User:Tillman/Climategate lede work

Lede as of 4/24/11, noon MST, diff:


 * The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when a server was breached at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and thousands of emails and computer files were uploaded and copied without permission to numerous locations across the Internet.


 * Controversy over allegations that the emails revealed malpractice within the climate science community first began to circulate in climate sceptic blogs and then later in the traditional media. Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and a UEA assessment panel and independent review, cleared the scientists and found no evidence of scientific misconduct.


 * Serious allegations against climate scientists by climate sceptics were rejected by five separate investigations, but public confidence in climate science was tainted by continuing controversy in the media. The Columbia Journalism Review criticized the mainstream media for covering the initial controversy but failing to cover the results of the investigations.

Last version with broad consensus: Dave Souza, diff, 23 April.


 * The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when thousands of emails and computer files from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were made public.


 * There was immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed malpractice within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific misconduct.

My proposed rewrite

 * The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when thousands of emails and computer files were taken without authorization from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and widely distributed on the Internet.


 * There was immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed professional malpractice within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and two UEA-sponsored panels found no evidence of scientific misconduct. However, the university investigations were criticized, violations of the  UK Freedom of Information Act were credibly alleged, and public confidence in climate science was diminished.

I would urge interested editors to post proposed changes to the lede here and build consensus for their proposals, rather than editing the article directly. This is always good practice in editing controversial articles, and they don't get more controversial than this.

I sympathize with editors who've criticized the first rewrite as too bare-bones, but I strongly feel it's better to work up from a consensus version. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)