am saying that we don't know whether or not a hack occurred, which is manifestly true. Drolz (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point is that we cannot say that a hack occured until someone is convicted, but you have no problem with saying that an insider leaked the information. I think you have it the wrong way round.  The Four Deuces (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At no point did I say that. I am saying that you cannot say either.  You can say that data got out where they didn't belong, because that has been factually established.  The absolute bottom line is that there is no WP:RS source for the claim that a hack occurred.  The most you can say is that an investigation is ongoing, but I think even that is very dubious, except as mentioned in passing.  It certainly should not be a huge part of the article as it is now. Drolz (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz, you say "there is no WP:RS source for the claim that a hack occurred". This is categorically false.  Both UEA and RealClimate have reported hacking incidents directly associated with this incident.  Those who say it could be something else are speculating.  They have absolutely no evidence. --TS 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an RS for the claim that a hack occurred. Drolz (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The police are investigating. The statement is reliable.  If the known facts change, we will report the changed facts. --TS 08:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The police are investigating" =/= "The police confirm that a hack occurred and are investigating." Drolz (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since reliable sources overwhelmingly speak of a hack, that is how we refer to it. The UEA is after all in a position to state definitively what happened, since it owns the server that was hacked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Given that they have a vested interest in the outcome of this controversy, they are not a reliable source. 2. Determining whether a hack occurred is a matter that requires expertise, and it is not clear that they performed any investigation which would conclusively rule out other explanations for the breach. 3. Reliable sources are speaking of an alleged hack, which is exactly what we should be doing. There's just no justification for the categorical claim that a hack occurred when neutral language better fits the confirmed facts and really doesn't take anything away from the article anyway. Drolz (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:BOLLOCKS. 2. They have stated explicitly that their systems were breached. 3. "Alleged" is a weasel word; there is no significant dispute that a hack occurred. And as for your "neutral language", I noticed that you also attempted to delete references to the files being stolen, a fact about which there is no dispute since the UEA is the owner of the files and the only party competent to comment on their status. You're blatantly POV-pushing. This has all been discussed before and you have no consensus whatsoever for such sweeping, unsourced changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An interested party claiming that they were hacked does not constitute proof. It is absurd for you to jump to the conclusion that they were hacked and furiously remove neutral language that accurately states they claimed as much, while concurrently injecting massive rebuttals into the debate over whether the emails reveal fraud. You are turning this article into CRU press release. It's absolutely deranged that you call me POV while you do it. Drolz (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, I do not agree with you when you say there is no significant dispute about whether or not the files were hacked. Insisting the files were definitively hacked is premature as has been acknowledged several times. Static623 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one RS making preliminary suggestions that it may have been a leak: "In the UK a police investigation is underway to uncover how the material was hacked or leaked" . Very preliminary, but worth keeping an eye on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The UEA has said definitively that the files were not accidentally released. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Interestingly that article also speculates that it might have been a leak (by which they seem to mean a deliberate release by an insider).  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The key word there is speculates. Anyone can speculate; let's stick to the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, as long as we recall that facts are defined here as the balance of what reliable sources say. My point is simply that we have between us turned up two RS articles indicating that it may have been a leak rather than a hack.  This remains a minority position, but if we find many more it will become a significant minority view that should be incorporated in some way.  Recall also that statements by the UEA are primary sources and cannot be considered definitive, although it is no doubt useful to include them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we ever get a reliable source indicating strong evidence for an accidental leak or an act of whistleblowing, then we discuss the weight to give. Until then, it's a hacking incident.  In fact the evidence for hacking has grown since the article was started.  We have credible evidence for two illegal hacking acts, and absolutely no (zero, nada) evidence to justify speculation that there was no hacking. --TS 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is pure POV pushing and you should know it! It is not a hacking incident, it is at best an alledged hacking incident, alledged by people who from the emails and the bogus Russian state connection are clearly highly paranoic and obviously don't have the first clue about computer security, (I probably have to spell that out: in the unlikely event it was a hack - who let the hack happen?) so you can't even claim they are experts on the subject, the only article I seen by anyone with any right to claim expertise suggests it is very very credible that it was intentionally released from inside - but as this article seems to be written by the climategate gang themselves I'm not going to waste my time finding the link because it is a waste of time! 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a person reading this article would have absolutely no clue that the hacking was not a 100% verified fact. There is no justification for treating it as though it were except that a hack supports your POV. You have a source claiming that they were hacked, and you have police saying they've investigating a security breach. Going from that to the categorical tone of the article is personal research. Drolz (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jonathan's link comes from the Guardian, which is speculating that it could be either way. I think some of the editors are being too selective of which sources they're willing to listen to.Static623 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Selective? You mean like avoiding the use of creationist sources in an article about evolution?  At what point does balance become unbalanced?  Does balance mean giving equal time to both sides, even when the other side is irrelevant? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using climate scientists as unimpeachable sources in an article about an event that is notable chiefly because it casts doubt on the reliability of climate scientists. If your intent is to prove that this doubt is unjustified, then you need to find external sources. In any event this is irrelevant to the question at hand--even if they weren't under suspicion, the claim that they were hacked does not prove that that is the case. Your insistence on writing the article as though it were categorically true that a hack occurred is undisguised POV. If the relative strength of evidence for a hack and a leak were reversed, and someone edited the article to say "a leak occurred at CRU..." you would scream bloody murder. (Kind of like you do when I edit the article to be NPOV, except that you would be right.) The level of bias that you are injecting into this article without even (as far as I can tell) being aware of it, is unbelievable. Drolz (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We're using the Norfolk Constabulary, RealClimate and the University of East Anglia as reliable sources for the hacking. All three have made factual statements, not statements of opinion.  There is no reason to doubt their veracity and, so far, absolutely no evidence to support the speculation about an accidental or unauthorized release by insiders.
 * Finally, please stop making ad hominem attacks and insinuations of bad faith. --TS 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The police said they are investigating a security breach. I've submitted this for commentary where I expect your POV will be very obvious to many. Drolz (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful to do a survey of reliable source wording? I know I've seen many that use words like hacking and theft without caveat, but I've seen other that take a more responsible attitude and caveat with alleged or other wording. My guess is that more sources take the easy route and just assume it was illegal, than those that are being more careful. It isn't clear to me what one would do if one had numbers. Obviously, 100% on either side is a clear discussion, but if 75% used no caveats, and 25% used a caveat, I would think we ought to err on the side of caution, until more proof comes out. If the consensus of this group is that anything over 50% would allow the stronger term, I'd say that thinking is flawed, but I wouldn't bother doing the survey.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The police are calling this "criminal offences" and they're reliable on this matter. Even if 98% of all press articles said "possible criminal offences" would it count for nothing that the police, who are pretty hot on this kind of nuance, said "criminal offences"? I think not. The press only report what they're told.  The police can compel disclosure by force of law. --TS 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd just like to pick up on the UEA as a reliable source. UEA is not "climate scientists" - the university has many schools and faculties other than the CRU. It would be very strange if we did not treat the official statements of a UK university as reliable. And UEA as a whole is not really a party in this, CRU is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you view the UEA and the police as primary or secondary sources? Andjam (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue, as the UEA's and the police's statements have been reported as fact by secondary sources. --TS 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Timothy F. Ball

 * Tim Ball

Tim Ball

Organisations: Friends_of_Science and Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project


 * Friends of Science

From: Friends_of_Science

''Friends of Science claims that they do not receive any direct funding from petroleum or related companies although the now retired CEO of Talisman provided initial funding for the video. Proponents of anthropogenic climate warming have criticized the Friends of Science as an Astroturfing organization[4][5] with close links to the oil and gas industry.[6] Their funding sources are unclear; Canadian Member of Parliament (MP) John Godfrey, a Liberal who represented the Toronto riding of Don Valley West, had said in 2006, "Financial links between the petroleum industry and climate change skeptic groups in the United States are well documented... We need more transparency about who is behind this campaign in Canada."[7] The Friends of Science say their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from “big oil”. ''


 * Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project

From Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project

The NRSP has been criticised on the basis that it is an industry-funded body which presents itself as a grassroots organization, an activity referred as Astroturfing.[1] [2] Harris rejected this criticism but refused to reveal the sources of NRSP funding.


 * Conclusion

This is why I wanted to establish a precedent with Myron Ebell. Ball *does* have some notability in the climate science field (see his wiki page) but he's a murky and dubious source. Dduff442 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Why does it matter where the funding comes from? If they have the credentials (which Dr. Tim Ball does) then their funding source is irrelevant. You AGW activists just want to use scientists belonging to various government science organizations such as the UN because they (surprise!) support more funding for more research grants into this AGW doomsday premise.JettaMann (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you please stop referring to fellow editors as "AGW activists" immediately. Assume good faith and learn some civility, or you will almost certainly be blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't refer to fellow editors as AGW activists, only those who are AGW activists.JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How classy of you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue was covered in detail in the case of Myron Ebell. The relevant policy relates to  information suppression: "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value" violates NPOV. Dduff442 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard Lindzen on Climategate would be a great addition to the Reactions section of this article:
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
 * He has impeccable credentials from MIT. Is everyone in agreement on this, or are we going to violate Wikipedia standards some more and continue this gate-keeping practice of only allowing "reactions" from people who already supported AGW?JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe scientist covered by Murdoch Street Journal. Nope. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! Oh my, how shocking that yet another AGW activist only wants to see sources quoted from other AGW supporters. Color me surprised! Tell me, what is this magical formula that allows someone to be quoted in this article? You keep saying they need to be scientists, yet these two men are clearly climate scientists. But on the other hand, lots of non-scientists are quoted so long as they support AGW. Funny how that works, isn't it? You are clearly violating Wikipedia's rule of Gatekeeping an article. Stop it or I will report you and you will face penalties from Wikipedia admins.JettaMann (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "magical formula" is easy to understand. Ask me if it is okay. If I say no, it isn't. If you cannot get hold of me, ask one of my fellow leftist cabal members. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous citations and readability
Here's what part of the lead section looks like now:
 * Blah blah blah lorem ipsum [10][11][12][13] and blah blah blah again [1][10][14][11][15]

(I've modified the words slightly to enable us to focus on a non-verbal issue)

The problem here is that we're massively overciting parts of the lead section, and there's no need for that. More to the point, we're making the lead section of the article harder to follow.

Could we reach an agreement that no more than, say, two citations are required for any fact? If we have just one reliable source, surely that would be enough, but two is okay. --TS 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically if the WP:LEDE section is simply a summary of the article as it should be, there's limited need for citations anyway. Try taking a peek at some random FA and see for example Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, "citationitis" is an indication that there is stuff in the lede that probably shouldn't be in there. Reading it through again, it seems a wee bit too detailed and specific in some areas. Perhaps we might be able to simplify the lede a little bit more so that we can cut down on the number of cited references? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken out one source that pre-dated the incident by months and didn't belong in the article in the first place. I'd suggest that we look at the sources and see if they really need to be cited or if they are just redundant. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I like ScJessey's idea.

Suggested rewrite:
 * The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is a data breach at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia which has resulted in much public debate, criminal investigations related to the breach and to death threats received by some writers of the released documents, and to investigations of alleged scientific misconduct.

How's that? Captures the facts in a way that is hard to argue with. --TS 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't say that the incident "resulted in" death threats against the scientists. You have no basis for the claim that they would not have happened anyway. Drolz (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we can, since the threatened scientists were those named in the e-mails, the threats followed the publication of the e-mails, and the cited sources draw a direct link. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is blatant original research. You are synthesizing a report that death threats mentioned the scientists into a totally original claim that there is a direct causal link between the two events. Drolz (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote: "the cited sources draw a direct link." That's not OR. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondly, Climategate needs to be included in the lead, if for no other reason than that people know what this article is about. Drolz (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good Tony, though I think it might be useful to mention "climategate" somewhere. Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reject It appears to be yet another attempt to bypass WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Barebones summary of the two primary issues without including any POV or slant.
 * The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ("Climategate") is a controversy surrounding computer files stolen from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Debate over allegations that the files show evidence of scientific misconduct, and criminal investigation of the security breach are ongoing. Drolz (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some mention of the blowback against deniers is in order, IMO. The reaction to the attack on science has been marked as well. The event has caused some to speak of an orchestrated campaign against climate scientists or words to that effect. Agree about the clutter of cites.Dduff442 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is covered in "Debate over allegations." The sentence takes no position on whether allegations are correct, and it's not necessary to go into specifics in the lead. Drolz (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ("Climategate") is a controversy surrounding computer files stolen from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Debate provoked by allegations that the files show evidence of scientific misconduct, and criminal investigation of the security breach are ongoing.
 * That makes it so that the debate isn't just about the truth of the allegations, but other ensuing complications. Drolz (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel quite strongly that the perception of an attack on science belongs in the lede. If my PC was hacked, the police wouldn't launch a major investigation -- their interest in the CRU case is precisely because of the significance of CRU's research. The alleged attack on science is of great significance; see the Monbiot article linked to on this page for the claims of an orchestrated campaign. The hacking merely extends the front lines in a war that's been going on for years. Dduff442 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "criminal investigation of the security breach" is more than sufficient for the time being, especially considering that there is no evidence that the death threats are part of a coordinated attack "on science." The death threats are already tangential to the thrust of the controversy. If they are included in the lead then the opposing claim that corrupt science has been going on for years etc. has just as much right to be there. It's better that in the quick summary, neither of them are. Drolz (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion veered off the original topic, but in any case as discussed I've gone ahead and trimmed the massively redundant use of citation from the lead section. I hope that makes it easier to read. We do need to improve the content of the lead, though. --TS 08:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it went "off topic," unless by "off topic," you mean "proposed an alternative to the sentence I would like to use." Drolz (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood my words. I myself was one of those instrumental in driving the topic away from the original subject of superfluous citations in the lead.  I've no complaints about the discussion that followed, just providing an explanation for anybody wondering why I pop in the middle of it to make an apparently unrelated comment. --TS 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pew Center analysis
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has issued a detailed analysis of the stolen e-mails: This might be worth mining as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help but note that Pew's writeup draws very heavily on our own Scientific opinion on climate change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. But it is properly attributed (see last page). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It points out the reach of Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, finally, a full circle. Wikipedia will quote Wikipedia under a guise of an RS? Dimawik (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's long been recognized a potential problem. See WP:CIRCULAR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Request additional SPI
Since protection was lifted from the talk page, we have a brand new set of SPA running around, violating policies and edit warring. I suggest that a new list be made from the most recent archives and current talk page and submitted as evidence to the scibaby archival page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible additions to the article ??
As I offered, I've put together a list of material that could improve the article (although I didn't put it in a table format). Feel free to add your comments concerning these proposals sections:

The article talks twice about Freedom of Information Request concerns, but there is no email quoted. Here are some e-mail quotes:
 * FOIA


 * ""The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone ... We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."


