Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 17 December 2009

Template:Shell

A news item involving Climatic Research Unit email controversy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 November 2009.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"? A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails? A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source? A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain? A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person. A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article? A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do? A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content? A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that? A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 28 November 2009 (archived) and 21 November 2009 (archived) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009)

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Noticeboard notifications

BLP noticeboard

• 21 November 2009 - Michael E. Mann etc
• 28 November 2009 - Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

NPOV noticeboard

• 7 December 2009 - Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Requested moves

• 11 December 2009 - Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit Incident

3RR noticeboard

• 14 December 2009 - User:99.151.166.95

CRU Hacking Dispute

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is disagreement over whether the claim by CRU that they were hacked, and an inconclusive statement by the police that they are investigating a "security breach" is grounds for writing the article as though it were a categorical fact that a hack occurred, despite some (also inconclusive) evidence to the contrary. Drolz (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of this summary is disputed. See FAQ question 5.

This large RFC has been moved to a page of its own:

/RFC/CRU Hacking Dispute

--TS 13:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Death threats against climate scientists

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Following newspaper, media and blog reports of the contents of emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit, death threats have been reported by climate scientists in the US, the UK and Australia. There at least two distinct law enforcement investigations: one by the FBI and the other by Norfolk Constabulary. There is a difference of opinion on whether these threats should be mentioned in the lead section of the article. --TS 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This large RFC has been moved to a page of its own:

/RFC/Death threats against climate scientists

--TS 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Move proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"

As this discussion seems to have developed into a serious proposal with considerable support, I've moved this section to the bottom of the discussion page where it will get more attention --TS 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that Climatic Research Unit email controversy be renamed and moved to Climatic Research Unit Incident. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit incident — Other data besides email were included in the incident; there is some debate whether this was a leak or a hack - should these be reflected in the title? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The article's name seems misguided as more than emails were hacked...there are thousands of pages of source code and other documents "hacked." There is also controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. Perhaps the article should be renamed Climatic Research Unit incident ...the name seems far more neutral without adding extra emphasis on the e-mails.Smallman12q (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a smilar discussion at the german lemma, here it was renamed from Climategate or E-Mail incident to a lengthy translation of the english lemma. Keep me posted :) --Polentario (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can just remove the "e-mail" from the name? Then change the opening line to reflect it? Ignignot (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Polentario, I wouldn't put too much faith in the English Misplaced Pages on this topic. We have a severe POV-pushing problem here between two different sides. The current article name merely reflects which side has better Wikilawyering skills. I suspect the best name for the article is either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" but it's not a battle I'm willing to fight. I hope that helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be evidence they were leaked, not "stolen" or "hacked" in the traditional sense. A name change would make sense (perhaps "scandal"?). Riley Ralston (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)user was blocked as a sockpuppet Kim D. Petersen (talk)

We already have a guideline which addresses this issue. "Scandal" is a word to avoid. So, no, we can't use "scandal". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" is best. Doesn't reference a hack which is unproven and (surprising to me) appears increasingly less like what actually happened. Doesn't reference Climategate. Indicates that there is a controversy over documents/emails without saying whether the controversy revolves around their content or matter of acquisition, which is an acceptable compromise, I believe (and really, outside of wikipedia, the controversy is the content). Drolz (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid: WP:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal. Actually this has been discussed a few times before, might be worth looking over previous suggestions an comments as well.
—Apis (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The page says to avoid using "controversy" except in cases where the is clearly a debate going on. That is, cases exactly like this one. Drolz (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to discuss possible names for this article with a view to achieving consensus. So far we seem to be bogged down, though. Most of the suggested alternatives have irresolvable problems. --TS 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute." Controversy is clearly an appropriate name for this topic. There is, in fact, no other word to accurately describe it. Incident needs to be replaced ASAP because it strongly implies that this was an isolated occurrence rather than an ongoing and developing story. "Climate Research Unit File Controversy" fairly describes what is going on. Constantly objecting to proposed names without finding alternatives is not constructive behavior, and only serves to keep the current, biased name in place. Drolz (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis used above is not part of the original text. A different part to "highlight" could be: " is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject."
—Apis (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 'Climate Research Unit FOIA Controversy' or just 'Climate Research Unit Incident'? I don't want to contribute to sending the discussion off in a hundred directions at once, it's just that 'File Controversy' is a bit strange to me. The current title is clumsy, but I don't have strong opinions on alternatives.Dduff442 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now 3,000,000 google hits for "climategate" ... and google seems to be back censoring the term "climategate" in its "quick text" feature (or whatever it is called), because again it suggested "climate guatemala" even when I had "climateg..". But of course, according to the "scientists" who edit these articles, the google hit rate is going down, there is no censorship of wikipedia, and there never was a scandal. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are only 680. Those numbers that Google puts up at the top are actually pretty meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is neither neutral or encyclopedic language. The word is in the article, just not in the title.Dduff442 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FOIA would be fine with me, but others would probably consider email or documents better. Again I think controversy is obviously better than incident. I agree about file in retrospect-awkward. Drolz (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid". Actually, per WP:AVOID, "When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict." Numerous reliable sources are using the term 'controversy' including: 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, and Reuters A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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 BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Incident or Climate Research Unit Controversy are each fine by me. As Monbiot points out, attempting to deny there's a scientific controversy (of whatever severity; mild to moderate IMO) simply erodes the credibility of the person making the claim and the credibility of climate science generally. Von Storch's attitude reflects my views as well. There's the hacking controversy as well of course.

My only real objection to the current title is its incredible clumsiness.Dduff442 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Monbiot or any other serious commentator has said there is a scientific controversy: there may be a career crisis for 3 - 4 scientists, but there is no controversy with regard to the science itself and the other several thousand scientists involved in it. Has anybody called for the cancellation or postponement of COP15? If there were serious scientific controversy over AGW, that would have happened. That is just the extreme-right, big-oil fringe trying to have a last word. This is the article about the incident, and all its ramifications, in that there are no others, just what we have here. For sure, the only mention at Copenhagen has been the Saudis, and what could their motivation be? --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sry about late reply; didn't notice your post. It all depends upon what you mean by 'crisis'. For sure, the incident is insufficient to cast into question the massive body of work on AGW. It seriously damages the prestige and credibility of the discipline in the public mind, however, and by extension the environmental movement's ability to mobilise public opinion. Morale, strangely enough, is also important. The deniers are ebullient at the moment.Dduff442 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to be more specific in the title. Perhaps it should be "2009 Climatic Research Unit incident", or "Climatic Research Unit data theft", or something like that. Use of "controversy" should be avoided at all costs, particularly because there is nothing controversial about the theft of data (it happens all the time). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey's suggestion, "CRU incident" or "CRU data theft" is OK by me. Also consider other similar articles, Pentagon Papers for example, it's not called pentagon controversy or pentagon scandal not even pentagate.
—Apis (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be called Pentagate because because Watergate happened after the Pentagon Papers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry, Pentagate was added as irony, but that was unnecessary and it's easily misunderstood here. Point is, we should strive to use a neutral name.
—Apis (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is based off consensus, perhaps we could take a vote...

Do you support renaming this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident" (or something similar such as 2009 CRU Incident)Smallman12q (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Smallman12q (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
2. (I'd leave out 2009)Dduff442 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3. It's not just about email or about hacking. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Also prefer to exclude the year. Would be okay with "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Drolz (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
6. It's the content and the reaction to it, not the *alleged* hacking, that makes this a notable event.Flegelpuss (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Scjessey or Climatic Research Unit files incident. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Judith & Scjessey. Despite what some may think, I'm not actually opposed to controversy since I feel controversy doesn't imply there was any wrongdoing on the part of the CRU or scientists involved but given the controversy that will cause (pun semi-intended) incident is probably the best compromise Nil Einne (talk)
9. Support. "Controversy" would be better but I'll support "incident." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Qualified support Agree that "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" is neutral and accurate. Collect (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Would be happy with "Climatic Research Unit incident", "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" or "Climatic Research Unit controversy". I think the last is the best, but recognize some are quite opposed, so eith er of the first two are clearly better than the current, misleading title.--SPhilbrickT 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. It's a better title.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. though "Climatic Research Unit Research Misconduct Incident" would be more descriptive -- 97.125.30.19 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)— 97.125.30.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
14. Support though I more strongly support the widely-accepted "Climategate" despite WP policies to the contrary. Nightmote (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Removing the POV term hacking and to narrow e-mail should be done prompt. Although I'd prefered a name like Climate Research Unit documents controversy as proposed by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) below. Nsaa (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Whats wrong with Climategate?? Peterlewis (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   Should this be recategorized as "On the Fence", or does Peter really prefer the current name, which is not "ClimateGate", to the proposal?Flegelpuss (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   It should be left as it is - Peter is opposing the name change, he is not on any fence. Brumski (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   'Climategate' isn't an option. '-gate' is listed as a word to avoid for article titles accoring to this guideline: WP:AVOID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