 * "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."


 * More on Climate Research


 * "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!


 * "So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

See here.
 * The Nature editorial Yes check.svg Resolved

Perhaps something from polls. I find this interesting.
 * Something about public perception

—Apis (talk ) 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely. "
 * I agree something about public perception might be interesting but I'm not convinced about the poll. I think it was to early to make such a poll in order to see what effect the e-mails/files will have on public opinion. And I find such polls a bit dubious to be honest, they are often biased, and it's really hard to draw correct conclusions from them. It's also a bit U.S. centric.

There are also a lot of the files in the package, and a few of these have received some attention.
 * Something about the other files

It seems to me that since the protection was lifted, we've had several "this is the most awful act in the world - whoever did this was a terrorist" reactions added to the article, exclusively. We should either trim those down or add some different views.
 * Remove some of the reactions

Anything else? Madman (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason those negative reactions have been added to the article is that quite a number of very prominent scientists have independently made such comments. We don't trim them, obviously, though we might trim a similar comment from a lab worker or an associate professor. --TS 07:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of 'incident' articles have photos of the key players and locations. Would it be worth adding corresponding ones to this article, when they are available? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pictures Yes check.svg Resolved
 * That would be a tricky one. We don't yet know who the hackers are so a photograph of them would be difficult to procure.  Photographs of those who wrote the emails might look like a "rogue's gallery" and thus trigger BLP concerns.


 * Somebody stuck up a picture of a building at the University of East Anglia at an early stage, though I'm not sure whether the work done in that building was related to the Climatic Research Unit. Perhaps an appropriate picture of a building might work. --TS 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The image wasn't of the CRU's building. I've been trying to get hold of a suitable image, but no luck so far. If the weather stays fair at the weekend I might simply go up to Norwich and take some pics myself. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For now, I'm trying out the skyline image from the Norwich article. It shows the location of the university in the distance.  --TS 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to the Nature editorial to the Media subsection. --TS 10:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 10:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to insert a summary of the Nature ed. but I think your version is a little better, thanks. The picture is also nice imo. :)

I added one of the FOIA references in chronological order (as looked to be the standard) and also added mention of your linked poll to the "Public opinion" section of the Climate change consensus article.jheiv (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some more...

 * A long and good article that has already pointed out here.
 * Also this press conference by M. Mann, G. Schmidt & M. Oppenheimer (with Joseph Romm & Suzi Emmerling) has pointed out here before. Full transcript of the press conference at CPA site (if RS): http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2009/12/av/scientistscalltranscript.pdf (Questions by NYT, National Review, CBS, NTR... about Climate Research, JGR letters, peer-review, email deleting, public confidence & tranparency, no chances in scientific picture etc etc.)

Not sure of the relevance of the next ones, but anyway: --J. Sketter (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An editorial published 7.12. by 56 newspapers around the world. "The controversy over e-mails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based."
 * "The editorial mentions the recent row over leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit which climate sceptics allege show scientists manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming. But while acknowledging that the controversy has "muddied the waters", it said it ultimately failed to dent the mass of climate change evidence." UKPA
 * And fyi WSJ's rather mocking writing about the release: ''"
 * Good, but old :( Reuters collection of assesments from both sides regarding the impact of the incident: ANALYSIS-Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer, Reuters 23.11.2009
 * Thanks for this. Gigs (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists
In the "Scientific organizations" section, there was a statement by the UCS, which has many lay members and it's a science advocacy group rather than a professional science organization. While they're entitled to their opinion and their words will surely be welcomed by many scientists, they're not really in the same business as the others.

I've tended to argue that we should avoid quoting pundits and advocates, and so I don't feel comfortable arguing that this should go elsewhere in the article. I've just removed it altogether. --TS 06:39, 10 December 2009 UTC
 * Agreed. UCS is a very political group. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. -- SPhilbrick  T  19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 8 July 2004 - "MM" issue
The email quote for this section says: "The other paper by MM [Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre] is just garbage...", then the here's-what-they-say about it says: "Both papers mentioned in this email—Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004)—were cited and discussed". If the MM were McIntyre/McKitrick, then the publication of McKitrick and Michaels wouldn't be responsive. However, the bracketed "[Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre]" didn't appear in the original email, doesn't appear in the cited source, and it's not clear where it came from. I'm inclined to just delete it... --Blogjack (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. My vote on just putting what the email actually says. Macai (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, somebody obviously got the M&Ms mixed up. --TS 06:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, take out the "[Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre]". Guettarda (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary versus secondary sources
Does everyone understand what the difference is between primary and secondary sources? If not, we might be talking at cross-purposes. Andjam (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a section on Wikipedia's usage of these terms at WP:PRIMARY, which is part of the No original research policy. --TS 14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reaction by John Daly's widow
There's an article on the reaction by John Daly's widow to Phil Jones' schadenfreude here. (Note that this is a Tasmanian paper, not the user-generated content examiner.com) Andjam (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
This looks interesting:-

"It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. [...] Yes, there have been cases of misbehaviour and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehaviour of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community. [...] The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. ..."

Perhaps this deserves an entry into the article?Isonomia (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While Petr Chylek's credentials are not in question, it would not be unreasonable to say that his motives might be. The statement does not seem to "have the pulse" of the community as a whole. Few in the field are using strongly-worded language like "betrayed" with respect to this incident. I am concerned that we are too quick to quote various individuals (on both sides of the debate) before the scope of the incident has been fully understood. There's an awful lot of recentism going on here. Even if this letter were to be quoted, it would be better if that quote came from a secondary source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it's kinda "guilt by association", but have you looked at the main page of that site? Anyone who uses a graph like that isn't a good-faith participant in the discussion.  Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, we can afford to sit back and see if this has much of an impact. Entering a single opinion which at this time is an outlier may unbalance the article. --TS 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm making these comments here in a general sense because I agree about the need for Chylek's remarks to be drawn from a secondary source; this offered me the opportunity to comment in a general way without getting into individual cases.


 * I think the point has been reached where attempts to minimise the scale of the controversy merely undermine the discipline further.


 * A question that needs to be asked is why the deniers seem to be gaining more traction with time. Misinformation has been a feature of every topic of political significance since the dawn of time, so that's not new. IIRC, the original 'big' was 'Big Tobacco', which pumped out propaganda for decades but still lost the argument.


 * The deniers' tactics aren't new, so why do they seem to be having more success than the Tobacco companies? Why are (some) climate change sceptics respectable commentators while nobody would touch a lung-cancer sceptic with a barge pole? IMO, the difference lies in the credibility of their opponents. Lung cancer researchers' integrity was never seriously cast into question.


 * Efforts to put a brave face on matters are counter-productive. Those with impeccable AGW credentials (Von Storch etc) who nonetheless have levelled serious criticism at their own discipline have done it the greatest service, IMO. Those who have engaged in well-intentioned propaganda have done the most harm.


 * Most people have neither knowledge of nor interest in scientific debates but do have a keen eye for dishonesty. When they hear a choir singing with one voice they get suspicious. That scattering of discordant voices from the back (Von S etc again) are the ones making the biggest contribution to quelling that suspicion IMO.


 * I would also caution AGW proponents here from maximising editorial influence at the expense of credibility in the eyes of the sceptics. It's possible to change people's minds but only by gaining trust.Dduff442 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I'm just trying to keep the article reasonably neutral until the results of the inquiry and the criminal investigations come in, at which point, we will actually have data to work on. ---TS 14:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not unreasonable to say that any scientists, however "impeccable" their credentials, who deny the evidence of AGW represent a fringe view. As such, their statements (and opinion derived from those statements) should not be afforded anything like the sort of weight than those of the mainstream view. To be frank, they fall into the same category as "Birthers" and their ilk. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of text
I just ask, what is the rationale to add this quote? It has been quoted by WSJ, but why? And with this I mean: is there any reason to include in article just random quotes from emails, if the RS hasn't connected any allegation/interpretation to them? --J. Sketter (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are widespread allegations that the scientists avoided their legal obligations under FOIA and otherwise demonstrated a lack of transparency. There's extensive discussion about adding more coverage of the FOIA/transparency issue above.  There seemed to be rough agreement that we do need to have context next to the quote, so feel free to add what people are saying about it in RS. Gigs (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can and should discuss it, but we can't simply throw up potentially damaging quotes without content. The email itself is the least important to include.  Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It fails WP:BLP.  This has been discussed.  I don't see any way that the bare quote is OK.  We can't imply wrongdoing, we can't throw up an ambiguous statement and "let the facts speak".  Not when we're talking about something that has the potential to damage the reputation of a living person - as this clearly has.  We can't throw up the bare quote and imply that Jones deleted the files, when reliable sources clearly say he did not.  We can report what reliable sources say about this issue, but we can't simply throw the quote out there.  Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, simply quoting the email without discussing it also fails WP:NFCC. The quote is not free content, and the only justification for using it is fair use.  It isn't fair use to share the quote without discussing it.  Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of editing methods

 * I added it back with a brief discussion of its significance in the controversy -- just because you don't like the material doesn't warrant it for exclusion. In fact that RS 'has' connnected allegations to the quote.  Guettarda, next time, instead of removing content, why not try to improve it?  It is now discussed (albeit briefly), and unless there is another issue it should be improved, rather than removed. jheiv (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to add more commentary as well. I agree we don't want the naked quote. Gigs (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gigs, and with regards to it "failing WP:BLP", this is a specious argument unless you reference a specific conflict with the guideline (which, as I'm sure you know) will have exceptions by definition. jheiv (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please work it out on the talk page, not in an edit war. Is there a consensus to add the quote at this time?  Which sources are being used to support it?  When in doubt, we default to exclusion. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm appalled by the continued removal of pertinent, reliably sourced, significant content with the excuse that it "violates WP:BLP". If only every addition to Wikipedia was this policed...  Here are some reliable sources --, , ,  -- do you need more? jheiv (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the past discussion? At the very least you could try addressing the concerns that have already been raised.  Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hint: This issue isn't whether the quote can be sourced. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, I was answering Viriditas' question: "Which sources are being used to support it?" -- please answer my question about specifying the conflict. jheiv (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [P]lease answer my question about specifying the conflict. If you've read the discussion, why don't you start by addressing the points that I raised? Guettarda (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apis O-tang, you just removed the content again. First of all, despite what you said in your edit summary the February 2 email has not been discussed thus far. Also and more importantly, please cite a specific conflict with WP:BLP or I will, again, add the content to the article. jheiv (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's false. This has been discussed at length.  There is certainly no consensus for its inclusion in this form.  Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) As Guettarda said, cherry-picking quotes from emails in order to imply Jones has committed a crime is not something we should do according to WP:BLP. Maybe we should mention more about the FOI allegations, but if we need to add this quote then there should be a context to motivate it. I suggest working out an acceptable wording here on talk, and then we include it. And please give others a chance to comment first. We are working on an encyclopaedia article, not news, so there is no need to hurry, better to be safe in this case. (And yes it's been discussed before many times.)
 * The news item currently being edit-warred (grrrrr!) in and out of the article actually comes from an opinion piece from an unnamed nobody that is circulating around California. I think it should be standard practice to exclude anything from an unknown source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and discussion

 * In fact, the opinion piece appears to come from MediaNews Group, although I am still unable to find the writer's name. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incredible. It is posted as a news story in the Vallejo Times-Herald, but is actually an editorial.  I've been around the block a few times, but I have never seen this level of deception at work in the media.  This is a first for me. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with an opinion piece. I added a source from MSNBC and Bloomberg that discusses that email and the official investigation, which revolves primarily around the FOIA/transparency issue!
 * "The university will also conduct an independent review, which will address data security, an assessment “of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests" (This article quotes the 2005 email as well, and talks about FOIA/Transparency)
 * "Sir Muir Russell ... Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data."   Gigs (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, could you (or Guettarda, or anyone) please provide the specific conflict you suggest warrants its removal? A conflict that cannot be overcome by its unquestionable importance and significance to the article? jheiv (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean other than the ones that have been discussed over the last two days? Why don't you start with those.  Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not I re-read everyone of your comments on this page -- I'll respond to those that I thought were relevant to this.
 * *"we report what reliable sources have to say about notable issues" -- I believe I did that with the inclusion of the intro regarding accusations of intentionally concealing data.
 * *"So you read the policy and still think that we can include cherry-picked material that is damaging to the subject, simply because we can reliably source it?" -- I disagree with this being "cherry picked" -- while it may be "cherry picked" in the case that it is one of many released the emails, it it not "cherry picked" in the case that it is some obscure fact. It is getting significant attention from RS as many editors have pointed out.  Using your logic, there would be nothing worthy of inclusion, as every event is "cherry picked" from the entirety of events over someone's lifetime -- admittedly taking it to the extreme, but should the election of President Obama be removed from his WP page because it is an event that was "cherry picked" from his life?  Given that the event was not arbitrarily "cherry picked" as you suggest, then the rest of the argument seems moot.
 * * "Let me reiterate Viriditas' point: reliable sources are essential." -- It would seem that I and other editors have provided more than enough, is this what you disagree with?
 * If I'm missing it, please be courteous enough to enumerate them, rather than have me search the page again for what you think applies to this discussion. jheiv (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the main point, but let's start with one of the points you raised:
 * I believe I did that with the inclusion of the intro regarding accusations of intentionally concealing data So you included the allegations of wrongdoing, but leave out the counterarguments presented in his defense. I think that creates problems of WP:NPOV, much less the far more conservative WP:BLP?  Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Email preface
Why does the Emails section have a preface that is meant to color our perceptions of the scale of this incident? It clearly looks like AGW apologists are trying to downplay the incident in an obviously POV way. I vote to remove the entire preface and just say something totally NPOV like "Some of the noteworthy comments found in the are listed below" or words to that effect. The AGW activists here on Wikipedia are clearly trying to spin this incident their way and have thrown the NPOV rule right out the window. JettaMann (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems factual and neutral to me. The bulk of the released emails were indeed mundane and not very controversial. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, factual and accurate. Just like the description of the Debeeers diamond mines says, "vast majority of contents are mundane, worthless rocks". Oh wait, it isn't described that way. Factual, accurate, and enormously misleading. Absolutely right, this preface is pure spin. The right approach is to write it neutrally.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: How did you surmise that? Did you go through all 1000 emails? I have them downloaded on my computer and was looking through them, and pretty much every email had a few things that jumped out at me. The hackers didn't upload all the emails, they selectively took emails that were somewhat implicating. Not every one is a neutron bomb of a revelation, however, like the kind the media picked up on. Many talked about funding, conferences, etc... All interesting stuff and slightly damning in their own way. JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "How did you surmise that? Did you go through all 1000 emails?" That's what just about all reliable sources who have commented on the matter appear to have said.  We can't "go through [them]" ourselves.  That isn't our role.  Well, of course we can, but we can't use that research in our article.  See WP:NOR.  Guettarda (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The other statements in the preface were also unreferenced, yet for some strange reason you don't seem to be objecting to them. ;) What we can do is link to some articles that contain the union set of quoted emails in order to determine how many have been heavily played in the media. Or perhaps there is an article that summarizes the statements that received multiple quotes in the media.JettaMann (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we can't do that. It's not acceptable, per policy.  This isn't about not being referenced, it's about falling afoul of our core policies.  Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh what a shocker! Of course you think that we can't go reporting actual numbers in a NPOV manner. It comes as no surprise to me that you want every facet of this article to be contaminated with your AGW activist spin. Please do tell what "core policy" is being violated by NPOV reporting on the actual numbers?JettaMann (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell you? I already did.  In my first comment.  Up there.  "See WP:NOR." Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, you are a laugh riot! Original research? How in the hell is "There were xx emails stolen..." easily verifiable. I think 1000 is what most are reporting. And then follow up with quotes that have been most used. How do we determine which email quoes were used? Easy, we add at least three references to each significant quote. That is a FAR CRY from original research. You know, it's hilarious to me how you AGW activists let all kinds of crap slide if it supports your side, yet even the simplest most basic facts are rejected because you don't like the facts. Pathetic. JettaMann (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, read the policy. You'll see that it clearly excludes just the kind of thing you're proposing.  Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read the entire section, it seems to be missing mention of the various emails which talk about how to hide from FOIA requests, and expressing a general concern about FOIA type requests. Including those would make the section more neutral, but the preface to it seems fine. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Gigs. You seem like you legitimately are interested in facts. I agree, that section misses out on many of the prominent quotes that were picked up by the media, so it looks like some of the AGW activists here are trying to suppress information. As for the preface to this section, I think what we could do is try to use less wiggle words like "vast majority" and "small number of emails". Instead, we should use specific words to summarize the contents of the emails, such as "There were xx emails. Of those, approximately xx of the emails received significant coverage in the media."JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find a reliable source for those numbers? Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. I haven't tried but it should be easy to identify the emails that get repeat play, and also identify an article that mentions the total number. JettaMann (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a reason I like to WP:NOR above. We need reliable sources.  We can't go out and do our own research into "how many emails get repeat play".  Seriously, it's important that you read that policy document.  Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's not original research. See above.JettaMann (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Read the policy.  Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did and there is no violation of it. Everything is referenced and factual, not a hint of original research.JettaMann (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Yeah, I removed that on Monday because it was simply a cherry-picked quoted with no supporting context. A quote that is cherry-picked because it makes Jones look bad fails BLP. If it's in there, it need to be thoroughly discussed. It doesn't "speak for itself". Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be original research if we published counts of how often various quotes got mentioned in the media. But it isn't original research to base the coverage in the article on how much coverage each quote is getting. This is the thrust of our policy regarding undue weight; amount of article coverage should reflect the amount of coverage in the source materials.

As for the raw count of the number included in the release, I think FOI2009.zip could be considered a primary source, and could be cited for basic facts and statistics, the same way that we cite TV shows as primary sources of their own plot summaries. This would have to be done very carefully, however. We can easily say that there are 1073 files in the email directory in the leaked ZIP file, just by popping it open and looking, however because of quoted emails, incomplete conversations, etc, we can't say that there are 1073 emails without doing significant original research. Gigs (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't use FOI2009.zip as a source, so all that is moot. Sources must be referenced, and we cannot link to it for legal reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part of my comment is not moot either way, since it's about undue weight, not sourcing. Regarding the second part, I don't know of any requirement that we link to sources.  Our external link guideline does indeed prohibit linking to copyright infringements, but there's nothing in our referencing guidelines about it. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't reference the CRU archive because it was never published. While the veracity of what was presented hasn't been challenged, nobody knows for certain whether it has been altered or not. It's a primary source (regardless of validity), but we work with secondary sources in any case. Dduff442 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) I cannot conceive of a way that you could refer to the content of the zip file as a primary source without referencing it directly. I am pretty sure you would need to discuss something like that with administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To Dduff, we do also reference primary sources for certain non-controversial facts. However your point about it never being published, and trouble ensuring integrity is relevant and a point well taken.  I think it would be best to avoid citing it as a source, as you are correct that we should primarily rely on secondary sources. ;)  To scjessey, it's community consensus that determines such things, not administrators, but I accept Dduff's arguments against citing it, he makes some good points about why it would be a bad idea. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We can link to the Palin emails on Wikileaks in Sarah Palin email hack, so why not link to Wikileaks - Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 in this article? -- SEWilco (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no good reasons for this double standard, obviously. And so far, not even any bad ones.Flegelpuss (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice. It's OK to cherry pick a single sentence out of a single article, but we can't use the word 'controversy' in the article title even though it's supported by dozens of reliable sources. . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions here are completely unjustified
I consider this CRU-gate article to be waaay below Wikipedia standards - much more biased than even the most biased articles I've come across! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.244.43 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What has happened to Wikipedia? It never used to be like this. 76.111.71.133 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A few million people started watching our every move. Gigs (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And in this particular case we got an influx of people who think that Glenn Beck is a scientific authority. Words fail me. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A subset of articles are always like this, and attract a lot of comments and edits by people who don't mind making POV edits, or don't realize their edits are POV. I like to think that it balances out because other people are drawn to the conflict and enjoy the resolution, although this looks like a particularly tough topic.  We'll tame it eventually.  Ignignot (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, your comment implies that only scientific authorities are acceptable as sources. That wouldn't be true even if this were purely about the science. This article is tangentially about the science, it is more about process and politics. I am not arguing that Glenn Beck's opinions deserve to be included, but your rationale is flawed.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is very much about the science. With very few exceptions, the e-mails cited in the controversy are all about scientific issues - the "Nature trick" (which is a scientific method), "hide the decline" (which relates to a method of measuring temperatures by proxies), Climate Research (which relates to a peer-review scandal at a scientific journal), the quality (or lack thereof) of "the other paper by MM", the "travesty" of not being able to "account for the lack of warming at the moment" (which relates to inadequacies in monitoring systems). All of these issues are being spun in a particular way by lobbyists and anti-science activists and commentators. I'm certainly not saying that "only scientific authorities are acceptable as sources", but the fact is that scientific authorities are inherently more reliable than non-scientific sources on such questions, simply because of the disparity in expertise. The media are notorious for getting science wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Are we really to believe you? I mean, your politics and socialist bias are clear. We are suppose to trust the inmates to run the asylum, as it were?64.53.136.29 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something. What editing restrictions apply to this article that don't apply across the entire encyclopedia? --TS 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is under semiprotection. Ignignot (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that all the IP editor meant? Maybe he hasn't heard of scibaby. --TS 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously protected so that about five hardcore AGW activists will have completely control over it. Drolz (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody who has registered an account between 2001 and early December, 2009 can edit the article. The semiprotection keeps out the banned trolls at the expense of requiring new editors to wait a few days. --TS 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And how could a few, unrelated editors wield such power over all the others? Ooooh, because we have all the WP policies on our side. It's not a conspiracy; it's not a matter of opinion; just up above we were begging JettaMann to try to find WP:RSs to back up his claims. If you edit by WP policy, your edits will stick. If you want to add biased, baseless, bonkers tosh, it will be immediately deleted, Shimples. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called a WP:CABAL. There are only a handful of active editors here who are actually trying to follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you by any chance citing that famous climatologist Professor Meer Kat? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last time I came by this page it wasn't just semi-protected. It was locked completely. I was logged in, but locked out of editing. I didn't note the day, but it was about a week after the scandal broke online; which matches the OP's post. I frankly was appalled that established editors were locked out. It looked really bad. That's the opposite of what made Wikipedia great: openness. Greenbough (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion of a quote by Raymond Pierrehumbert
In the Reactions sections some quotes are clearly out of place. In particular, look at this quote:
 * One of the IPCC's lead authors, Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago, expressed concern at the precedent established by the hack: "[T]his is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth ... this illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist (and I don't think that's too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models? Or at the next level, since the forces of darkness have moved to illegal operations, will we all have to get bodyguards to do climate science?"[61]

Now, Raymond Pierrehumbert is supposedly an expert in climatology. His statement, however, does not have anything to do with the climatology, or any science. It appears that there is not a single scientific argument in it, just raw emotion. Raymond also does not have any practical connection to the incident; his name is mentioned in the emails just twice. I am planning to delete the paragraph unless there are arguments on why Raymond is an RS on the subject of computer and physical security. Dimawik (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * His comments aren't about computer and physical security per se. I do agree that some of his remarks are a bit over the top, but we paint what we see. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Boris, didn't you object to "over the top" statements by skeptics? It seems that if a person is skeptic, a single over-the-top opinion disqualifies the person, not just the statement. All I want is a level playing field and no loony alarmist quotes in Wikipedia. Dimawik (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?" is not about computer security? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only secondarily - his concern is with future technical attacks on climate researchers. Considering how technology-dependent they are, you can understand why they would be concerned about attempts to sabotage their computers. The examples he gives are rhetorical, the gist of his argument is about the general threat rather than the means. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * his concern is with future technical attacks - yes, precisely due to his theorizing about things that have not yet happened in the field he knows nothing about he should not be quoted. Dimawik (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is rather akin to stating that we require all remarks on shooting deaths to be made by ballistics experts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, police is usually quoted as a source of shooting reports. Second, Raymond is not even reporting on anything, he is just speculating about the future in the field he is not an expert in. Third, didn't someone just argue that for the quotes in climatology admitted into this article the author has to be an expert in the field? Once again, this is a pure speculation coming from a non-expert; shall be deleted. Dimawik (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not speaking of computer and physical security: he's expressing his concern about escalating harassment of climate scientists. Since we've already seen death threats and "torrents" of threatening and abusive e-mails sent to climate scientists around the world, it's hardly a theoretical concern. He is quite clearly competent to speak of an issue affecting his profession. The quote is therefore highly relevant and to the point. (And re Boris's remarks, we've already seen terrorism directed against scientists in other professions, particularly medical research, so it's not much of a leap of imagination to see future physical threats to climate scientists.) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Raymond's comments are exclusively about the security. He does not discuss either emails or data on merits. He is not a professional in the security field, so his words about the security should not be quoted in the article. Adequate quote on the need of bodyguards shall come from the police (I do not expect this, BTW), not a spooked scientist. Dimawik (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-read his comments. He is a leading member of a profession which sees itself as under attack from radical extremists. He says that he sees the attack on the CRU as "a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth". He expresses his concern about this - "ominous and frightening". He goes on to give rhetorical examples of the kind of threats that he fears. It is all relevant to how climate scientists are interpreting the incident. He does not pretend to be a security professional; he's speaking as a member of a group which sees itself under threat. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The quotes you've isolated are brief and punchy. They isolate what make these remarks stand out in the torrent of info on this issue. The quote as it stands in the article, OTOH, comes across as hysterical, is wordy, and strays into speculation. Maybe we can achieve consensus on "a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth" and "ominous and frightening"? Dduff442 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Raymond in this quote gives rhetorical examples of actions that did not yet happen in the field he does not understand. His emails were not leaked, so he is not "victimized" either. His quote does not belong in the article. Dimawik (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He's one of the victims of the crime who's concerned about further victimisation, concerns about how this stuff will affect his life and work. Very relevant.  Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is he a victim? If you accept that any emotional statement from a person who have been mentioned few times in emails automatically qualifies him/her as a "victim" and allow quoting him for the article regardless of other merits, a lot of skeptics will qualify as "victims" :-) Dimawik (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It really is a very long quote. A bit hysterical also, IMO. As with Monckton, I think his comments do as much for his opponents as his own side. Some modest editing would help credibility. I would hang on to his comments about pressure on scientists if I had to choose.