2. If we miss out the hacking, then we've missed the point of the article. The persistent notion that there is significant debate over whether it was a hacking or a leak is addressed in the FAQ. UEA has reported a hacking incident to the police and the police are investigating it as a criminal offence, and there is absolutely no evidence to support the speculation that there was no hack. I'd also like to go on record as disliking this "vote" format. It's never a good way to manage a discussion on a wiki. --TS 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3. The proposed name ("Climatic Research Unit Incident") is far too vague. The clear weight of the media is behind that this was a hacking incident, and the largest majority of the media discussion has been about the e-mails disclosed. We cannot really leave either of these terms out, without making the title almost meaningless. When I say media, I mean, of course the WP:RS media, not the looney/denier blogosphere. --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
4. The arguments for changing the name aren't persuasive, so I'm OK with leaving it as it is. I'm with TS RE the vote as well. Brumski (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   To expand a little: going from policy, WP:Naming conventions#Deciding an article name advises the following for titles - Recognizable: Use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Easy to find: Use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). Precise: Use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Concise: Use names and terms that are brief and to the point. Consistent: Use names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. The current article name satisfies all those criteria adequately for me. The one that is arguable is "precise" but the policy clarifies that it just needs to be sufficiently precise to identify the topic to me; every time I see this subject in the news or discussed anywhere, the context (or frame) that news or discussion source uses to set the scene (i.e. to identify the subject/incident/topic for me) nearly always uses "email" and "hack/hacking" (or "leak" in some cases). So, on the basis of policy and the lack of a persuasive argument for the alternative, the current name is fine for me. Brumski (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Vague to the point of being meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I have mixed feeling about "email" (although the other files have attracted little attention, so it's really not too bad). I think "hacking" is a crucial element. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not wedded to "incident", but I can't think of a better word at the moment. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose. I still think that 'Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy' or 'Climate Research Unit documents controversy' are the most descriptive and accurate names for this subject, and in-line with the terminology used by WP:RS. However, I'm fine with whatever the majority decides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
7. As Guettarda points out, the proposed rename is hopelessly vague. We are required to use descriptive names for articles, which this certainly wouldn't be. I am also rather suspicious of the rationale behind this proposal, given the repeated attempts to whitewash any mention of hacking from this article; I note that some of the supporting comments invoke this POV, which relies on nothing more than a few bloggers' wild speculations. And in fact, immediately below in #Further discussion, the editor who proposed this change is busy pushing the (completely unsourced) line that the files were not hacked. His motive for deleting "hacking" from the title seems to be fairly transparent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'd just like to point out that I'm in favor of removing "hacking" for the reason that it allows for an article of broader scope -- so at least one editor has other motives than those you mentioned. But your point is noted. jheiv (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

8. Meaningless proposal. Current name is widely recognized and the e-mails are the locus of the discussion. "Controversy" is not recommended for any article. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Hacking should be in the title. -Atmoz (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. "Climatic Research Unit Incident" is too vague to be taken seriously. What's next, The New York Incident for the 2008-9 financial collapse? The American Incident for the Civil War? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

    Well.. This would be more like referring to the American civil war of the 1850's as the 'War Between the States'. It might not be any clearer than 'the Civil War', but one would think it should be easier to agree on than describing that war as the 'War of Northern Aggression' or something related to opposition to secession or the preservation of the Union. Nevard (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose as per the above, hacking is the major part of this controversy. Email while not entirely correct, is what the major focus of media attention has been on - whenever they explain the controversy, they mention emails as the most important part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Opposing with general agreement on weasel-like confusion of new name. It'll likely need a rename to something more official at some point, but this shouldn't be it. As far as someone browsing would know, the article is about an inexplicable explosion at the settled South Pole research facility sparked by Penguin extremists protesting the loss of their icebergs. That's, uh, technically every aspect of the new name, and also far sillier and what I wish we could have there. Hell, we don't even know if this story has a true notable future or might end up a section in an article of the conference as a whole. If this happened at any other time in the past 10 years no one would have cared. The Penguin Extremists who stole WMD from one of those frightful micronations in the region that demand sovereignty and a Misplaced Pages article? Oh yea. Now that'd be notable. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose, the hack and e-mails have been central to the discussion, without them there would be no "incident". Simply incident is too vague. It's true that more than e-mails were stolen, but as pointed out, there have been little discussion about the other files.
    —Apis (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Opposed until we sort out what the mission statement is for the article. MarkNau (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose for now. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - this proposed title is excessively vague. Names should be as clear as possible, and the current one, while a little wordy, is definitely preferable for that reason. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose This is a current event that is still developing. The current name seems properly descriptive enough for users to properly find the information that are seeking, which is the intent in the name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Reject in light of the recent news it is certain it will be forever known in the annals of scandals as Climategate! They're going down! Isonomia (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On the fence

1. Undecided. Would prefer "controversy", but I do feel removing "hacking" gets us closer. It seems there is significant support for "controversy", but as not to derail this vote, should I just let this vote go the way it looks like it will, then propose the change? jheiv (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Undecided. I suspect the new proposed name or name range is too vague. However, there's a rather obvious problem with the current "hacking incident" - the real world narrative and debate is not primarily about the hacking of the material, it's about the content of that material now it's in the public domain, and the furore around it. That's the case whether you think the material reveals an evil plot by scientists to deceive the world and allow a one-world government to tax us all to death, or whether you think it's simply another example of ill-informed columnists and bloggers seizing on any apparent scraps in order to push a minority (in terms of current science) viewpoint. I know it's frowned on, but I'm not sure we can get away from "controversy", which also has the advantage of covering those points from both angles. But without the "hacking". --Nickhh (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

There is controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. I generally dislike the voting format, but I don't see any other way to demonstrate a consensus for the change.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change. Look in the archives. It's been discussed to death. --TS 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is indeed rough consensus for a change, your opposition effectively stands alone here. Gigs (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

'Climategate' is simply a non-runner - it's been thoroughly dispensed with elsewhere. The vote is only reasonable as a last resort however it looks like the only way of at least cutting down the field of options. A solid majority position has been established. Now it's really down to the opponents to decide why it is they rule out the new wording. 'Functional' is probably the most charitable description for the current title. Dduff442 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's holding us up here? The lone dissenter seems not to be active. Dduff442 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TS is active. Peterlewis is AWOL, but he didn't really oppose the rename per se anyway. "Climatic Research Unit documents incident" then? If you think we are ready to go, we should put {{editprotected}} followed by the rename request, and an admin will come review consensus and do the move. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there now appears to be quite a bit of support for this. As the discussion was previously in the middle of the page, however, and many involved in other discussions on the page haven't weighed in, I'd suggest that we give it another couple of days to allow them to comment if they want to. I've moved this section to the end to increase its prominence (I almost missed it myself). --TS 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it for WP:RM. Apparently we're supposed to leave seven days for discussion (which seems reasonable to me). --TS 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your listing there is anything but neutral. Can you reformulate it in a more neutral manner that doesn't put words in people's mouths? Gigs (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer you to do it. Just rewrite it using your own words and replace the signature. As I said, my words were just a formal placeholder. --TS 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The template is supposed to open discussion, not close it. Fixed. I also decapitalized incident. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, this is not a vote, it is an attempt to gauge current consensus. Therefore the quality of the arguments given for and against each comment will have to be judged and weighed, not just the numbers of them compared. --Nigelj (talk)