 * It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth ... is pithy and punchy. Less is more, guys!Dduff442 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion died down with none of my points refuted. Going to delete. Dimawik (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't delete. His views on the effect on the practice of science are relevant, whatever about the rest. I'd support a major slimming down of the quote, but not deletion.Dduff442 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you also happen to think that being a scientist requires a bodyguard - and all of this due to the leak of someone else's emails? To me this quote is an incoherent rambling. Dimawik (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's coherent, just speculative and a little bit hysterical. I've trimmed it down for brevity. Dduff442 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've restored it. What you think of the quote has no bearing on its relevance, and it is entirely appropriate for this article. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There *was* consensus to trim down the quote once participants in the conversation had dwindled to myself and Dimawik. As Dimawik wanted to delete, I compromised by trimming it down. Do you really feel you should revert just because you can? The article is getting bloated; my only interest was in punch and brevity.
 * What I think of the quote goes towards establishing consensus. Dismissing others opinions is really just pointlessly irritating.
 * Why proceed robotically, auto-reverting perceived hostile edits? If you wrote the entire article yourself, do you think you'd find space for that entire quotation? Dduff442 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS did you even read the last half dozen comments before posting? Pay attention if you're going to edit.Dduff442 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no valid reason to trim down or delete one of the most relevant quotes to the article. Please present a single valid argument for doing so. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Viriditas, Let me recollect:
 * Raymond is a supposed expert in climatology, nobody claims him to be an expert in security
 * The quote contains no statements about the climatology, it is 100% comment on computer and physical security. Therefore, the supposed expertise of Raymond is not applicable
 * Raymond discusses the events that did yet not happen in the field he does not know. This is pure speculation
 * Raymond is practically unrelated to the incident. None of the emails leaked were written by him; his last name is mentioned in the emails just twice
 * His statements contain highly emotional wording ("forces of darkness"), and truly ridiculous suggestions ("will we all have to get bodyguards to do climate science").
 * With these facts in hand, please tell me what makes you to say the quote is relevant? Dimawik (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Dduff442, relevant but slightly "over-the-top" if quoted in full. Also I see it good to limit the lenght of quotes in general, when possible. --J. Sketter (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only problem is best practice is the exact opposite. Whenever possible, we quote in full context with as much detail as we can.  This is because of editors who selectively quote to push POV.  If a quote is simply too long to quote inline, our alternatives involve using a pull quote or a footnote.  Selectively quoting is always discouraged, especially in controversial articles. It should also be obvious that what we consider "over-the-top" has no bearing on quoting. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, as-is, the quote is a hysterical speculation on events related to computer and physical security that did not yet happen written by a non-professional in the security field who is practically unrelated to the incident itself. Try to disprove at least part of this description. I agree that the quote shall not be trimmed; it shall be deleted as a whole. Dimawik (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All I was trying to do was to strike a compromise between Dimawik's declared intent to delete and the prior consensus existing before the other eds dropped out of the conversation. The number of participants had dropped to two and consensus had been achieved before this revert without prior comment or argument. This kind of effort to 'do some good' is killing the integrity of the editorial process on Wikipedia.Dduff442 (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, discussion has died down with no arguments on why the quote (or its author) is relevant to this article. Going to delete. Dimawik (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote seems relevant, because in effect a prominent member of the scientific community is saying "the important part about all this is the criminal act!" And the fact he thinks that is the most important part seems important and relevant.

- No signature above -
 * Once again (please read the discussion above!), Raymond is a climatologist. He is not a policeman, a prosecutor, or a security / computer crime expert. If he were talking about the hockey stick graph, his words could be considered. Here, however, he is speculating about the hypothetical events (that might happen, in his opinion) way outside of his field of expertise. In other words, his words are completely irrelevant and will be deleted. You need to provide at least some explanation as to why his opinions on the computer security and physical protection of the scientists are more relevant than opinions offered by random people on the street. Dimawik (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your points have been refuted and you do not have any consensus to delete. You're just in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode, which is why people aren't bothering to respond - it's because you give the strong impression that you have nothing worthwhile to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear ChrisO, my points have been listed (and even numbered 1 to 5) above. Would you mind to point to any refutation of these in this discussion? I think you are the one not hearing the arguments. Dimawik (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading the quote in the context of the article, it seems out of place. Dimawik's points seem strong to me. The only reason the scientist has credibility for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry is as an expert of climate. He's not speaking to that issue here. MarkNau (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He's a scientist and is speaking of the emotional impact this hacking has had on himself and his colleagues. That's a very big part of the story.  There are serious death threats. --TS 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The death threats are a tertiary issue. The section that quote was being included in deals properly with climate reactions to the meaning of the data uncovered. An emotional reaction to threats has no place. MarkNau (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any reports on death threats to Raymond reported anywhere. It seems that Raymond is simply speculating on potential problems way out of his area of competence. He is within his rights to do so, of course, but why do some editors feel the need to put his ramblings into encyclopedia? Dimawik (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote is made by somebody with no expertise in precedents, is obviously wrong to people with such expertise, and is not notable. It is obviously wrong because the precedents regarding the illegality of hacking are well established and are not changed one iota by this event. In short, this quote is silly, quite erroneous, made by somebody with no expertise in precedents, and above all is not notable, so it should not be in the article.Flegelpuss (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

2005 Email FOIA
Someone suggested editing it here on the talk page, so fine, here it is. I'm not sure where the "smear innuendo" part of it is, so if someone could edit that out, I'd appreciate it.
 * This looks like non-expert media comment. If the matter has been seriously discussed (that is, not just by journalists looking for an angle) then we should include it.  If it's just a newspaper story, it doesn't belong. --TS 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of it? Gigs (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a paper, it's an editorial deceptively pretending to be a news story. The editorial was published by MediaNews here.  We can't include it. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed all references to that source in the copy below. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The NZ Herald article has some important bits, including the fact that nothing actually was deleted. Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good source.  I have integrated the Davies quote below. Gigs (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what's important here is that we treat this like any other Wikipedia article. 1) The quote isn't the central part of the section. Like any other non-free content, it's included because it's being discussed.  It's inclusion is not an end in itself.  2) We write NPOV - balanced coverage of notable views, always with an eye to WP:UNDUE. 3) We aim for completeness and context. If we bear that in mind, then the BLP issue pretty much takes care of itself, although we do need to keep our eye on the fact that "[m]aterial that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care".  Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to build up commentary around a section when it's being reverted in seconds. This compromise of editing it on the talk page seems to be working.  I'd appreciate any further input on the section below. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another issue - the Pew report (pp 2-3) says:
 * The CRU is barred by non‐publication agreements with some countries meteorological services from releasing to the public a small amount (less than 5%) of the weather station data the CRU uses to estimate land‐surface temperature trends. The university has confirmed that the CRU is legally barred from releasing these data. A few commentatoused this situation as a basis for accusing the CRU of suppressing data

While they don't come out and say this these are the files that Jones is speaking about, it seems pretty clear to me that they are. So, from the perspective of completeness, from the perspective of not causing unwarranted damage to Jones' reputation, we need to track down the discussion of this issue. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be tracked down, but is it reasonable to infer that this was the reason? Also, is it reasonable to say that the restriction of such a small amount (less than 5% as noted) of data would prevent the release of the remaining data?  If the discussion were about the restricted 5% of data, I would expect that to be made more clear.  Regardless, it seems like a stretch to make that inference -- certainly that would be an impermissible inference if it were to implicate someone or deepen their involvement.jheiv (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c, jheiv be careful not to delete people's comments when there's an edit conflict) It's a pretty speculative analysis. There are other emails where they do debate about whether to release data based on the country and pay-for-data agreements, but I have not seen any mainstream coverage that suggests that all of Jones' comments can be completely explained away by that. Indeed if that were the case, then I don't know why CRU wouldn't have just come out and said that in the first place, rather than holding an investigation into FOI practices. Anyway, find a good source on it and we can go from there. Gigs (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs, I apologize! No harm intended -- thanks for pointing it out. jheiv (talk)

There is also this (warning, some obviously biased language-- that should obviously be cleaned up):
 * "When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on." -- WSJ: Global Warming With the Lid Offjheiv (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Could I ask that you use direct links rather than ref tags on this page? It's easier to follow if you don't have to click 'edit' to see the link, and ref sections come and go.
 * Good idea, I fixed my most recent reference. jheiv (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to your point - yes, I agree this we should focus on the issue, not on one email or another is isolation. We should be doing that for all of them, actually.  But we have to start somewhere.  Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a stretch, but depending on how much you want to cover, there is this quote: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise." Which may or may not relate to a FOIA request -- not really committed to seeing this added, but I've read reports suggesting a link between this email and the 2 Feb 2005 one. jheiv (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I thought you were willing to work in good faith to build consensus for the section. I see you were not. Rather disappointing. Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The version he readded did reflect the various input people provided on the talk page, as I have been updating it as people raise concerns. The only part that doesn't necessarily have consensus is the inclusion of the Schmidt email. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not really. "Jones' reluctance to provide data Jones' reluctance to provide data as a result of Freedom of Information Acts is later highlighted"?  Got a source that he was "reluctant to provide data"?  He was unwilling to provide certain data.  Why?  Well, the Pew piece suggests that he was unwilling to provide data he had signed an agreement not to divulge.  Calling that "reluctance to provide data" is putting quite a spin on it.  Fair → smear in just a few words.  Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part of the new part about the Schmidt email that I said may not have consensus. The first part should be fine. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the schmidt part and reduced it to what we had discussed prior here. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have apologized under your note on my talk page and I will again here, I'm sorry for prematurely adding the content -- it was a good-faith edit that I thought had consensus -- I was wrong and it was not my intention to derail the otherwise impressive dialogue going on on the talk page. jheiv (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)When discussing the issue on what data that is/was available i seem to miss that the Pew comment is based on this press-release. And there really is nothing new in this, climateaudit in July 2009 commented on the exact same thing as well as all the way back in 2007 - the only data that isn't available is covered by confidentiality arrangements. Now people here may want to doubt that reason as correct (that would be personal POV), but it is 100% consistent with what the CRU has been saying for a long time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, I'm not sure I understand your point. My understanding was that Guettarda added the Pew quote to suggest a possible explanation of the CRU scientists' words regarding their, say, "unwillingness" to release data.  I don't think anyone questioned the truth of the Pew quote, but rather disagreed with it being a viable or possible explanation for their actions (words), and thus warrant inclusion in the section.  Basically, my response was that I don't think one can make the jump attributing their words about "rather deleting..." data to the tiny fraction of work that is covered by CAs without stronger evidence of a connection.  Are you saying that you are willing to make that leap? jheiv (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we be speculating on what their words mean? I was pointing out that the reason that FOI requests for the data wasn't complied to, was quite correctly the Pew explanation, and that it wasn't news (ie. the CRU didn't just "suddenly" come out with that explanation), but has been well known for anyone who has followed the debate, since at least 2007. The whole speculation on data deletion is also nonsense, since that "deletion" took place in the '80s (where data-storage really was a sparse resource (i still remember the excitement about exchanging our 1.2 MW harddisk storage to 10MB ones :))). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I remember those things. They looked a bit like dustbin lids produced by a toy manufacturer. And then there were those cute little spools of DECtape. --TS 05:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You kids don't appreciate how good you had it. I remember setting up some data analysis on a PDP-11 variant and having to swap memory to floppy disk. And we were thankful for it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones email of 2 February 2005
A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:
 * "And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at CRU, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure".  In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act".

Earlier version + Jones / Schmidt email
A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:
 * "And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

Dr.Jones' reluctance to provide data as a result of Freedom of Information Acts is later highlighted in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies where he wrote,
 * "The FOI line we're all using is this, IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we ... possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at CRU, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure".  In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act".

"This article is not..."
Please see the formal move proposal for further developments.

I see this phrase (or variations of it) repeatedly in the talk page here: this article is not about the scandal/controversy/backlash/purple dinosaur regarding the science that may or may not have been impacted by the actions of the Climate Research Unit. The title makes that very clear, actually: "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is definitely about the actual hacking incident. If the article were about something else, it would be named something else, right?

But I wonder: why is there not an article named something else? Should Wikipedia not be covering the other angle, perhaps in another (appropriately named) article? Instead of a redirect at "Climategate," perhaps an actual article on Climategate--as opposed to an article that seems to be focused only on the alleged computer crime targeting CRU?

...But, then, I just pulled this copypasta from the bottom of the article:


 * Categories: Climate change assessment and attribution | Environmental controversies | Climate change | Global warming | Environmental skepticism | Ethics of science and technology | Computer security | 2009 in science | 2009 in England

Strange that an article focusing entirely on cyber crime and not on the political or scientific impact of these events is filed under these headings instead of under something relating to cyber crime or technology.

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Archer884, this is the trick used on all climate articles. The name is selected so that it refers only to the part of the story the cartel of editors who control climate articles wish to discuss. The sources for those articles are then strictly controlled so as only to include the sources which reflect the view they wish to include, and if anyone contrary to their views is stupid enough to edit the article or create a new one, they will get some friendly admins to lock down the article, or use the 3RR rule to get people banned. It's clearly the same principle used to lock down the peer review process in climate "science", and to exclude delegates who might argue from conferences - so there's clearly a single "mindset" involved. 85.210.48.2 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point! Recommend we rename article to "Why 'Climatic' and not 'Climate'?" -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple: let's name the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking controversy". That's what it is about. "Climategate" would also be OK, if that's what people call it. GregorB (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Let's recap. Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid, as is "controversy", and should not be used in article titles. Climategate is a redirect to this article, so users typing that in the search box will be directed here. Whatever else this article is going to be called, it certainly won't end up being called "Climategate". -- ChrisO (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But I'd say that "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (i.e. a "controversy") describes it rather well. GregorB (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't use 'Climategate' as the name of the article because of WP:AVOID. However, we can use the word 'controversy' if it's used by reliable sources.  The following reliable sources all use the term 'controversy': The Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, TechNewsWorld, The Star, Mail & Guardian, Scientific American, Live Science, Politico, Irish Times, St Petersburg Times, Sidney Morning Herald, Seattle Times,New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Reuters, Wallstreet Journal, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronicle, FOX News, The Boston Globe, Business Week, Forbes, MSNBC, The Miami Herald, The Scotsman, Cosmos Magazine, CNBC, New Zealand Herald and BBC News
 * So, I suggest 'Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy' or 'Climatic Research Unit documents controversy'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You could be even more neutral and simply call it "Climatic Research Unit documents incident", since the "controversy" is still an undesirable word. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, 'incident' implies a one-time event, whereas this subject is actually an ongoing story. Also, someone else brought up the precident of Killian documents controversy.  But this isn't an issue I feel too strongly about.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like either "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". "Documents" avoid the concern over the option "data". And while it will be an ongoing story, as far as we know the story emanates from a single incident. So I could accept either "incident" or ""controversy".-- SPhilbrick  T  20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a hacking incident. Attempting to hide that fact of the hacking, and the criminal investigations that have resulted, won't succeed. --TS 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again pointing out the bizarre contradiction between your vehement opposition to a fork and equally vehement opposition to the inclusion in this article of anything which detracts from the "hacking incident." Drolz (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction. POVFORKS are discouraged, and accurate titles describing the topic are encouraged.  Please offer your informed opinion on the title of this article, rather than the positions of other editors. This isn't a debating club.  We're only here to improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After having read WP:POVFORK, it is clear that you are using the term incorrectly. POVFORKs occur when one perspective on an event is given its own article. This is not what has been advocated here; the suggestion is that one aspect of event be given its own article. If someone wanted to make an article called "Skeptical Response to Climategate," this would indeed be a POVFORK. "Debate over CRU Documents," on the other hand, is completely neutral.


 * For example, "Watergate Burglaries" is a separate topic from "Watergate," because the burglaries themselves are a distinct topic from the ensuing coverup. On the other hand, in the Pentagon Papers page, there is no separate article for the leak itself, which is covered only briefly in the main article. This article needs to either be split into two, or the hack portion needs to be scaled down so that it does not compete for attention with the controversy section. Drolz (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are confusing the concept of splitting a subarticle out of a parent topic with the idea of a POVFORK which you are still defending and promoting against consensus. We have discussed it several times now and the answer is still no.  Stamping your feet and screaming in bold isn't going to change it.  Neither is using your user page as a platform to attack your perceived opponents.  If you want to make some headway on your proposal and give other users an idea of what you are talking about and how you would go about doing it, then I recommend creating a version of the article you want to see in your user space and linking to it here for people to review.  This is also a good way to get feedback on your proposal, and it might even influence the structure and layout of the current article.  So, you've got your work cut out for you.  Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So I give you an explanation of why it's not a POVFORK, and you respond that it is a POVFORK because you already said it's a POVFORK? Why would I take the time I make a proof of concept page when your "consensus" has adamantly refused to hear any arguments against it?  Drolz 09  03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You confused the concept of a daughter article (see Summary style) with that of a POVFORK. They are not the same thing.  The reason you would take the time to work on your proposal in your user space, is because that's what we do on Wikipedia.  Once you have an example of your preferred version, we can either decide on whether to create it or to merge it into the current version, exactly as you have proposed above.  I look forward to seeing it. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thoughts? jheiv (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed per BLP
We do not report speculation regrading living people where that could adversely affect them. I have removed the section regarding the Jones email of Feb 2. If the section can be rewritten to avoid reporting speculation as to identities, and it is found to be relevant to this article, it can go back in. Until then, the section remains out of the article.

I am horrified and ashamed of Wikipedia editors for allowing such base smears into an article. I will enforce BLP. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First time I've seen a puppy administer a spanking rather than receiving one... But I do agree. Is there actually any confirmation, as opposed to speculation, that "the two MMs" refer to McIntyre and McKitrick? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow - Madman restored that? Sure, no one is required to agree with me, but I can't just restore a BLP violation - or an alleged BLP violation - without bothering to join the discussion and build consensus for your edit.  Shockingly bad behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be a little more specific. There have been death threats. We're not going to be a party to this. Real life harm is possible. This is beyond "hurt feelings" or even "destroyed career". HTH. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, hadn't even thought about it in those terms. Yeah, death threats does raise the bar, doesn't it?  Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're damn right it does. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? First of all, please elaborate on how the removed content violated WP:BLP.  Secondly, your argument regarding death threats is not a logical argument, but rather a fallacy, an appeal to emotion or fear.  The enormous amount of reliable sources for the removed material (not to mention to extremely short amount of time that the passage existed in the article) suggest that if death threats were made, they were not as a result of a Wikipedia article.  Saying that "death threats were made" and that that somehow changes what is topical and relevant to the article shows extreme bias.  Address specific concerns rather than broad, waive-of-the-hand violations. jheiv (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the "OMG death threat" argument seems a bit overblown, it seems clear that the identities of the MMs are not well-established in the least, and are pure speculation and therefore have no place in the article. MarkNau (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically: WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLP, WP:BLPNAME. I remind all editors that when dealing with BLP the default is to do no harm: to not include. To edit war over something removed p0er BLP is a block-on-sight offense and I cannot believe you are taking this so lightly. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are overreacting a little. McIntyre and McKitrick are hardly low-profile individuals. The statement is not negative toward them.  The statement isn't unsourced.  If this were a negative, unsourced statement about a low-profile individual, I'd be with you 100%.  But that isn't the case.  Yes we should err on the side of being conservative, and you make a strong enough argument for removing the content, but it isn't quite as clear cut or outrageous as you are making out. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a WP:BLP violation if we cite reliable sources. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Wallstreet Journal, MSNBC and Bloomberg aren't reliable sources? In any case, as a compromise why don't we simply drop the sentence "The two MMs are suggested to be ... later emails." and leave the rest of the paragraph intact? This addresses your concerns, does it not? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are in error. We can violate BLP while citing RS's. I will leave to discussion amongst other editors as to whether your suggested compromise is acceptable. But don't remotely think I won't block if "suspected" names or other speculative BLP content is put in the article, regardless of where it is sourced. Remember, the default is to omit, not include, such information. You have to gain consensus to include. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLP, WP:BLPNAME and I don't agree that they apply to this particular situation. However, I'm fine with removing the contentious sentence just to be on the safe side.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with AQFK. The policies in question are intended to prevent the spreading of rumors or libel. Something the subject of BLP wrote himself is facially exempt from either claim. Moreover, reporting allegations which were made by reliable, reputable sources is explicitly encouraged, even if the subject objects. Drolz (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua is correct. Attributions of negative connotations in this article can have very serious consequences, and yes, the death threats do make the BLP more important here. We also must bear in mind that we can spend months, even years writing this article. This isn't a newspaper and we have no deadlines. We can wait until we can get it right. --TS 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We've jumped the shark to argue so hotly that there's a BLP problem here.  The quote is reliably sourced multiple times, highly relevant, and highly notable, so it would be a gross violation of Wikipedia standards to keep it out.  The only problem with the quote is that the RSs more than "suggest" that MM is McKitrick and McIntyre: "Another e-mail sent by Mann identifies MM as “McIntyre and McKitrick" is what Bloomberg says.   Forbes Cringing Over Climategate, which should be added as a reference, says of the quote, "The "two MMs" refers to Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick."  So the quote should be left as is and the interpretation should be "is" rather than "suggest."   The quote itself is highly notable, highly relevant, and very reliably sourced.  To give some indication as to notability, besides the many media reports of the quote, Google reveals about 10,000 instances of the quote "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years" on the Internet, mostly in blogs.   This and several other quotes from the CRU emails and code comments are among the most widely repeated quotes on the planet for the last several weeks.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Weart interview (cont.)
That quote by Weart from The Washington Post looks like inaccurate hyperbole. In saying that the hacking incident is "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science" Weart forgets about the existence of Lysenkoism.Chelydramat (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this quote is a bit over the top, particularly if the "hack" is really a "leak". If I were a rules-lawyer, I would quote WP:UNDUE to disqualify this.  With dozens if not hundreds of quotes to choose from, I think we should all try to avoid the most extreme statements.  Madman (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really true for this particular quote. Lysenkoism is an inapt analogy - that was an attempt by a state to control and suppress science for ideological purposes, rather as happened in Nazi Germany (where Einstein's theories were disparaged as "Jewish science") or under the George W. Bush administration with regard to climate change or stem cell research. This case is an instance of (presumably) private individuals attacking and attempting to discredit an entire field of science for ideological purposes. It's more comparable to the terrorism carried out by animal rights activists against medical researchers. Animal rights extremists have always been a tiny minority, though; Weart is making the point that the anti-scientific campaign against climate researchers is of a kind and a scale which we've never seen before. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction between governments and individuals is solely one of magnitude. At the roots of each are attacks on science on ideological grounds. -- Chelydramat (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The piece on Spencer Weart, who is an expert in the history of science, is under the "Other expert commentary" section. Speaking for myself I have no professional expertise in either science or history.  If anybody reading this has relevant expertise comparable to Weart's and has an opinion distinct from Weart's, they are welcome to contact the Washington Post or a similar source and publish a critique which may be considered for inclusion in the article.  Someone on the internet saying Weart's comment looks suspect doesn't really cut it. --TS 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Eds are welcome to find contrary opinions but the notability of Weart's views is hard to dispute.Dduff442 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very much so. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, isn't it premature to turn to a historian for comments on a still-developing event? Much of this incindent hangs on the content of the hacked files, which Weart apparently hasn't looked into because of the nature by which they were made public. -- Chelydramat (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Historians don't only talk about the distant past. The key skill is the long perspective. --TS 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weart's perspecitve is skewed, if only as far as this quote is concerned. He did fail to say that this current controversy has been preceeded by other ideological attacks on science and therefore it is not unique in the history of science.
 * BTW, I apologize for digging this out of the archive. -- Chelydramat (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A Reasonable Person looking at this article to find out what climategate meant could conclude:
I. It is largely notable because of criminal hacking.
 * The first section in the article mentions nothing about the document contents. It includes superfluous detail about what countries various IPs originated from, etc. The impression is that everyone is up in arms about some conspiracy of hackers.

II. It secondly notable because of the death threats against scientists that were apparently directly caused by the hack. As in, because of these hackers, the lives of scientists are now in danger.
 * It's very easy to read this as though the investigation into the hackers and the death threats are one and the same.
 * Not only death threats, but "abusive emails are mentioned."

III. The files themselves are largely innocuous. Those that aren't have been authoritatively explained. This is "over."
 * Jones: Skeptics made a vague allegation of manipulation, which is not explained, nor is anyone quoted. There are then four quotes attacking the unquoted skeptics. You might as well just remove the allegations entirely, and leave in the rebuttals.
 * Mann: Quote of the email followed by explanations. No opposing viewpoints.
 * Jones: Same.
 * Trenberth: Same.

Looking at this section, it is impossible to guess at where the controversy came from in the first place. Why have people been going on about "Climategate" if the whole thing was over four emails that were apparently immediately explained, and that no "skeptics" ever bothered to respond to?

IV. Calls for inquiry: One short paragraph of a couple such calls followed by five times as much space spent dismissing the need for inquiries. When anyone says something that could be construed as supporting one, there is a tidal wave of qualification.

V. Massive, unreadable section on climate scientists.

This article is structured in a way that makes it impossible to understand what the controversy is about. It needs to be broken up into "Skeptics say" and "AGW People say" sections so that people can get an idea of what the positions are. It's not important that any of you agree with these positions, because this isn't an article about the truth of global warming, it's about a public debate. The way it's covered now is like if you described a presidential debate and used bullet points for one candidate, while quoting the other in full, and supporting him with outside sources as well.