That's some strange twist of logic. Ignoring !votes not based on policy reasons when there is a question of policy such as at an XfD is one thing. For something like this where it's more of a simple gauge of current opinion, accompanied with pages of actual discussion, it's kind of a strange argument to make. I agree that a simple majority doesn't indicate consensus, and people shouldn't confuse a straw poll with some kind of binding vote in any normal sense, but I think you've taken the logic a step too far. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Harrumph. I've no objection to the word hacking, it's just that its inclusion in the title isn't a major concern. Looks like I misjudged the state of opinion on this. We're as far from agreement as ever. Dduff442 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone doesn't need to agree with the change, everyone should agree that there is consensus for making it before any change is made. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the 'voting is a bad idea' I'm actually of the opinion it's a good idea here. It's apparent that there's significant ill feeling on both sides and a lot of discussions get heated and quite a few just degrade into back and forths, after a while usually repeating the same thing that's been discussed before, sometimes with some unnecessary sniping, sometimes eventually only involving a few and the same editors. And yes I've been a part of that on occassion. The protection also indicates a breakdown in communication and discussion. A move!vote, which is actually a fairly establised part of proposed page moves (and often used even when a page move appears non controversial but to check or even if there's been limited discussion but the proposer feels it's merited) is a good way IMHO for all to gauge their position. If editors find themselves supporting a clearly minimally supported option, even if it's not enough for consensus on a move, my hope is they will reassess their position and work towards compromise. This isn't something like Myanmar/Burma where there's only 1 option. Perhaps this won't happen but we'll just get more of the same, only time will tell. I would remind editors that nothing here is set in stone. It's perfectly fine to revisit this in 3 months if it appears things have changed and given the nature of this story, it may be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A vote can help sift out the realistic options from the non starters. I think the sceptics would make more headway if they structured their efforts and were less diffuse in their targetting. Their sense of outraged frustration is palpable however their own approach lacks practicality. Dduff442 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we have very many skeptics left editing the article? Most of them have been effectively banned with the page restrictions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This stems in part from the very lack of practicality I referred to. Rather than getting stuck in to reverts etc, which is a numbers game you can only lose, some progress might be possible if you focused on patient argumentation on a more limited range of issues. I only mention this because, as an AGW proponent, I think the perception (valid or invalid, I make no call) that the system is stacked against you creates a sense of righteous indignation and only serves to fuel the fire. Dduff442 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AQFN, there are no restrictions (afaik) on contributing to this Talk page. The idea of restricting access to the article is only to reduce ill-informed and un-supported edits to it, not to weed out one or more types of opinion. It gives new and inexperienced contributors a chance to find out about WP policies and procedures before hacking the article to a mess in their enthusiasm to get a point across, before they find out how things work here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dduff, the system is stacked against them. By design, we have a systemic bias toward published scientific works. Its usually not a bad thing, but it definitely puts a spin on these more politicized science articles. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Back on the topic of the name change) I'd actually prefer "controversy" to be quite honest as I feel it most aptly describes the situation. While I understand it is "a word to avoid", consider the precedent of Killian documents controversy, and the fact that it has found its way into at least one related article: Global warming controversy. jheiv (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to "controversy". My only caveat is that this does not seem to be as much of an ongoing issue in the mainstream media, so it may be more appropriate to retain "incident", but I'm OK with either way. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equally important, don't forget, is the feeling disseminated across widely in the loonier reaches of the blogosphere, Conservapedia etc, that this hacking incident represents the 'final nail in the coffin' that exposes all the 'fraud and manipulations by scientists' and so overturns the whole global warming 'theory'. Those guys don't want us to be discussing a 'hacking incident', but a glorious liberation of true knowledge that puts the whole oily world back as they like it. The sub-text of the title must not be allowed to drift in that direction. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Spin and distortion are as old as the hills. I wouldn't be too threatened by conservapedia... they're a minority of a minority. If our own house is kept in order, we have nothing to fear.Dduff442 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much Conservapedia that's the problem, it's all the Glenn Beck fans and naive or uninformed people who confuse bloggers' speculations with reliably sourced facts. That said, I can live with "controversy" in the title, since the issue discussed in the article is not just the initial hacking incident but the subsequent controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Their article is funny. But I only got about half-way through before I got bored and quit reading it. It does, however, score over our version in that I didn't read any sections that read like a list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read that Conservapedia's founder Andrew Schlafly was on Colbert recently. I wonder if he took the opportunity to mention the imminent demise of the communist socialist atheist homosexualist satanist conspiracy. --TS 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the arguments here are seriously jumping the shark. Senator James Inhofe, Ex-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, statistician Steven McIntyre, the number one news channel Fox News, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. are mainstream America, they are not "the loony fringe" or anywhere approaching it, no matter how strongly many editors here seem to wish they could portray them that way. Ditto for Russian government officials, Lord Lawson and many others in Britain, and so on for their countries. Also, folks who claim the article is about the hacking have to realize that police, prosecutors, and computer security officials are then the appropriate experts to quote, not scientists. Only if the article is about the content of the documents, the events discussed in the documents, and reactions to these documents and events, is it appropriate for the article to be quoting scientists as experts, as well as politicians on the political consequences of this scandal. Despite the silly claims to the contrary, the extensive coverage given to scientists in the article shows that it is obviously about the content of the documents, and the events discussed in the documents, not about the hacking, as in fact it should be, reflecting the extremely voluminous debate over the content and events discussed in the documents that any Google search on any of the famous quotes will readily find.Flegelpuss (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument from authority. Please read and familiarize yourself with it. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. FOX News, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal are all reliable sources. Assuming that these are straight news sources, it's not Argument from authority, it's the very essence of Misplaced Pages and exactly how we're supposed to write this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think not. Flegelpuss offers an argument from authority. He claims we should accept and respect the opinions of Inhofe, "Ex-Vice Presidential candidate " Palin, McIntryre, "number one" news channels, etc. not because their opinion is relevant to the topic, but because of who they are, and Flegelpuss erroneously claims they cannot be considered or criticized as "loony fringe" because their authority somehow rises above the level of criticism. This is in fact false - they are, most assuredly criticized, and quite heavily I might add. Now to address your claims. FOX News is not a reliable source for analyzing climate science. Neither is the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. Viriditas (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Vir, you are way off-base. This isn't a formal debate, where all logical fallacies are to be avoided. We are writing an encyclopedia, where informal logic is a better guiding principle. More importantly, this article is not "analyzing climate science". Not even close. WP has developed policies and guidelines covering what can be used as reliable sources. (As an aside, I could support a guideline preferring peer-reviewed sources over media sources in a purely science article, but I don't see evidence that WP has reached that conclusion, and in any event, it isn't applicable here.) You may not like Fox News, but it qualifies as a reliable source. Same for Washington Times and the New York Times.--SPhilbrickT 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. You're confused, and I'm here to help you understand why. Flegelpuss does not offer any reason why the sources should be used, and we don't automatically use a source because you consider it reliable. FOX News is most certainly not a reliable source on analyzing climate science, which you yourself claimed above. Whenever possible, we choose to use the best sources at our disposal. I very much doubt FOX News is a good source for this topic considering their open, overt, often confrontational bias against climate science. Perhaps if we determine that we need to demonstrate how certain media outlets are biased against this issue, using academic scholars on the subject, then yes, we can make an example of FOX News and use their poor, shoddy, biased, and error-filled reporting as an example of poor journalistic coverage on this topic. I look forward to writing that section myself, so I'll keep you updated on my progress. How does a section called, "Media bias and inaccuracy" sound, with an example of FOX News leading the first paragraph? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not confused. You seem to think this is an article about climate science. It is not. I don’t disagree that Fox news’ coverage is shoddy, poor biased and error-filled. Roughly the same for the NYT. They are both media outlets more interested in satisfying an agenda that getting the facts right. But they both qualify as RS, so they are perfectly fine for this article. They are also perfectly fine for an article about science. However, if an article is about science, and the consensus of peer-reviewed articles disagrees with newspaper coverage, then I’m going with the peer-reviewed conclusions. But that doesn’t apply here. Almost every sentence is about something other than science, and I’m only adding the qualifier because I might have missed a sentence or two, but I don’t see any scientific statements in this article. SPhilbrickT 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Jim Inhofe is pretty fringe, and not a little loony. He claims that 90% of Americans don't believe the planet is warming, for example. Palin's problems with facts are also well documented, as is the fact that even the McCain campaign thought her unqualified to run for VP, so the fact that she's an ex VP candidate doesn't add much credibility. As for Fox News, the fact that it's a leading cable news channel in the US says very little - few people actually watch cable news, the US is just 5% of the world's population, etc. - and the fact that Fox isn't very good with the facts is well established. They aren't "mainstream America", and when it comes down to it, America isn't exactly mainstream on the issue. So 'they are mainstream America', even if it were true, is a pretty weak argument. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Jim Inhofe could be as fringe and loony as you like but his opinion would still belong there because he's the senior Senator from Oklahoma. At national level, the opinions of elected officials in any important country are significant and should probably be reported. --TS 01:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I could debate that with you until the cows come home, but I consider myself even-handed. As long as Ihofe isn't given undue weight, I don't have a problem with him appearing in this article, but I still don't think he belongs. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit where the title of the page came from . --172.129.7.82 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. This is the correct diff. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we make a decision on this?

It's clear from the above discussion that words like "Climategate", "hacking", "scandal" and "controversy" are deemed inappropriate (by policy, guideline and general consensus). "E-mail" is fine, but seems unnecessarily limiting. Can we therefore come to some sort of agreement over a new name? These seem to have the most support thus far:

• Climatic Research Unit documents incident
• Climatic Research Unit files incident
• Climatic Research Unit incident