Once the whole thing is settled, and people stop going back and forth on it, some sort of crystallization will probably be possible, but that is totally premature at this point. Drolz (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The files themselves are largely innocuous" - That appears to be the case. I don't recall seeing any reliable sources that argue otherwise.
 * "It needs to be broken up into "Skeptics say" and "AGW People say" sections" - no, it most certainly does not need to be broken up like that. We are supposed to avoid that style of writing as much as possible.  Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "I don't recall seeing any reliable sources that argue otherwise" - Then you haven't even looked into it... regardless of the many HIGHLY incriminating email-s, there's also been a lot of buzz about the temperature modifying source code for some of the models that CRU had been using. Without citing over 100 sources, I'll just let you make your pick from the vast array that Google provides when searching "Cimategate code". -MrGuy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.22.16 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with OP, and with above comment. Most journals are reporting that the emails show evidence of withholding data over and against the FOIA, blocking contrary opinion, quashing peer-review journals, and manipulating data. We're talking Wall Street Journal, Reason, BBC, Associated Press. This article needs to reflect that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I think this template should be added to the article. Can an admin do so?:

misleading
 * If "journals are reporting that the emails show evidence of..." things, what that is, is journals speculating. They are there to sell copies of said journals, and they have lawyers who will advise them just how close to the wind they may sail in order to maximise doing so. We are a respected, free encyclopedia, which means we don't have to titillate our readers with juicy speculation, and neither are we allowed to do so. Enquiries have been called, and when they finish, we will be able to report if it was found that any of these emails actually showed evidence of these things, but without joining in WP:BLP speculation. --Nigelj (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd probably want to read (or reread) our verifiability policy and its related reliable sources guideline. One reason why Wikipedia makes the internet not suck is that, unlike Google, it carefully assesses sources by reliability. --TS 08:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've seen much discussion of the code in reliable sources. I suspect it's probably too technical for the mainstream media to have much interest in it. It seems to have excited bloggers but not made much of an impact elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "...[Wikipedia] unlike Google, it carefully assesses sources by reliability" -- Oh, my mistake, I didn't know a Google search returns unreliable sources only. -MrGuy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.37.206.6 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not unreliable sources only, but rather the reliable alongside the unreliable. There is a trust algorithm of some sort but it does not have the power to discriminate between, for instance, reportage, editorial, and opinion column. --TS 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin quote
The use of copyright material in articles is governed by WP:NFCC and fair use. Please note that simply reproducing copyright material in an article, without any discussion, does not meet the requirement of fair use, nor does it meet our requirements for the use of non-free content. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an excerpt of less than 100 words. The usual guidelines I've seen for fair use suggest a maximum of 150 words. This is well under the limit. I suspect that it's the content, and the name of the author in particular, that's really drawing so many objections. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Fair use does not mean that you can simply reproduce copyright material of <150 words, it needs to be done for "such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship".  Simple reproduction of a quote, without discussion of its significance or meaning, does not meet that requirement.  Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clearly commentary and criticism, Guettarda. Sarah Palin is eminently notable, the Washington Post is eminently reliable, and the comment gives voice to the climate change skeptics. If you don't mind, I'm moving this from my User Talk page to the article's Talk page, where it belongs. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to provide our own commentary. So we need to have someone commenting on Palin commenting in order to qualify for fair use of a quote that extensive.  A very small quote would be different.   Gigs (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about five or six words from Al Gore? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think his comments are relevant either, but at least he as some semblance of credibility in this particular field. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What?? Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work on this subject. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean that PowerPoint presentation filled with other's (now discovered to be fake) research? Laughable.64.53.136.29 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be including an editorial commentary in an encyclopedia entry. It's also not clear to me how prominent she is on the global scheme of things, so it's difficult for me to say that she's clearly prominent enough to warrant inclusion of her reaction. MarkNau (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The most recent poll shows Palin as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Every time she opens her mouth in public, some reporter in the United States is writing about it. Furthermore, there are editorial commentaries in about half of Wikipedia's politics articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Sarah Palin is notable as being both a failed VP candidate and as a governor who quit mid-term so she could make some big bucks selling books to sheep. She is not even remotely qualified to offer her opinion on any aspect of this incident. The newspaper has been vilified for giving her a platform to spout her fringey nonsense. I can conceive of no possible way that a single word of her op-ed will make it into this article, quite frankly. It would be the grossest possible violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think she's prominent on the issue. Inhofe is prominent, even if he seems to be wrong on just about everything. Gibbs is speaking for the US President, Ban Ki Moon is speaking as UN Secretary General - they're opinions are notable. Palin is a private citizen (at this point), she's not an authority on the subject, and she's not a person with a history of involvement in the issue. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eminently untrue, Guettarda. Palin sued the federal government for placing the polar bear on the Endangered Species list. She has been involved in numerous disputes as governor, involving issues related to climate and conservation. Scjessey's usual disparaging remarks about anyone to the right of Howard Zinn are duly noted. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting Sarah Palin on the subject of climate change is like quoting Orly Taitz as an authority on citizenship law. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, let's examine both notability and the section header. Running Nexis searches on Palin and Taitz yields about 20 times as many hits for Palin, and Taitz has never been elected to any office. The comparison is ridiculous. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to give everyone some background information about this article - In an effort to cut back on POV-pushing and to address WP:UNDUE, me and several other editors have argued that we should avoid mentioning opinion pieces unless they've also been covered by a third-party reliable sources. In a case such as this, it shouldn't be a problem to find third-party reliables sources which have covered this op-ed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Al Gore quoted at MSNBC? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in my opinion, now you're "in." A section that talks about the differing reactions between Gore and Palin seems fitting with the rest of the section. To be honest, Palin rides in on Gore's coattails. MarkNau (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just generally opposed to quoting politicians, since they rarely know what they are talking about. They lack the technical understanding to comment on the data theft, and they lack the scientific understanding to comment on the climate change issue. All their hot air contributes to global warming, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why not delete the entire section? It's supposed to be limited to comments from politicians, but somehow Ban Ki-moon finds his way in there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ban Ki-moon isn't just a politician, he's the sponsor of the IPCC and the current climate change talks. He's a key figure in the politics of climate change. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gore is an exception to the "lack of knowledge" thing. He actually knows his stuff, not just the talking points.  But I still think it's premature to bring him in. When this grows into an actual article, as opposed to a collection of quotes, then we need to re-assess things.  But as long as it's just a dumping ground for quotes, I don't see the value in adding him.  Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Gore, like George Monbiot, is essentialy a pundit, an advocate. If we keep the pundits at arm's length and focus on reactions within the sphere of professional scientists, elected politicians, governments and other relevant experts, I think we get a good look at the facts.  The more we look at the words of pundits--even quite clever and well educated ones, I feel the more we're seeing a reflection of the self-regarding, self-feeding press coverage that has made the facts so difficult to isolate in this affair.
 * I think it's a pity that Palin resigned. As the governor of Alaska her opinion might have been interesting and influential.  --TS 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no doubt that she's a politician, and I'll repeat that she's the current front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. So why are we limiting commentary to current office holders? Is it because that conveniently excludes comments from a lot of very prominent skeptics, such as Lawson and Palin? And why are we including the comment from the RealClimate blog, but blocking any comment from someone who may be the next president of the United States? Currently the ratio of comments is (roughly) 21 apologists to 3 skeptics. Furthermore, the quotes from apologists are generally a lot longer than the quotes from skeptics, so the ratio of total commentary (words) is roughly 20 to 1. It's difficult to imagine a more biased selection of comments. Any thoughts on how we could correct this imbalance? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we limiting to current elected officerholders? Because they are thereby qualified to act on their stated opinions.  Office makes a difference.  Of course every politician in the world has an opinion on this so we do have to apply a sensible limit.


 * Why so few sceptics? Because, in the field of climatology, there are very, very few global warming sceptics.  On this very page we've had people fishing around for retired geography lecturers, and representing them as prominent climatology researchers.  It isn't an imbalance, it's the way it is. --TS 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologists? We have quotes from apologists?  Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it rather amusing that proponents of the scientific mainstream are being called "apologists". Should we also refer to "evolution apologists"? "Germ theory apologists"? "Round earth apologists"? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologetics is the defense of Christianity. I didn't know that there were 20 defenders of Christianity for each climate "skeptic".  Guettarda (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As Palin is the most well-known and well-loved (and well-hated) Republican right now, her opinion is highly notable. Gore, not so much, because he's a political has-been. The Palin quote is highly notable, extremely relevant, very well sourced, clearly well within fair use, and is required because of undue weight put on quotes from Democrats.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Palin's opinion on this topic is not notable, and it is beyond question that Gore's is due to his work on the topic. I doubt Palin can even spell "anthropogenic" let alone pronounce it. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. Then we must state that the emails are "more than 10 years old" according to expert Al Gore.  He said it at least twice, so he clearly has no trouble pronouncing it. AFP Slate, CNN video Google News search.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

UN SecGen Prominence
I would like to hear the serious argument that the SecGen of the UN is not a highly prominent figure, particularly on a global issue, and particularly given the direct pertinence of the Copenhagen summit, which is a UN event. MarkNau (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The name of the section is "Politicians and governments," formerly "Elected officials and governments." Ban Ki-moon is not a politician or an elected official. The UN is not a govenrment. Running a Google News or Nexus search on the names of Ban Ki-moon and Sarah Palin produces three times as many hits for Palin. If Ban Ki-moon's comments belong in this section, then Palin's certainly do. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The UN is an inter-governmental organisation, the BIG one. It's close enough.  Guettarda (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And Ban Ki-moon was elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations, so you could argue he is an elected official of sorts. Palin isn't anything at the moment. Probably won't be anything, either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If Obama keep plunging in the polls -- currently below 50% and only one point higher than Palin, who's rising in the polls -- she could very well be elected president in 2012. It's clear that you find her politics distasteful, but I prefer to deal in facts, not feelings. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If and when Palin is elected US President, then her views will take on appropriate significance. Given that she hasn't even annouced her candicacy, however, that's an issue for the future Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So former governors cease to be politicians? How... original. I've no problem on Ban Ki-Moon being quoted but removing Palin on the grounds that she's not currently holding office is not justified. TMLutas (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a read of politician. If she were still seeking office, she would still be a politician. But the fact she is not at this time, and doesn't hold any political position means she is not currently a politician anymore then say Bill Clinton, Geoge W. Bush, Al Gore, Bill Frist or Ted Stevens are Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So after Senator Clinton was re-elected after promising that she'd serve her term, she was no longer a politician because she wasn't running for President in 2008? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ban Ki-Moon quote is OK with me as well. The UN is a major player in the politics surrounding this issue, and is governmental enough. Gigs (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Good point, though I don't think Sepp Blatter's opinion should be quoted, if he expresses on. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me lead by saying that I'm all for the "no politicians commenting on anything they are not experts in," so my #1 preference would be for section deletion. That aside, here's a litmis test for inclusion and ordering: If you were to grab a random wikipedian who wants useful info on this topic, and say "I'm only going to give you one reaction quote on this incident. I've got the SecGen of the UN and I've got the Saudi climate negotiator," which quote would the wikipedian want? MarkNau (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'd want both. Perhaps from a practical point of view the Secretary General might have more influence, but the view of the Saudi would be a good illustration of how oil producing countries are reacting to the affair. --TS 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The context was an editor who was seemingly insistent upon a position that posited the SecGen wasn't significant, and the Saudi should be at the top of the list. Seemed absurd, and I wanted a way to illustrate that. I agree with you that if I could get both, I would. Although the Saudi is quite marginal IMO. MarkNau (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, only one oil producer. I haven't seen responses from any other OPEC nations. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Historically it's been the Saudis who have raked over every word and punctuation character of the IPCC reports. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is already a quote from the head of the UN IPCC, so a quote from the head of the UN itself is redundant and gives that organization undue weight.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

 * 1,700 UK scientists back climate science, Associate Press, Raphael G. Satter. -Atmoz (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Already in the article, under "Climatologists". I added it last night. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to revert the removal of the duplicate header, since 1,700 X 2 = 3,400! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since last night?!? GNews says the article is only 4 hours old. I demand that you recuse yourself from this article because you clearly have inside information and a conflict of interest and (insert list of other non-relevant policies here)! Plus, it's 1700 in the UK. If you add US scientists, I'm sure you'd get more than 3400. (That's my little original research for today.) -Atmoz (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't trust Google News' publication times. :-) It was published in this morning's Times, which went up on the Web around 00:30 this morning in the UK (just before I went to bed). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Durban Declaration of climate change. MastCell Talk 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of, and probably worth mentioning elsewhere as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the Times article seems to exist in various forms, with one version as of now saying "One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change." Another version says "One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said."  Messy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we'd better wait until The Times gets its story straight. --TS 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We should certainly keep an eye on this. Given the speed with which these names were assembled there are bound to be some oddities among them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not in favor of including this in the article. We don't know much about the provenance of the list, and the signs are not good. It does not at this stage represent a reliable report of support for the CRU scientists, because there's as yet no way of knowing how voluntary the signing was and how qualified each person was to make the statement (I imagine most were not much above doctorate level and few had any experience of climate research, but that's a pure guess). --TS 00:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There aren't 1,700 climate scientists in the UK. This is a petition of support by scientists, generally, so its relevance is limited. The call was sent out widely; I heard about it but it doesn't apply to me as I'm not a natural scientist (i.e. I'm a social scientist, not an unnatural scientist ;-) ). As for pressure to sign it - honestly! If you are grown up enough to do research you are grown up enough to resist attempts to make you sign a voluntary petition. But I agree that we just wait until the news reports settle down. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a loyalty oath. --Dave McK 02:32, 12 December 2009 (PST)
 * Note that 1700 scientists have affirmed the outcome of the investigation before it has been conducted. This is second nature to them, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.172.210 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

30,000 scientists support ditching the Kyoto Protocol (it's a fraud)
30,000 scientists support ditching the Kyoto Protocol ... and ...

Physics group sharply divided over global warming review in the wake of the Climategate scandal. This is posted solely for the benefit of those who claim that there's a consensus, and that divergent views are scarce in the scientific community. The conflict of interest is fully exposed: a scientist who gets over $1 million a year in climate change research grants, and has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of climate change, is in charge of reviewing the organization's statement about climate change. Other scientists are calling him on it. Let's no longer pretend that the global warming apologists make up 95% of the scientific community and the other 5% are moonbats. There are several good quotes from climatologists that can be mined from these two reliable sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is far more notable than the petition signed by 1,700 scientists, seeing as there are 18 times (a factor of eighteen) more scientists signing on to it.Flegelpuss (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Oregon_Petition is a complete fraud promoted by creationists and cranks. It's been debunked so many times it's not even worth discussing. Give it a rest already.  For more information see Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.  Anyone who pushes this nonsense needs a serious reality check.  Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Declan McCullagh blog post doesn't amount to much - two or three people in a society which, according to our article, has 47,000 members. Anyway, it's a blog post, an opinion piece, not news reporting.  And, of course, the Oregon Petition is well known nonsense.  One more important point: "There are several good quotes ... that can be mined...".  No.  We don't quote mine.  Guettarda (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Oregon Petition nonsense has been done to death. The APS matter seems to be a controversy manufactured by one or two opportunistic contrarians within the society. This is what you get when you go fishing in opinion blogs. Garbage In, Garbage Out. --TS 12:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I proposed another period of full protection and what we can do next (2)
This is by way of a follow-up and updating to a comment I made two weeks ago called Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next.

This shows the changes we've made since the last period of full protection ended on the morning of December 5th. I'm particularly proud of the way in which we've succeeded in tracking the evolution of the debate within the scientific community, and the period of protection enabled us to debate the organization of the "reactions" section to the extent that there have been few problems. We've been able to focus that section on identifiable expert opinion rather than the gaggle of newspaper opinion columns and talking heads that often afflicts articles on events in the news. Somebody coming here to find out what the fuss is about will see the facts of the case discussed by experts in the field. That's how it should be. This isn't a newspaper, which is a very good thing because the newspaper coverage of this affair is very patchy.

But as happened before there has been a run of highly contentious editing, and it became evident that the fragile consensus we developed over the first week in December had broken down.

What we can do next, I think, is firstly, kick back and pat ourselves on the back at achieving so much in less than a week. Well done. This is the best public coverage of the events and the issues raised anywhere, bar none. Secondly, we need to discuss and get consensus on a number of matters that have been simmering here over the past couple of days. I won't belabor them here because that would only dilute discussion that should be going on in the appropriate threads.

And don't forget to take some time out to make a start on the Christmas shopping. --TS 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously the appeal to protect the page had nothing to do with you running out of reverts :-) Merry Christmas! Dimawik (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Dimawiki, I wasn't aware that I'd been edit warring until I sat back and assessed it carefully. I was aware of removal of content that had been in the article for some time despite significant lack of consensus to remove it, and that this signified the end of our fragile consensus.  I don't defend my own editing, it was wrong. --TS 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". Why can't I edit this article. Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You can edit it, just wait 4 days (presuming you're not blocked). You can also edit many other areas of wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a week of protection seems rather overlong to me, but I'd like to remind people that if there's consensus on the talk page for changes they can still be made... Evercat (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there avenues for disputing this full protection? I don't think this is healthy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is very healthy, and it encourages people to work together on the talk page to improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to have the article unprotected before the protection period expires you can go directly to the protecting admin, and if he disagrees you can go to WP:RFPP. However it would help your case if the existing dispute (on whether to refer to death threats in the lead) had been resolved, which it hasn't. --TS 11:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason you want to full protect the article is because people are conflicted on whether to include references to death threats in the lead? Frankly, that's a ridiculous MO.--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's unfortionate no one can edit the article while protected, we weren't reaching any progress by edit warring either. I think it's positive to be able to discuss the contentious issues on the talk page instead of reverting back and forth. And it might help with a little break to relieve some stress.

Actually it's incorrect to state that we cannot edit the article while it's protected. On reaching consensus through discussion, I have already been successful in getting an admin to perform one major edit and I'm about to make a second request concerning another change. Protection is no barrier where we are willing to discuss and reach consensus. --TS 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate Source?
Linking to illegally obtained copyrighted original sources without the permission of the copyright holder infringes copyright and violates the no original research policy.

The New York Times links to this site: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable. (Actually, they link to http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ which redirects to http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php). eastangliaemails.com sports a banner for the Opinion Times which makes me worried. It would be nice to have a source of the entire e-mails, at least to use as the reference for email quotes in articles, offering the reader a place to read the entire message and understand the context. I really can't defend the site as a RS, but maybe someone else can... jheiv (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The files have been on that site for a while. We can't like to it, since it's a copyvio, and a pretty severe invasion of privacy, in addition to being stolen files.  Even if we could, they have not been authenticated by anyone who has compared the files to the originals - no way to tell if anything was modified.
 * The hacked files are an unverified, unpublished primary source. So I don't see how we could use them as a source.  Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can link to it, and to the Wikileaks archive, just as the Sarah Palin email hack page links to Wikileaks archive of those emails. If anybody here really believes it is a copyright or BLP violation you should go delete the Wikileaks link from the Palin page ASAP, otherwise we are entitled to not take you seriously.   As with the Palin emails, none of the ClimateGate document authors have challenged the authenticity of any of the contents and they have been looked at by millions, including authors and recipients of the e-mails, with nobody finding any inconsistencies.Flegelpuss (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other articles exist. I'm not sure what's been decided in that article or if that link is even kosher, but we can't link to it here for the reasons that Guettarda gives above. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A thought from Cardinal Richelieu
"If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu. Something to bear in mind, I think. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When considering what, Chris? :) Macai (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When considering the hysterical response in some quarters to the e-mails, since it's becoming increasingly obvious that (perhaps excepting FOI issues) there really isn't much that's genuinely incriminating in them. See the section below. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil Jones did also express intent to keep scientists out of the IPCC. Expressing intent to perform a large scale conspiracy happens to be a big deal, whether he succeeded or not. Macai (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, please, general discussions about the scandal rather than the article are off-topic. This page contains far too many comments to read as it is.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia Today
The effects on the COP15 conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0SHrq4FteI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.116.188 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about them? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Death Threats
Do you know about the death threats on Woodward and Berstein? Can you give me any details about them? How about death threats on Don Imus after he made his Rutger's remark? No. Know why? Because they are rather incosequential to the main stories. They existed, and yet nobody knows any of the details of them because the clear consensus among humanity is that they are at best secondary to the main stories. I just picked two random examples off the top of my head. Controversies like this are full of crazy ripple effects, but those ripple effects do not constitiute the main story (unless something significant happens.) Nobody is coming to this page to research the death threats. They want to know what was in the info, how it was gotten, who got it, and what they should make of that info. MarkNau (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the police or the FBI announce that they were investigating the death threats in question? Of course if they were serious, and were investigated, they should be in the Wikipedia article.  Why do you want to remove this?  These death threats, being investigated in multiple jurisdictions across two or three continents, are the most serious consequence.  Scientists are in danger. --TS 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your plea of "scientists are in danger" encapsulates why I think it has no place. This is not the place for a "cause," not the place to wave the banner, to issue a warning or a call to arms. The primary information pertinent to the subject is: "What happened, who did it, what is in those data, what does that mean, what is the state of things?" The lede should accurate summarize that to the best of its ability. The death threats are clearly not the main thrust of this incident. This seems crystal clear to me, and I look at other examples to verify that, to try to keep an objective perspective. MarkNau (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, these death threats are being presented as a consequence of the incident. They've attracted real world police investigation.  They are both relevant and notable, at least at this point in time.  Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a useful and informative exercise to try to think of similar cases and see what happened in the wikipedia articles in question. I haven't done this yet, but it might be a way to help us resolve this. MarkNau (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead makes this linkage clear enough - the university expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised", which indeed it was, and the consequence of that compromise was that extremists started abusing and threatening the individuals named in the e-mails. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is original research, and ludicrous to boot. People in the public eye get death threats, especially ones who enter it suddenly. Do you expect the FBI to just come out and say, "No, we're not investigating it"? The hand-wringing on this issue is just getting more and more absurd. Drolz (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there's no consensus for your change, MarkNau. Guettarda (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but add that there is no consensus to add that information to the lede either. Continued discussion and good will! MarkNau (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rather interesting how certain parties seem to want to whitewash this part of the story. I guess it gets in the way of presenting the scientists as villains. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear at all why Marknau would want these particular facts to be omitted. I'm also rather disturbed by the rhetoric being used to downplay the death threats. Are there some crimes that are of no consequence? Does the profession of the victim make a multi-continent crime investigation less important? --TS 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently yes, if the targets are people whom a certain ideological group disapproves of. Think of abortion doctors for a similar example. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a distasteful comparison, as would a comparison to the death threats against animal researchers. Those people are scientists too, so they obviously don't count if the climatologists don't count.  Perhaps we should find some real people to compare them to. --TS 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nasty batch of incivility there, guys. As a rule of thumb, if an outside observer of your edits can tell what your personal opinion is on the contentious part of a given topic, then you should doubt your own objectivity. Your personal positions are quite transparent. My own, I would wager, is quite mysterious. I suspect those on each side suspect me of being on the other. MarkNau (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, did you just make 4 reverts in the last 3 hours? You are aware of WP:3RR, correct? . Please quit your edit warring.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I predict the edit warring on this article has stopped until 12 Dec. -Atmoz (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he can be reported to WP:AN3 but I'm not sure I know how to do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter, as one friendly admin is what it takes to escape this purgatory. I actually did report TS - not even a slap on the wrist. With admin on the Team side there is no chance of getting NPOV into this article. I will go on editing in the other articles, and let some folks continue their jihad unopposed. Dimawik (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's stopped until 25 December, since it's now been fully-protected again. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The 14th, but I was figuring that some well-meaning admin was going to unprotect it before that. The tag is from the old sprot, and needs to be updated. -Atmoz (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disappointing, it really needed to be protected for longer than that, not least so that some problem editors can be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But you're one of the problem editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit pointless blocking me now. I was the one who asked for the article to be protected, because of the edit warring. --TS 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You had the page blocked to prevent yourself from edit warring? Why not just simply stop reverting other people's edits? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not stop removing content because you have a POV disagreement with it? The fault is yours, not Tony's. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's in violation of WP:UNDUE and you know it. Wikipedia is the place for WP:ADVOCACY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't "know it" at all. I see the removal of that content as part and parcel of an effort by certain editors to play down or remove altogether the well-documented fact of criminal actions in this affair. And as others have pointed out, we are supposed to use the lead to summarise the key points of the article (as Lead section states). This isn't "advocacy", it's simply a reflection of the known facts. Deleting it is mere whitewashing. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain how reporting death threats that are under investigation across at least two continents is advocacy? --TS 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me how anyone is supposed to see hyperbole like "death threats that are under investigation across at least two continents" as anything but advocacy and POV? Drolz (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Death threats that are under investigation across at least two continents" looks like an entirely factual statement to me. Death threats have been made against scientists on at least two continents, and they're under investigation by the British police and the FBI. Are you disputing those facts? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the threats are embarrassing to one side of disagreement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO: You object to the inclusion of an email Jones manifestly wrote, because it might cause him harm by inference. Yet, you not only demand that anonymous death threats against scientists are included, but insist that they be given weight and placed in the lead, for the express purpose of incriminating the skeptics by association. Unbelievable. Drolz (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So far we have dealt with just about any speculation and allegation in detail. I don't see why this particular one should be "swept under the carpet" and others stay. —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The other amusing thing about these threats is that they are being treated like a response to whoever released the emails, when they are (if anything besides nuttiness) obviously responses to the content of the emails. Shoot the messenger mentality to be sure. Drolz (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a notable commentator (while on the subject)? —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the tactics used by POV-pushers to is emphasize things they think makes their POV look better while demphasizing things they think makes their POV look worse. In reality, we're supposed to determine WP:WEIGHT based on its prominence in WP:RS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Could we at least agree that there is no POV-pushing involved in reporting the death threats as we have reported them in this article? Nobody, to my knowledge, has suggested that the artile should attribute the death threats to climate sceptics.  We definitely do need to assess the weight according to prominence in reliable sources.  The police reports, as propagated in secondary sources, are about as reliable as it gets.  Thus these are facts, and as significant facts they're summarised in the lead. --TS 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly no, I don't believe the death threats can reasonably be included given what you have excluded. I don't even understand what substantive weight you believe these threats have. Suppose that the threats were inspired solely by the emails. What does that mean? Does it mean that it is never acceptable to publish unflattering material about scientists because death threats may ensue? What bearing does the reaction of an anonymous nut have on anything that goes on in this article? You and others have vehemently opposed the inclusion of far less insane remarks by people who you say have "fringe" positions, etc. I can't see any way that you reconcile this. Nevertheless, I would for the moment be content if you would just move them out of the lead and reduce the weight assigned.  Drolz 09  03:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any undue weight with mentioning it, but the lead can always be improved. The inclusion of the death threats here is not related or connected to what has been excluded.  Please focus on the issue at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it can be mentioned, but it's not important enough to be mentioned in the lede. If it was, there wouldn't be such a dearth of WP:RS covering this aspect of the article subject.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So is the measure of importance, in this case, the number of sources covering the death threats? I'm seeing lots of coverage on Google news, AQFK.  Am I missing something? Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas: I take it then, that you oppose consistency on principle?  Drolz 09  04:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz: I have asked you several times now to stop misrepresenting the positions of other editors, and I've pointed you to WP:TALKNO. Please do not continue this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I believe that I told you I wouldn't be held hostage by your apparent inability to understand what "misrepresent" means.  Drolz 09  04:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the content, not the contributors. Thanks.  Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "So is the measure of importance, in this case, the number of sources covering the death threats?" Sort of. We're supposed to apply weight roughly in proportional to the amount of coverage in WP:RS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Including all the alleged death threats against public figures would turn Wikipedia bios of them into real snores.  They would become mostly long lists of obscure alleged death threats.  There is nothing notable about the supposed threats here, either.Flegelpuss (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone above gave the game away when they accused those of us arguing for the inclusion of this information of wanting to make climate sceptics "look bad". This isn't about making anyone look bad (and you shouldn't be implicitly seeking to protect one side's reputation anyway). I added the death threat information to the lead simply to summarise the law enforcement involvement in / response to the affair. The involvement of law enforcement agencies is always notable and as Viriditas has pointed out, the death threats have been reported by multiple news outlets. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The core focus of this article is the harassment of climate scientists. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, we're supposed to cover what WP:RS are covering. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Death Threats (WP:UNDUE)
I challenge you to give me a single reason that anonymous death threats have any relation to the controversy. The only reason that sentence is included is because it makes the entire skeptic side look bad. This is obviously ridiculous, because prominent people from all sides receive death threats all the time. Noting it here is just prejudicial. Drolz09 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the cited source, which is highly noteworthy: "Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world. No further information can be revealed about these particular threats at present because they are currently under investigation with the FBI in the United States. Many other CRU scientists and their colleagues have received torrents of abusive and threatening e-mails since the leaks first began in mid-November 2009." This means that there are now two criminal investigations taking place into this affair, one on each side of the Atlantic. That is very significant news. The harassment of scientists by anti-science activists is also indisputably a sigificant part of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At most, harassment is part of a broader narrative on the global warming issue. It has no specific relevance to this controversy unless you can provide evidence that the threats were made by someone with a tangible connection to either the hackers or the skeptics who are quoted in this article.  You don't see me adding that climateaudit is routinely DDoSed. Drolz09 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the threat to the life of a skeptic scientist in one of the emails -- I wonder why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.97.164 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Climate Audit's alleged DDOSing clearly isn't relevant to this issue. But as the cited source notes, there is a direct link between the file theft and these threats: they "have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world." It may make you unconfortable to acknowledge it, but the people sending these threats are global warming sceptics. If you consider yourself to be in that category then I'm afraid you're sharing it with some very unpleasant people - indeed, criminals. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are nuts on every side of every debate. The fact that some of them took this particular scandal as an opportunity to make death threats does not "link" them to the scandal.  They are no more relevant to it than eco-terrorist nuts on the other side.  There's no reason to mention them here except to make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association. Which, it seems, is your intention. Drolz09 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The theft was perpetrated against the CRU, and they are the victims of this crime. It is entirely appropriate to describe the crime, including all aspects pertaining to it.  It's relevant, topical, and significant. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact, it is the theft of the data that is the most significant detail of this entire incident, and should constitute the bulk of the article. Much of the fuss that has followed has been based on speculation and opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that some of them took this particular scandal -- at least you are now admitting that it was a consequence of this particular scandal, contrary to your immediately preceding absurd contention that it was not. And of course that is what is relevant here, making your original objection moot and a big waste of a lot of people's time. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidently you and the FBI part company on the matter of whether the death threats to climatologists are to be taken seriously. --TS 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking death threats seriously has nothing to do with whether or not they belong in this article. I'm not denying that they happened, but the fact that they did has no relevance to the question of whether there was fraudulent activity at CRU, or whether the hack was legal, etc. Drolz09 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony and Chris are quite right - this is directly connected with the story. This doesn't appear to be a random coincidence. Or rather, since our sources see them as connected, we need to treat them as if they were connected and not substitute our own opinions. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to how some in the anti-science activist community have responded to this incident, as well as to the personal consequences for the scientists whose e-mails were stolen. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case they belong in another section of the article, and it needs to be phrased in a way that doesn't basically imply the threats came from leading skeptics. Drolz09 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that much is clear from the context. --TS 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, if things like this are going to be included from either side; that is, "reactions" that do not actually have any relation to the veracity of issues at stake in the controversy, the article needs to be broken up into multiple sections. Since you refuse to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter, they should at least have their own section in the page: Something like Hack/Analysis of Emails/Reactions from Concerned Parties/Fallout (which is where death threats belong, if anywhere). Drolz09 (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't make accusations of bad faith against other editors. --TS 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack. It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists.  There's no reason to pretend otherwise. Drolz09 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding. This article is a joke. It reads like AGW activists wrote the damn thing.JettaMann (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see our policy on personal attacks. Making accusations like that against your fellow editors is unacceptable.  Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not transparently obvious to everyone -- most rational people think otherwise. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Please, let’s avoid the characterizations, and return to the discussion of the article. ChrisO, I thought we had broad consensus that edit beyond trivial copy edits would be discussed and some semblance of consensus reached before inclusion in the article. I see no discussion of the addition of the death threat sentence. I think it is quite arguable whether it belongs anywhere in the article, but it most certainly does not belong in the lede. (Of course the FBI is investigating, that's what we pay then to do, but absent some evidence it is credible, it isn’t as important as a hundred other issues we’ve chosen not to include.) Please remove it, then propose in this talk what wording you suggest and its placement. We can then discuss it. SPhilbrick T  15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As the death threats were reported and a direct result of the leak, I'd suggest the incident merits inclusion though not very prominently.Dduff442 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you guys mad? Criminals hacked into a university server and then caused a massive breach of privacy by publishing loads of emails. As a result, (1) climate sceptics had a large body of text from which they could cherry-pick what seemed to confirm their conspiracy theory, causing confusion right before an important conference; and (2) the scientists became the targets of death threats. And then we are supposed to discuss the speculations coming from (1) in detail, but downplay (2)??? Hans Adler 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and Yes. SPhilbrick  T  16:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To the first question: not generally, but there do seem to be specific instances. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this earlier, but it didn't sink in until now. Yes. -- SPhilbrick  T  17:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats have been covered by several reliable sources, so it belongs in the article. As for amount of coverage, we're supposed to determine weight based on its prominence among reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the death threats information into the reaction section, out of the Hack and Theft section. Given the rationale for their inclusion in the first place (i.e. they show the reaction) it seems indisputable that they belong in that section if anywhere. If anyone has a reasoned argument otherwise, please state it. Drolz09 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously ridiculous