I propose that we pick on of these (I personally favor "Climatic Research Unit documents incident", but I'd support any of the three), establish a consensus and do it already. Variations can have redirects. What say you, shipmates? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A concrete "Request for move" is in progress above. It's quite close to ending now. The discussion of the article title can continue, though. As you may see in the lists, though, opinions for and against the current proposal are quite evenly matched, so consensus on a widely acceptable alternative is probably going to be difficult to achieve. --TS 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the consensus, policy or guideline is against the word 'hacking'. If you read the 'oppose' comments above, many of them oppose that proposal because it doesn't include 'hacking'. Equally, many above agree that the main media focus has been on the e-mails, not the other documents, so this should be reflected here. Where do you get the idea that we have to get moving on renaming the article? Why can't we wait until there is some new evidence, for example an arrest, or a published investigation, or a statement from one of the parties, and discuss the name in the light of finding out some more facts about whatever actually happened? --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My primary desire for moving the article is the limiting "e-mail" qualifier, since other files are also involved. Also, "hacking" (while supported by reliable sources) is probably unnecessary. I realize that some editors specifically desire these words to remain in the article name to help control the scope of the article, but that shouldn't really be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to "control the scope" of the article, but this was a hacking incident and so the name fits. I see some pressure from some editors who are quite open about wanting to limit the scope to the ensuing controversy (arguing that, in their view, this is what the media are doing) and that explains to me why those particular editors support a name change, but since this is a hacking incident being investigated by the police that's a good enough reason for me to include the word in the title. --TS 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if, apart from the vocal minority who want 'Climategate' or something like it, the majority of other editors are happy with the present title, why just keep proposing that we have to discuss the same thing (removing the two descriptive words in the title other than 'CRU') over and over? --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - But surely having "hacking" in the title is a presumption that a hacking has actually taken place, without that having yet been proven? And I think everyone agrees that "e-mail" should either be changed to "documents", or "files", or simply omitted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest a "majority" of editors are happy with the present title. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On hacking, the speculation that it's something other has been done to death on blogs and even on Misplaced Pages, but strangely not in any reliable source. This is because there is no evidence that it was other than what has been reported both by the Climatic Research Unit and by RealClimate: hacking. Not unsurprisingly, the Norfolk Constabulary--a county-wide force that has experts of its own--has called in a specialist Metropolitan Police e-Crime unit and is calling it "criminal offences related to a data breach"--hacking to you and me. --TS 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but until that has actually been proven, it is still based on speculation and not cast-iron facts. I am utterly convinced it was hacking of some nature (certainly it was an unauthorized access of data), but Misplaced Pages must be absolutely certain before such a controversial term is used in the title of an article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been stated by all the significant people involved. --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So? Until the investigation has run its course, nobody can categorically state that hacking has occurred, which means it is inappropriate for use in the title of the article per WP:NAME. This spirited defense of the word now has me concerned. What compelling reason is there for "hacking" to be in the title? Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is special pleading. On Misplaced Pages we rely on what is verifiable, not what is provable beyond all doubt. When the police launch a kidnap investigation we describe the incident as a kidnapping, even if eventually the facts are found to be different. To make an exception for this case, we would need a reason, and the only reason I see here is that, in the face of all the evidence and without any countervailing evidence, some people want it to be something other than a hacking incident. --TS 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Things like, "The glorious liberation of the truth from evil scientists"? --Nigelj (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Special pleading" or otherwise, we are talking about the title of the article. When there is any doubt at all, we have to err on the side of caution when it comes to article naming (that's a policy, not a guideline). And I don't want to hear any of that "some people want it to be something other than hacking" crap, because I do think it was hacking. My argument is purely about a matter of policy, and some of you are responding as if I'm a "denier". Perhaps I should request a third opinion on this matter, because I'm starting to wonder if we don't have some ownership issues developing here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to doubt. No reliable source has suggested anything other than hacking. I call it special pleading becuase it's a classic "you cannot say the earth is not flat" argument. --TS 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. You cannot equate my concern for following article naming conventions (entirely a policy-based objection) with believing the world is flat. I ask again: Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, we had a WP:RS at one point in the article, but it's since been removed. If I get a chance, I will try to find some more WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "hacking". That is not the issue here. The issue is that the word qualifies "incident" when it isn't yet certain that hacking was involved (although I personally believe that it was). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok read this "East Anglia University has gone out of its way to promote itself to students from the former Soviet Union. Its website says that 33 Russian students currently study there. It is not known if they have fallen under suspicion as part of the police investigation." Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails? from Daily Mail. As an student you're on the inside … Nsaa (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question mark at the end of the headline, and the extremely speculative nature of the quote from the article (classic Daily Mail style to invoke McCarthyist fears of the long gone Soviet Union) should provide you with a clue that this article in a tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source on anything except the obsessions of its proprietor and editorial staff. --TS 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So Daily Mail is known for simplifying and distort the truth? Here's yet another Source "On November 17th an anonymous whistleblower downloaded email and data files from computers at the Climatic Research Unit and," 'Climategate' Exposes the Global Warming Hoax in Pravda. Nsaa (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pravda! --TS 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha just your comment on Daily Mail and long gone Soviet Union … Nsaa (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you listen to this Youtube Clip Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower, Not A "Hacker" you may wonder if he's right. Why did a "hacker" removed all personal information like e-mail-addresses, names etc.? Typically a Whistle-blower activity. But since we only have Daily Mail, Pravda etc. we should STATE in the article name that's a hacking incident? Get real! Nsaa (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You want to cite Monckton? No. Just no. If you want anyone to take you seriously, please try to find a higher calibre of sources than blogs and YouTube videos from fringe figures. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with two above Daily Mail and Pravda. Listen to a person don't hurt. Instead of attacking me you could try to dismiss his analysis and pointing where he went wrong. And no, I don't suggest adding primary sources videos like the above Video. Where do I propose that? I just say try to listen. And hacking is POV and should go out. Nsaa (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see that none of you are taking this seriously. Nobody has been able to answer my question (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?) despite me asking it twice. All I am getting in response is the Chewbacca defense. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's break this down a bit. The article title currently has four components: (1) Climatic Research Unit (2) e-mail (3) hacking (4) incident. (1) is uncontroversial - I don't think anyone has suggested altering or removing that. (2) is reasonable, since the focus is primarily on the e-mails. (3) is defensible, since the circumstances in which the e-mails were released is a major part of the controversy - the way that the CRU was targeted by criminals has been roundly condemned by scientists and politicians. (4) is an element on which I'm amenable to change. "Incident" is perhaps misleading, since it implies a single discrete event at a single point in time. That would be accurate if the article was solely about the hack. But since it's not just about that but also covers the subsequent controversy, I think it's an unsatisfactory term. "Controversy" would, I think, be a more suitable term. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! So Remove (3) hack and Change (4) and we get Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy which is a far better name and more neutral in tone. But since others strongly has rejected controversy we just stick to incident for the moment. I.e. Climatic Research Unit e-mail incident and goes for this now. Nsaa (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why controversy again is proposed? Just for distorting the question from Scjessey (Why is "hacking incident" better than "incident"?)? Nsaa (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been researching this and "controversy" in the title is perfectly acceptable in this situation. I'm currently drafting an explanation which hopefully will be done soon. Unfortunately, I only have 2-3 hours a day to devote to Wikipdia so "soon" could be tonight or this weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been embroiled in titling discussions that involved the word "controversy" before. In most cases, the word was deemed inappropriate per WP:WTA. The facts of the incident are not in dispute, so there isn't anything "controversial" about it. I'm not a fan of "incident" either, but I cannot think of a suitable alternative. I don't know why anyone still insists on the "e-mail" qualifier - coverage of the emails has been more significant because they are easier to follow, but quality analysis of the other data is beginning to appear as more time passes. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage further discussion on this, but removal of the term "hacking" seems moot for now as a concrete proposal to do just that is on Requested moves and at the end of the seven day discussion period (subject to backlogs) an administrator will make a determination on whether consensus exists for that action. --TS 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the word "skeptic"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion stalled two days ago and there is nothing to suggest that a productive proposal will arise.

The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians. They are a small, but vocal minority, and the media provides them with a lot of airtime. There are a number of very close similarities between the relationship the contarians have with the media and the vocal anti-vaccination movement. I suggest that the word "skeptics" should not be associated with these contrarians, as it implies that their skepticism is based on actual science. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hate to generalize... and I'm also not convinced that their skepticism is not based on science. You may have strong feelings, but can anyone really state this as a fact. More importantly, however, this really seems like a pointless section on a page that otherwise has some interesting debates on it -- I suggest eliminating it (feel free to take my response with it). jheiv (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest discussing it, not ignoring it. What is a climate skeptic? Please define it for me. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A climate skeptic, in the context of this discussion (the one about AGW, etc) is someone who does not believe that AGW or GW in general is founded in reality. Macai (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's the funny thing. I've tried to find information that supports that idea, but I can't. Some of these so-called "skeptics" believe in global warming, but don't believe in anthropogenic GW, and quite a few simply take the position that GW is a good thing and promote the benefits of a warmer world. Some go so far as to argue that the planet is cooling. But I really don't see any actual "skepticism", which is a trait of most good scientists, not deniers or contrarians. So, I don't think your definition holds or is true. In fact, I wager there is no such thing as a climate skeptic. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is 'deniers' is obviously POV, not to mention a bit sly given the evocation of Holocaust denial. Many sceptics are just deniers but proving this reliably by reference to secondary sources is problematic. Certainly labelling all sceptics as deniers is counter productive. Look beyond the narrow debate between scientists and single-issue commentators and you'll find many of the sceptics are simply poorly informed, stupid or just unreasonable. Blanket criticism then just serves to drive these people into the deniers' arms.Dduff442 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the closure of this thread, as I specifically proposed using deniers or contrarians. The word "denier" has been reasonably disputed, so therefore, I await to hear from somebody about the word "contrarian". What is wrong with this word? Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I closed it citing Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/Archive_8#Sceptics. I'm sorry if that was inappropriate. --TS 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. And, if you can answer the question, you can once again close it. Looking through the literature, I see that the term "contrarian" is used to describe climate skeptics. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

To answer Viriditas' question, I have used the word "contrarian" colloquially on talk pages, but I'm not satisfied that it's an appropriate word to use where the phrase "climate change sceptic" is more descriptive and neutral. I'm opposed to using it because it's the kind of word we would classify among words to avoid, even if for whatever reason this particular word is not currently listed there. --TS 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if some of the so-called "sceptics" aren't even calling themselves that? There was an article in the NYT just recently, where they were calling themselves "climate realists": "They call us skeptics - we prefer climate realists". Viriditas (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The "climate realist" monicker hasn't taken hold. This could change over time but so far it hasn't. --TS 16:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote could explain or mention the different terms? Something to think about. Viriditas (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

May I recommend Bud Ward's Communicating on Climate Change, specifically the section "A Word About Words" (p. vii–viii) Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Maxwell Boykoff's "We Speak for the Trees": Media Reporting on the Environment, especially the section staring with the last paragraph at the bottom of page 442. Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The first link is a book that, by my read, is advocating for a change in the way environmental policy is covered and discussed. Unless we can show that these recommendations have been adopted in current practice, this is not useful for establishing what the current "best-practices" are among reliable sources. In addition, the section you highlighted ("A Word about Words") is a description of why certain terms are being used "or the purposes of this report." It is not a statement as to currently-accepted proper style or usage.