Indeed your statement is obviously ridiculous -- death threats were issued to people whose names appeared in the emails, as a direct consequence of the emails being made public. Even from your cribbed perspective that it's only the content of the emails that is relevant and not the fact of the theft, the death threats flow from the content -- it's because those big bad scientists pulled a massive fraud on we the people that their lives are in danger, eh. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can make out, this is an argument for their inclusion in the article, which they still are. In the reaction section.  With the other reactions. Drolz09 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Death threats are criminal acts, currently being investigated by the British police and the FBI, arising from this affair. As such they're an integral and very important part of it, should be covered in the lead, and should have a prominent section of their own alongside the section on the hacking, so that readers looking for a rundown of the important events of the affair will read about them there without having to rummage through the section about "reactions" (ie statements of opinion, not criminal acts), a location which doesn't make sense at all unless we were to decide that a death threat was a reasonable reaction to the leaking of the documents. --TS 09:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I very clearly explained why the death threats, which are said to be a reaction to the publishing of the emails were moved to the reaction section. The mere fact that they are under investigation does not mean they belong in the Hack and Theft section, because 1. That section does not specifically deal with things "under investigation" and 2. The death threats are not being investigated as part of the hacking incident. No one has provided evidence that the hackers made the death threats or are linked to them. Putting death threats in that section, however, implies that that is exactly the case. Unless you have evidence of a link between the hackers and the threateners, you need to undo your edit and put that bit back in the reaction section, with other reactions. Drolz09 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's a "reaction", it's not exactly the sort of reaction that the section on reactions is about. We've got a timeline of actions - theft of files, distribution of stolen files, death threats. And we have reactions - what people said in response to the theft / content of the messages.  Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So your contention is that the death threats are unrelated to the content or theft of the emails? If that is the case then there is no reason to include them in the article at all. Drolz09 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While technically "comments" or "reactions", they are also illegal acts being investigated by the authorities. I think it makes more sense to have them in the hack and theft section dealing with similar matters.
 * The hack section deals with how the data was acquired and released. It is only incidentally about criminal investigations.  The death threats are entirely unrelated to this section: they are a reaction. Drolz09 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "So your contention is that the death threats are unrelated to the content or theft of the emails?" Nope.  Not saying anything of the sort.  Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
Given the following: Does anyone else besides myself think that we're giving undue weight by featuring the death threats so prominently in the lede? Obviously, it belongs in the article, but does it warrant mention in the lede? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming amount of coverage by reliable sources has been about the content of the e-mails and reactions to these e-mails
 * Significantly fewer reliable sources have focused on the death threats
 * Yes, as I have been saying, which is part of why I had moved them down to the reaction section. Drolz09 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um no, that's not what AQFK is asking about. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't actually have a lead. We have a chronology which starts in the first sentence. The material above the TOC really isn't a summary of what's below the TOC. Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it does belong in the lead. The case involves a series of (apparently ongoing) criminal actions against the CRU and its staff which have sparked at least two criminal investigations in the UK and US, plus the reaction to those actions. Since the harassment and targeting of these scientists before and after the theft is a key element of the story, it's essential to mention it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * like AQFK, i also think at this point it is undue in the lead. maybe in few days if more news write about it. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ABC in Australia has just published two lengthy articles on the subject:, -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The death threats are a very major part of this affair. They're being investigated by the British police and the FBI as criminal matters.  Weighing up media coverage and the like is beside the point, and should never by itself determine the weight we give to an event. --TS 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * really? does that always apply when determining wp:undue? or only sometimes? if a non-mainstream media reports on FBI activity and police criminal activity (in regards to some other article/topic), should we also give it a due weight in leads of articles? or do we need to always wait for mainstream media to report on these FBI/police inquires? what has more weight -- FBI activity, or the type and amound of media coverage it gets (mainstream/non mainstream)? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead should summarise all the major ideas in the article. Since the death threats are a distinct issue, not an expansion on some other issue, they should be in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We all know there are death threats and there are death threats. We pay our policing functions to err on the side of caution and take all seriously, but until someone is actually charged with a crime, there is zero evidence that these threats are anything more than the mindless bloviation of cranks. I'm not convinced that the thin information presented to date even deserves inclusion in the article, but I'll bow to the consensus that mention is appropriate. However, they do not presently come close to justifying inclusion in the lede.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your opening point: "lead should summarise all the major ideas in the article". That why I oppose inclusion. There are far more credible death threats against Obama, and those don't make the lead. -- SPhilbrick  T  15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are death threats against scientists (all US presidents get death threats, especially Democrat(ic) ones). This is an article about an incident and its ramifications, and now those have extended to include death threats to individual university workers. I don't see how that could be more relevant. Now, if this was an article about a point of scientific theory (which it isn't, but I think many AGW sceptics and deniers wish it was), then maybe it wouldn't be so relevant. So, which is the article about? --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "relevance" claim is a strawman. I don't see any groundswell arguing they aren't relevant. The issue is wp:weight. The lead should have the most important issues. It is truly astounding to claim that poorly specified death threats rise to that level. Sorry, when I see editors concerned about the state of this article, I see this as evidence for their case. Perhaps we should do a survey - not whether the death threats are relevant,t hey surely are, but whether they are such an important aspect of this incident that they deserve elevation to the lead.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, this issue has nothing to do with the death threats. It's just their lame attempt to play the victim. If this investigation pans out and reveals something, then fine, it can stay in the article body. It certainly doesn't belong in the opening summary. Removing, and keep it removed. No reversions. (I'm looking at you Guettarda). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, that's BS and you know it. These scientists were caught red handed and now they're pulling out this "death threat" business to play the victim. Someone probably wrote to them that they wish they would go extinct or otherwise and they see this as their chance to gain some sympathy. It's a joke that you think it belongs in the summary, it's barely worthy of being commented on in the article unless something from the investigations actually pans out. In the POV article on Wikipedia it has an undue weight clause, which you are violating here. JettaMann (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far we have dealt with just about any speculation and allegation in detail. I don't see why this particular one should be "swept under the carpet" and others stay.

The only reason why "Following the release of the e-mails, climate scientists at the CRU and elsewhere have received numerous threatening and abusive e-mails." is because before that they weren't in the news and their email addresses were not found all over the net. Every public figure (including Sesame Street characters and Telletubbies!) gets threatening and abusive e-mails. Public figures who suddenly become much more well known and who at the same time have their email addresses revealed are bound to get an increase in threatening and abusive e-mails. Just because they got a bunch of newspapers to write about said increase, that doesn't make it notable. Notable implies something that is different from what always happens to all public figures. Mentioning it in this case and not on the pages for Britney Spears or Rush Limbaugh (both of whom get a lot of threatening and abusive e-mails as documented in several notable sources) is not being neutral. 75.84.238.18 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These death threats are being investigated by the FBI and the UK police. If the creators of the Tellytubbies, Kermit the Frog, and Dora the Explorer have received death threats that have been investigated by law enforcement, we should probably mention this in appropriate context in their respective articles.  It really isn't a run-of-the-mill occurrence. --TS 09:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The *alleged* death threats and the *alleged* hacking are minor incidents not worthy of Wikipedia notability. How often are the death threats received by politicians, celebrities, and other public figures deemed notable enough to include in Wikipedia? Very rarely. It is the content of the documents and the reaction to that content that is notable and rightfully constitutes the bulk of the article. These alleged misdemeanors are not by themselves notable. They are notable at best only because the are related to the firestorm caused by the content of the documents. The alleged hacking should be given far less prominence in the article, and the alleged death threats probably should be removed altogether. If we dove into every misdemeanor associated with a major news story, Wikipedia would be bulky and boring.Flegelpuss (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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