The second paper, in one section, uses the terms "Alarmist" and "Denier" as labels the two opposing extreme positions on a graph. We can't draw any conclusions from what the properly accepted style and usage is from this. Earlier in that paper, the same author says that "Research by McCright & Dunlap (88, 94) has focused on the opposition movement dubbed contrarians, denialists, inactivists, or sceptics." So, if anything, all this paper you cited does is leave us with an array of possible terms, without the author claiming that any of them is definitive or more proper than the rest. MarkNau (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

You are right. How about climate science opponent then? Hmm, maybe contrarian is best so far.
—Apis (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Contrarian" indeed is the term that many thoughtful people recommend, though the inaccurate "skeptic" has unfortunately become so entrenched that we may need to use it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ward's advice for "journalists, scientists and educators" (link above) is useful, IMO:

Unfortunately, the problem of semantics does not end there. The most responsible scientists and journalists take it as a matter of professional pride that they should be skeptical of claims, of new findings, of new evidence…of virtually all the information that comes across their desks in the course of their work. To these individuals, being called a “skeptic” is a badge of honor.

So what term do they then use in referring to that small but often vocal cadre of scientists and others who consistently rebut what many climate scientists have come to accept as settled scientific conclusions concerning the warming of the Earth and the factors contributing to that warming?

Many scientists refer to those who do not accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as skeptics, but there is also a sense among the scientific community that the term has been misappropriated. To address this confusion, climate scientists have suggested a variety of different terms to describe this small group of people who reject the science of climate change. These terms include "contrarians," "deniers," "denialists," and even "professional skeptics."

For the purposes of this report... The term "contrarians" will be used here as an alternative to "skeptics," given the applicability of the former word to the scientific and journalistic communities alike.

I think there's value in taking advice aimed at journalists into consideration, since ideally our aims should coincide with the aims of journalism. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Of course. But we need to think about the language we use. "Skeptic" may be too well-entrenched a word for us to abandon it, but we need to be clear about the language we use. I think we do our readers a disservice if we use such a potentially misleading term without clarifying what it means. Since there are sources that address this issue, we should use them to explain what we're talking about when we say "skeptic" (or contrarian, or whatever term we use), since this is not the normal English usage of the term. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "climate sceptic" is well enough established, and well understood to mean something distinct from scientific scepticism or rational scepticism. The phrase is clearly understood to imply contrarianism of the most antediluvian kind. --TS 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really? I think it's jargon that's understood by the "in" crowd, but it isn't apparent to someone who isn't familiar with the issue. I think at the very least it requires a note that clarifies what it means in this context. Much like we explain 'theory' in the evo articles. Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what form of words do you have in mind? --TS 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with skeptic, but I'd encourage the editors to avoid blanket assumptions like Viriditas made in the first comment of the section. While it may be your view that a group, despite being primarily referred in WP:RS as one thing, should actually be referred to as another, adding your own view is clearly WP:OR and we should stick to what it is being reported as. If you want to "clarify" the word, I'm not opposed, so long as the clarification fits WP:NPOV. Also, if clarified, it should be clarified so as to explain how it is being used in the average cited source, not how it is being used or is defined in a single source that is cited specifically to "clarify". jheiv (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the term "skeptic" is that it's a name, not a simple descriptor. It's jargon (which we're supposed to steer clear of). It diverges from the commonly used meaning of the word, and as such should not be used without explanation. Much like "Truther" doesn't mean "someone interested in the truth", but rather someone who has a particular (fringe) opinion on the destruction of the WTC. As for reliable sources, I provided two sources which describe precisely this problem - how language is used in communicating climate change - and why this usage can be misleading. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Denier and contrarian are also names, and highly prejudicial ones at that. Are you prepared to prove that every scientist who questions global warming is one of these? Drolz 20:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary - or even useful - to "prove that every scientist who questions global warming is one of these"? Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Truth does NOT matter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meta-discussion has drifted into a duplicate discussion of a topic being discussed productively in at least two locations on this page, including a full-blown RFC.

As much as I hate to have a meta-discussion about the discussion, I keep hearing arguments from both sides about the Truth. I cannot emphasize this enough, the Truth does not matter. The Truth is a matter of opinion and like a@@holes, everyone has one. In an attempt to end the endless arguments about the Truth, years ago Misplaced Pages set up the rules to avoid this endless bickering. All that matters is what reliable sources say about the topic. If reliable sources say that climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind, then Misplaced Pages says climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind. If reliable sources say that AGW is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man, then we say that AGW is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man. We are not supposed to engage in any dispute. We are supposed to simply report back what reliable sources say about a topic. And yes, if reliable sources say the Earth is flat, then we say the Earth is flat. Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a forum for cutting edge research or to promote an agenda. Like it or not, we must defer to reliable sources, not our own personal opinions about the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's a common misunderstanding. We always evaluate sources for authoritativeness, accuracy, neutrality, and currency, among other things. Reliability is not automatic, nor applicable to every topic. A reliable source in one topic may not be reliable in another, and popular newspaper and magazine articles written by non-experts are not considered to be as reliable as peer-reviewed or expert-authored reports. And, straight news reports do not have the same standing as opinion pieces or columns. So, you have completely avoided the underlying problem. We do not simply report what a "reliable source" says. We first must evaluate the source for reliability, and then decide on whether to use it. This is a necessary and required step. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Step down from the pulpit and practice what you preach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When haven't I? Over and over again, I've stressed the importance of following reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But, you haven't described the RS guideline here. You've described WP:V. Keep in mind, RS does not exist in a vacuum, but in a delicate harmony with all the other foundational policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, except for neutrality, I don't disagree with anything you said nor do I believe my post disagrees with what you said, but simply elaborates on the idea the truth does not matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple, which is part of the problem. People like pithy sound bites like "truth doesn't matter", but you know that isn't accurate. Truth of course, matters. It's why we are here. But, Truth is a perfect ideal that will not be realized in our lifetime. What this means is that we strive for everything that can lead us to truth (or as the Buddhists like to say, points to truth), but not truth itself, since that cannot be grasped, or more to the point, it cannot be verbalized or put into words. Little mouth noises and symbolic language is a poor substitute. Can you do it with math? Maybe, I don't know. So, in this domain, we cannot obtain truth, so it's not on the table. But we can approximate, get as close to it as possible, and reliable sources gives us one small leg up on it, but it is not the only way. We have to evaluate the sources, look for contradictions between sources, demand neutral sources, ask for expert sources, etc. It doesn't end with "reliable sources". That's only where it begins. Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, this personal vision of the nature of truth you have worries me. I agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge - I think we should stick to using Misplaced Pages policies as a guiding light, rather than our own philosophical position on truth as, if you use a personal definition of truth rather than Misplaced Pages policy, you might be lead astray (because that personal definition will be subjective and reflect your POV). An example: you say we should demand neutral sources, as that will somehow lead us towards this approximation of perfect idealised Truth that we will not achieve in our lifetime ("Truth" in some Buddhist context). However, Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:reliable sources does not say that we should demand neutral sources. It says to "mak sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered: see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view". WP:Neutral point of view then clarifies and tells us that "all editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article". So, if you are demanding neutral sources then it seems likely to me that you're a) doing so because of a philosophical position on "truth", which I think could lead to POV editing and b) not in line with policy, which tells us there is no such thing as a neutral source and that we deal with that by representing all significant views, rather than by demanding neutral sources. Brumski (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You have greatly distorted and twisted the simple words that I have used, and I find your misreading troubling. I have offered no personal vision or philosophical position on truth, but rather the complete opposite, a lack of one. Those who feel they have the truth or can grasp on to it or can communicate it with language are deluded. My words were tailored for User:A Quest For Knowledge, a self-described rational skeptic. You said that I propose using the most neutral sources we can find to lead us to the "perfect idealised Truth that we will not achieve in our lifetime", and then you compare this crazy notion to Buddhists pointing to truth. Please realize, that this statement is complete nonsense, and you obviously intended it that way. It's not even close to what I wrote. All good quality reliable sources are evaluated for accuracy, of which neutrality is a subset. When RS says that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," this is to avoid any gross bias. The fastest way to evaluate for this criteria is to look at the references used. If you have two sources, one of which uses sources and one that doesn't, we prefer the one that does, but obviously bad sources can be used to support biased work. But we can also screen for bias by looking at the author. That's why RS says "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors." We also look at the editorial policy, to weed out "questionable sources" that have a "poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." And finally, we look at the publication itself. We weed out biased sources at this stage as well, particularly "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." So, I'm afraid you misunderstand the evaluation process. We always screen for neutrality, but that term is often used in the form of "accuracy". We can only point to truth, and we do this by insuring our articles use the best sources we can find. If we need to represent a significant opinion or idea, we may use biased sources to do that, but keep in mind that we are attributing an opinion or idea that may be biased, we are not asserting it as truth. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So we're all agreed that we're aiming towards Misplaced Pages policies rather than some personal interpretation of Truth; jolly good. I'll answer the rest on your talk page as the provocative language about my intent indicates an argument is likely to ensue, which won't be relevant to improving this article.Brumski (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The key problem here is that on this subject (as on many subjects) reliable sources say different things. We have to sift through the reliable sources, rule out those that are contradicted by experts (for instance, if the Daily Telegraph says evolution is a sham we assume their usually reliable editor is having an off-day), and present the most reliable version we can. Of course we should still present significan opinions, but those of the flat earth (or to give a more pertinent example, creationist) type should not be misrepresented as being mainstream. We could say (assuming we had the data) that public confidence was hit by the revealed documents, but we could not say or imply that the scientific consensus on global warming had been changed by the affair, because it hasn't. --TS 15:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, reliable sources don't disagree with scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind, so I don't see the dispute that you do. In fact, if you search the talk archives and you'll see that I've called for stronger wording on this point, but it was lost in the all the arguing about the truth. If we follow what reliable sources say about this topic, I don't think we'll end up with an article that you, ChrisO, etc. will have much to disagree with. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed on that. I think we're having a disagreement on what the reliable sources are in this case. The article at present contains the balance of what the most unimpeachably reliable sources are saying, in my opinion, and avoids the mistake that most of the press had made in going for the juiciest tale. We are not a newspaper, nor a news aggregator. We do not uncritically parrot the most widely published story. --TS 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that there's some editorial judgment that we can exercise and reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch, but rather a sliding scale. But you're missing the point that WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS were written to resolve the sort of arguments about which side is right or wrong. If you want to add a sentence to the article that says "The leaked e-mails don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.", all you have to do is cite a reliable source such as and the other editors can check your source to verify that it says this, and it should be the end of the discussion.

(Now, personally, I prefer to have corroborating sources to cite, so I would add a couple more sources. I know when I proposed this sentence the last time, I had one or two sources.)

Would you support the removal of the death threats from the lede and replace it with a sentence that puts the controversy in perspective that the leaked e-mails have not undercut the overall scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No I wouldn't like to do that. Firstly, it is enough that we will refrain from stating, or implying, that climate science has been compromised (but that's obvious, because only a shrill minority of sceptics are saying anything like that). Secondly, it would be inappropriate to say that in the lead.

I don't see the death threats issue as make-or-break, though. I just think it's a very important part of the story, and one that the FBI and the Norfolk police are taking seriously. I'm really puzzled by manifest attempts to downplay it. But I don't want to sideline this discussion by inviting further comment on it here. We're still running the death threats RFC, I'm mulling it over, and when I have more to say I will add my opinion there. I hope you will do so too so that we can keep this discussion focussed on the broader question. --TS 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The way you're framing the issue is wrong. You may have noticed that I changed the way it was worded: the focus is on the law enforcement response to the events of the controversy. We document how the various parties involved in this have responded: the CRU, the UEA, the UN, governments, climate scientists in general, politicians and so on. Law enforcement organisations are also responding to the controversy with criminal investigations. That is an important fact which is discussed in the article; since the lead is meant to summarise the article, that information belongs in the lead. Your argument is in effect that either law enforcement involvement should be excluded from the lead, or that it should be included but we shouldn't say what they're investigating - neither of which is a viable position. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was important, then you'd see more sources mentioning it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Faulty assumption. See my comments below about sub judice, of which you're evidently unaware. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can come up with a rationale that follows WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I'll listen. But so far, you don't even have an argument. Saying "I'm right; you're wrong just because I said so" doesn't cut it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to be a bit more flexible in your approach. Your entire position is based on erroneously entering "death threat" instead of "death threats". It's time to stop the bickering and admit you made a mistake. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"A Quest for Knowledge" seems to be treating the press and media as the only legitimate reliable sources. This is far from the case. Two law enforcement agencies have announced investigations into death threats, for instance, and these are unimpeachably reliable sources for their own activities. To complain that this hasn't got much press is to miss the point--and of Chris Owen is right to point to the sub judice laws that apply to the British press.

Law enforcement agencies aren't just some other guys with an opinion, they're major players, determining whether a crime has been committed and is to be investigated. If they say they're investigating a crime related to this affair, that's obviously an important fact, and isn't to be downplayed. --TS 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. People are never reliable sources. Only published works are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Published works are written by people. And the reliability of an author is one criterion for a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Which third-party reliable sources have been authored by the police? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you mean, but having worked in this area on other articles for a while, most police reports are generally classified as primary and secondary sources, depending on how they are used, or what kind of information they contain. Since they are official, they are generally reliable depending on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if the police say "we're investigating criminal offences" it's pretty certain that they're investigating criminal offences. Otherwise we might as well stop relying on anything anybody says. --TS 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure why this is so hard to understand, but in free societies, the police investigate allegations of criminal actions. In all of these instances, intelligent observers could add a probability that the allegations will turn into criminal convictions. Those probabilities range from close to zero to close to one, but are not one until a judge and/or jury so decrees. Those probabilities are sometimes so close to one that commentators will talk as if they are equal to one, but their sloppiness does not mean we have to be equally sloppy. In my view, the probability of a criminal action is fairly high but not one. Of course, my view isn’t relevant, but anyone who claims there is a certainty that a criminal offense occurred either isn’t paying attention, or misunderstands the meaning of “certainty”.SPhilbrickT 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would save everyone a lot of time if you just say what you mean. Are you trying to say that the word "alleged" should appear in front of "theft"? If so, please make that clear. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the police had mentioned alleged criminal offences, we would of course have covered this fact. They didn't. Words like "alleged", "possible", "potential", "suspected" are conspicuously absent from the statement of the Norfolk Constabulary. --TS 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They would say alleged if it were about a suspect. As it is investigations into criminal offenses does not mean that criminal offenses necessarily occurred. It is an investigation into whether or not they did. Drolz 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony has pointed out the plain fact of what the police have stated. Your opinion of what they "meant" is pure unsourced speculation. I note that you're not disputing the lack of qualifying adjectives in the police statement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my "opinion of what they 'meant'" is the definite meaning of the words they used. "Investigating criminal offenses" is not the same as "A crime occurred and we are investigating it." Concluding the latter from the former is not possible. The one who is engaging in "pure unsourced speculation" here is you, ChrisO. Drolz 02:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You say "Investigating criminal offenses" is not the same as "A crime occurred and we are investigating it."

Well actually, that's exactly what it means. The police are perfectly capable of omitting or qualifying the phrase "criminal offences". They did not. --TS 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus not achieved. Withdrawn by proposer. Please do re-open if you have a concrete proposal related to this.

To extend the first paragraph of the Elected representatives and governments section by one sentence so that, in total, it reads as follows:

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected the view that the leaked e-mails had damaged the credibility of climate science. Speaking at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, he said: "Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear – that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause." However, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer conceded that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research "as a lot of people are sceptical about this issue in any case" but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists.

1. Staff (2009-12-08). "Human role in climate change not in doubt: U.N.'s Ban". Reuters.
2. "Climate science image 'is damaged'". Press Association. 2009-12-6. Retrieved 2009-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

The proposed edit is the second sentence in the box above, starting at "However". Brumski (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So basically you're suggesting we add: However, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer conceded that that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research "as a lot of people are sceptical about this issue in any case" but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists.? Could you explain what do you see as the benefit of this addition? Guettarda (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to balance the paragraph, from the point of view of the UN, especially since the quote is attributed to the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. If it were the ambassador to the UN from Bulgaria, however, I wouldn't think it would be so topical. jheiv (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, that's correct - sorry, I should have made it clearer that my proposed addition was the second sentence of that paragraph. Do you have any objections to this addition and if so, can you explain what they are? Thanks. Brumski (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an objection, I was just curious about your rationale. What do you see as the benefit of the addition. Just looking for a bit more context to help me make up my mind. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the revision, although an even better idea is to remove the Secretary-General's quote, since another UN official, the head of the IPCC, is already quoted in the article. The article gives undue weight to UN officials' opinions. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposed change seems uncontroversial, and does add more contextual information. --TS 09:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The change illustrated in the block comment above has consensus. The change involves the addition of the second sentence, starting "However..." --TS 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm opposed pending an explanation of why this is needed. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a little: yes, this provides "balance" to Ban's statement. But is it really appropriate for us to add "balance"? Or is it "spin"? It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that's urgent enough to be worth adding to a protected article. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Let's continue the dialog and take it from there. --TS 12:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, thank you for vocalizing your objection. There seem to be four components to it - I can respond to one of them (a) but I need more information about the other three to be able to answer them. a) two reasons that it's appropriate to add the proposed text to the article are given above by jheiv and TS. b) You agree it provides balance to Ban's statement but are concerned whether it is appropriate to add balance or not. Can you clarify why it is not appropriate to add balance c) I don't understand the concern about spin. Are you concerned that I am adding spin, that Yvo de Boer is adding spin, that pro or anti climate change people are adding spin or that the source is adding spin? Additionally (and probably more importantly), what exactly do you mean by spin? d) Can you clarify why time and urgency are relevant? Thanks. Brumski (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda seems to have chosen not to respond further, having edited this page several times in the past couple of hours. I think there is adequate consensus for this, while noting Guettarda's objection, and propose we go for an editprotected. --TS 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently opposed to this addition as currently worded. My concern stems from using "conceded that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research," which is a conclusion drawn from the person who wrote the UKPA piece. There is a world of difference between "image damaged" (which remains to be seen) and "a lot of people are skeptical" (which has always been the case). I think the "balancing" view of Yvo de Boer might be useful, but the opinion of the UKPA staff writer is not. I suggest a rewrite. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, would "Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer said that the emails look very bad because a lot of people are sceptical about the issue in any case "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue', but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists." be any better? If not, could you have a read of the reference provided and rewrite the sentence in a way that makes it acceptable to you? We can then look at a revised version and see if it helps with regard to any of Guettarda's concerns. Brumski (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, in case you revisit this, there is also a relevant edit by Cla68 below that gives a way of dealing with this objection with respect to opinion. If you believe the views in the news article are opinion (it's worth noting that it's not an opinion piece though, and we should probably treat it the same way we would any other Press Association article; which we don't treat as opinion pieces, and that there are also other articles reporting at the same event; which was a news conference ) then a way of dealing with that would be to use some qualifying text. E.g, "An article by the Press Association stated that, in the reporter's opinion, Yvo de Boer said that yadda yadda yadda...". Brumski (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - got lost among all the other stuff here, and I didn't notice the replies. To clarify my concern - we included Ban's statement because, as UN Secretary General, his voice is important. So while adding de Boer's statement does 'provide balance', the question is whether we need to balance Ban's statement. After all, if we use de Boer to 'balance' Ban, why stop there? Why not add statements from other MPs in the UK to 'balance' Brown, or other members of the Obama administration to 'balance' Gibbs. Hence my question about 'rationale'.

As for the 'spin' question - what do we achieve by 'balancing' Ban's statement? Are we moving closer to Ban's intent? Or are we picking statements that move the paragraph closer to what we think is important? Now, frankly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing - in the end, we need to produce something that mirrors what we believe to be a fair representation of reliable sources, a fair representation of the tenor of, for example, the views of the UN. But that isn't the way the section is structured. So we need to clearly figure out why we're doing this. And if we do, then we re-write the entire section. IMO, anyway. Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling this one over. Currently I'm on the fence. --TS 15:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll withdraw this proposed edit; I'm dealing with a problem of significant magnitude at the moment such that I can't devote any meaningful or lengthy brainpower to Misplaced Pages. I think my response was going to be something along the lines of this: there is no spin (it's a misleading word, it has many negative connotations and I don't involve myself with it on Misplaced Pages as I believe it's contrary to its principles) and there is no attempt to move Ban Ki-moon's statement towards any preconceived notion or even any need to balance his statement. Yvo De Boer's view is significant and important with respect to the article subject because he heads the UN secretariat that deals with climate change: he is what is sometimes referred to as the "climate chief". His view needs to be added to the article by virtue of the fact that it's his view rather than where his view is in relation to Ban Ki-moon's, in a slightly similar manner to the way that MP Ed Miliband's view as cabinet minister in charge of environment/climate change is important and included in this section even though Prime Minister Gordon Brown's is already included. I.e. I don't see this as an edit to do with balancing out Ban Ki-moon but instead as a significant view of it's own (significant as in WP:NPOV) and important (as in due WP:WEIGHT). I mention this not in any attempt to persuade anyone that this particular edit needs to be added but in the hopes you'll honestly and rationally consider it while improving/adding to/rewriting the article. Brumski (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

←Right now, I'm not seeing any value in the Yvo de Boer stuff at all. I think that rather than trying to tease something useful out of it, we might as well just nix it completely. If it were entirely up to me, I'd cut out most of the "reactions" section. Too much yapping from folks who don't know what they're talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Media section POV

Media section represents only one point of view. It's better to include other opinions too.Sasha best (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Or remove the section, merging it with "Other". I can't see the point of it. The media provide space for views to be aired. They're not a source of views. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of "Media" section. Completely pointless, magnet for all sorts of opinion crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we could safely delete the whole "Other Media" subjection from "Reactions". Similarly, I see no point in having a section for "Other" reactions (there is none at present). The Reactions section aims to contain a spectrum of informed opinion. Ultimately I'd expect us to phase the whole thing out and use the content as a basis to write a more encyclopedic article. --TS 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I'm not at all fond of the structure of the article (I think we should address things topic-by-topic, not speaker-by-speaker) I see little value in having the section. The content might prove useful, but I don't see the section as especially valuable. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am dubious on this because it seems to me that media reactions are a legitimate part of "Climategate" as it stands now. I do think the reaction section in general could stand a lot of cleaning. Have you considered consolidating the "Scientists say" section into something that is semi-readable? "Scientists say that the science is still strong and they are being intimidated, etc." would seem to pretty much sum it up. Drolz 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the opinion spouted by "the media" on this matter can be safely excluded. As soon as a news organ switches from reporting the facts to characterizing the facts (which the British media has a penchant for in particular), the quality and reliability of the work drops precipitously. Also, I have to take gross exception to constructs like "Scientists say that the science is still strong..." for two reasons. It sounds weasely and vague, and "the science is still strong" clearly implies an opposing POV ("Despite incident, the science is still strong" - gives too much credence to the incident). And the science is strong, not "still" strong. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think in an article about an incident, you shouldn't say "Despite the incident?" Even when scientists are responding to the incident? Drolz 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sucked into pedantic argument: still means without movement, or "nevertheless" - and you are disagreeing that the science is unmoved by this incident? Ignignot (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

@Drolz09 - I'm saying that the sentence you suggested implies that the incident caused harm to "the science", which would be your opinion. I know what you mean to say, but the way you are saying it is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

@Ignignot - Absolutely I am disagreeing. The science is completely unharmed by the incident. If anything has changed, it is public opinion about the science or the scientists. The important thing here is that we don't use ambiguous wording that implies something that is either (a) not the case, or (b) unsupported by reliable sources. Drolz09's wording would inject personal opinion (although I am willing to accept that it may have been done unwittingly). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz has acknowledged his POV above, so I'd guess he's in the camp that considers the science to have been tainted or overturned by the incident. That's undoubtedly a fringe view, at least among actual scientists. Fortunately we don't rely on bloggers and op-ed writers to determine the state of scientific knowledge. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about the state of scientific knowledge. And until you realize that the article will never be balanced. Drolz 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't argue that it was, but it's worth noting while we're here that the view that the state of scientific knowledge has changed is very much a fringe one and shouldn't have much if any prominence in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a key point. This incident has not changed the science. Even if the work of the CRU was removed from the record entirely, there would still be overwhelming evidence supporting "AGW" from the plethora of other data and research sources. It would be fair to say that public opinion toward AGW and the scientists who study the global climate has been influenced by this incident (and plenty of reliable sources support this), but it is also fair to say that this influence is largely the result of climate skeptics and deniers misrepresenting or misinterpreting the documents in question (and plenty of reliable sources support this too). I am not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for supporters of the AGW theory to "debunk" the rhetoric and "analysis" from skeptics, but I am equally not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for skeptics and deniers with all manner of quotes from opinion pieces and other crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. This is a key point and should be stated in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with the way you characterize WP:Fringe, ChrisO:

• "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it.'"
• "By the same token, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy."

Secondly, whether or not the science has changed is not relevant to this article. Imagine this: some totally spurious claim is made by a complete crackpot, and despite the objection of every real scientist, this person completely dispels public belief in global warming. Would you not mention the impact of this person? Sure, they science hasn't changed, but that's not a limiting factor on the scope of this article. And I'm not even saying that you shouldn't mention what scientists are saying about it: of course you should; it's an important part of the article. But equally important is the effect this controversy is having on the public perception of science, and what various groups (scientific and otherwise are saying about it). Scjessey says: "I am not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for supporters of the AGW theory to "debunk" the rhetoric and "analysis" from skeptics, but I am equally not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for skeptics and deniers with all manner of quotes from opinion pieces and other crap," and I completely agree with this. I don't want to see a laundry list of skeptics quoted in this article. What I want is a concise description of what exactly they are saying about the emails. What we have now is something like "skeptics say this email shows corruption." I want to see their arguments for why. Conversely, I want to see what scientists are saying, but we don't need to quote 20 of them saying the same thing.

Scjessey: do you think that the article is balanced as it stands? Because from where I'm sitting it's nothing but a debunking article. I would like to get it at least to the point where we can see what exactly they are debunking. Drolz 01:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond (sleeping et al). I've just read through the article from top to bottom again. There are a couple of minor things I would change, but mostly it looks pretty much spot on in terms of content and balance. It seems like we have reached a point where everything that has happened thus far has been well-documented and fairly explored. We probably have to wait for the results of various investigations before we can take the article much further. The passage of time will also help us to see what the incident looks like from a historical perspective so that we can adjust things with a view to polishing the article for GA or FA status. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz writes: I don't want to see a laundry list of skeptics quoted in this article. What I want is a concise description of what exactly they are saying about the emails... That's precisely the problem. If a specific email is about climate science, why would we quote an opinion piece written by someone who doesn't know the science? Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Coatrack, and understand that just because somebody has an opinion about an email, it doesn't mean we should quote them on the validity of climate science or the accuracy of the data. In fact, we can't unless they are experts in that field and their opinion is based on evidence that we can see for ourselves, like the conclusions of police reports or review boards. So, what "they are saying" is not relevant to this article unless it meets a specific set of criteria. The WP:NPOV policy lays out an approach to how to write when you are dealing with competing views. You need to first determine which are the significant views. Then you can focus on how to best represent them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has a very long way to go before you can start talking about it as a coatrack for anti AGW views. And for the millionth time: this article is not about scientific consensus, etc. (or at least not only about it). The effects Climategate has on the perception of global warming are noteworthy whether or not they are legitimate. A big part of this article is the political fallout of the CRU incident. Why would we quote an opinion piece by someone who doesn't know the science? Well, for one, because some of these people have influence. Some of them have a lot more influence than any of the scientists we have quoted already. (It's also not clear to me that you need scientific expertise to evaluate at least some of these emails.) WPNPOV notes things like impartial tone, etc. (You need to stop linking these things without reading them, incidentally.) The main point is that you need to realize that this is not the Global Warming article. What scientists say is not the end of the story here; it's also a political and public debate. Drolz 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Influence" on what? The politicization of science? You need to identify the significant views and argue for their inclusion. It's really very simple. And no, we don't quote non-experts on expert matters, nor do we use opinion pieces when we have better sources at our disposal. The evaluation of sources implies using the best of what we have. That's precisely why we evaluate them. Again, this is not very hard, so I don't understand the frustration. Pick a significant view that you would like to add/change/delete and provide good sources for your modification. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely immune to reason. Drolz 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You were warned about personal attacks several times, here and on your user page. What I have explained to you above is how we write articles. As the FAQ explains, if you need to discuss your interpretation of policy, this is not the place to do it. We have noticeboards and policy talk pages for that purpose. Here is where we talk about actively writing an article. You are on the wrong page. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it premature to suggest that we now have broad consensus to remove the "Media" subsection of the "Responses to the incident" section? It contains a reference to a Nature editorial and a George Monbiot opinion column from The Guardian. I see no arguments in defence of either of those in the above, and their role in the article seems dubious in their current location. They do show the editorializing of two fairly well informed, but not expert, parties, but perhaps at this stage we should continue to narrow focus on the impact on the political and scientific communities, specifically through the responses of scientists, elected politicians, and government spokesmen. --TS 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think that media reaction is a part of "Climategate." The issue is notable both for its affect on scientists/science, and public perception thereof. Drolz 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz09, I don't discount your comments (which you've aired above at length). But I'm asking if, taking into account your objections, as a group we have a sense that the inclusion of an unqualified media section is out of keeping with our mission of reporting the major opinions, not of those whose job is simply to report the facts, but of those whose opinions are supposed to matter. That includes scientists, elected representatives, the police, academia, governments and whatnot, but not, I should think, people who simply happen to own blogs or are paid to write their opinion in newspapers. --TS 20:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of how you define matter, isn't it? It seems to me that sources matter and are important at least in part because of the impact they have. Whether or not they are actually qualified to say whatever it is they are saying, their saying it can definitely change minds. And because "Climategate" is a scandal as much about public perception of science as science itself, it matters. Also, even though you don't think FoxNews or whatever is credible, it is the most watched news network (pretty sure); that alone makes it a "major opinion." Drolz 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" is not a "scandal", Drolz09. That is just your opinion. You cannot use "because it's a scandal" as an excuse for advocating all sorts of fringe positions and suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That word isn't doing any work in my post. Gotchas are fun, but not very productive. Drolz 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You said "...because "Climategate" is a scandal , it matters." Your opinion that the incident is a "scandal" was your justification. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just read it without "a scandal," if you can't deal with that word. It's ridiculous to get so hung up on these points. Drolz 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of this discussion, I see Drolz09 as the only person objecting. Can we declare consensus for removal of the Media section? --TS 10:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes (since I suggested it). Two comments currently in the section. Nature's view could go in "Scientific organizations". Monbiot's in "Other expert commentary" - he's arguably an expert on environmental policy- or leave out - he's arguably not expert on anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its fine as long as the comments are just relocated.jheiv (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a stretch to describe Nature's editorial team as a "scientific organization", but perhaps it could fit. I'd also feel a little uncomfortable describing Monbiot as an expert, because he has no relevant qualifications of which I am aware. I think both are marginal and, since there seems to be general agreement that we have too many opinions in there already, I'd just as soon unship them. --TS 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this section is worth keeping. In full agreement with Tony here. Like I said before, it's a potential magnet for all sorts of opinion-sourced garbage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings either way. Would Jheiv like to come back on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

There is consensus to remove the "Media" subsection of the "Reactions to the incident" section. There is no consensus as yet to place the contents elsewhere in the article, although this does not rule out their use in a later version of the article. Although the most significant objector, Drolz09, is currently blocked, he has spoken volubly on the subject and so I don't feel we would be taking advantage of the blocking if we went ahead and, while acknowledging his minority opinion, removed the section. This is not prejudicial to the material itself, but is founded in a feeling that there is rather too much opinion in the article and, until the investigations are completed, too little fact. --TS 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, putting this on hold until Jheiv has a change to respond. --TS 18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that -- I really wasn't in love with either of the quotes but the Monbiot quote was interesting in that, as someone who is pegged as "having an interest in misrepresenting ", his suggestion that the emails, if anything, affect only the scientists individually and the group, but not the science behind global warming as a concept. But if that isn't all that compelling to everyone else than I'm find with removing it completely. Thanks. jheiv (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've restored the "editprotected" tag. --TS 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AP review of stolen data

AP have some interesting comments after a full review by 5 reporters of all stolen data ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks very impressive--not for the "five reporters" but for the comments of experts in climatology who are regarded as moderates, for the comment of a science policy expert. The quality of this piece stands out among reporting on this affair.

We certainly should cite this piece, though I foresee that gettingg consensus on exactly how to present it may need some discussion. --TS 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It has a certain amusing naïvité about it. "The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics". Stunning? For private commentary? And the revelation that the politics of academia is nasty? That's a revelation? It's a useful source, but as Tony says, for the comments by experts. (Which reminds me, of course, of the problem of reporters - why is it that they never get quotes straight, even when they write them down as you speak?.) Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also co-written by someone whose emails were some of those leaked - Seth Borenstein, although this is not mentioned in the article. Cf Andrew Revkin, who in his articles notes he was mentioned in the emails. 130.95.128.51 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That Yahoo! News link will expire in a few weeks. Here is a more permanent link to the same article at MSNBC. I think this part of the article is especially interesting: "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we already have quite a lot of scientists making that point, too, and if that isn't already reflected in the article it should be. On the other hand the CRU has repeatedly pointed out that it doesn't originate raw data, but only aggregates it. --TS 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and we have a quote from Von Storch: Climatologist Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming, said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said.

The AP piece also rsises this as an ethical issue, but seems to have no clear comment on that issue from any of the experts it consulted. --TS 10:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear who he means by "other researchers". Are we talking about scientists or the sceptic agitators who've been bombarding the CRU with FOI requests? It also seems to overlook the CRU's statement that it can't share a small percentage of its data because of non-disclosure agreements. Furthermore, Von Storch apparently has a history of conflict with the CRU. I think we need to balance Von Storch's statement carefully against what the CRU says are its operational limitations and the background of his interactions with them - we shouldn't just throw it out there without context or response. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect we're already providing ebough balance, but I'm open to suggestions. --TS 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press did an investigation, here. This should probably go in the article but I don't feel qualified to edit the article. Bubba73 , 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Look above. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to you all that you not be tempted to cherry pick the points from the AP article that support "your" POV on the topic. Instead, I suggest that you list any points from the AP article that aren't mentioned here in this article, or else could be explained better in this article using the AP's perspective. Then, you can ask an admin to briefly unlock the article to add or change the relevant content. Just a suggestion... Cla68 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We have broad agreement already, I think, that the AP article is of most use for the statements of the experts quoted--whatever point of view they happen to express. The view of the reporters is of much less significance; they're just journalists. --TS 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would like to hear more from Cla68 if he has time. Considering his experience and contributions, his input is valuable. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a rather chummy leaked email from Seth Borenstein, the lead author of the AP piece (Source)

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,

It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?

Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer

-- so his conclusions aren't too surprising. And his failure to disclose his apparent COI troubling. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making. That Borenstein asked scientists for their opinion reveals a COI? I thought that was called "reporting". Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this chap Borenstein is one of those troublesome pro-science chappies. The article needs to provide equal time to those who are anti-science. Er, no. Sorry I couldn't resist. --TS 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anthony Watts (blogger) has a long discussion of this issue here, with more examples of Borenstein's chumminess with the "Hockey Team".

AP's STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES states "AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action." At best, Borenstein has (imo) an appearance of COI, and should have disclosed his prior involvement -- as did (to his credit) Andrew Revkin at NY Times, who also made an appearance in the leaked emails. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't use Watts as a source (even supposing we wanted to), and claiming that a science journalist who does his job by contacting scientists and asking them for comments has any kind of conflict of interest is silly. --TS 20:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're accusing Borstein of unethical behaviour, you need a better source than that - not just for inclusion in the article, but for inclusion on this page. BLP still applies. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly this is all part and parcel of the right-wing conspiracy theorising that's taking place concerning science issues in general, not just climate change. The underlying attitude appears to be that scientists are "the enemy" and any attempt to do fact-checking, maintain cordial relations etc is wrong. One suspects that the same people wouldn't have any complaints with the journalists if the e-mails showed that, say, they'd approached energy company lobbyists. It's all about defining one particular group as "the class enemy" and delegitimising any non-hostile contact with them. It's a remarkably Leninist point of view. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, you guys, this AP article is a really good source. It shows the positives and negatives involved with both sides' positions. That said, you all cannot cherry-pick how the source is used. You cannot say, "We can use the scientists' quotes but not the reporter's opinions." Wrong answer. You cannot say, "The AP reporters were colluding with the climate change scientists, I have proof." You'll never get anywhere here with that nonsense. If you don't like what the article says, tough, it's a reliable source and that's what we use around here. The most you can do if you don't like it is say something like, "A December 11 investigation by the Associated Press found that, in the reporter's opinion, yadda yadda yadda." You then allow the readers to make up their up their own minds about the truthfulness, veracity, or credibility of the AP's reporting. Don't try to do it for them. Now, can we please list the points brought up by the AP reporters that should be included or better explained in the article? Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I see:

1. The scientists, especially Phil Jones, conspired to withold data and information about their research from others who they perceived as threats. It is unclear if any data was destroyed.
2. The scientists expressed some doubts about the quality and results of some of their measurements and observations
3. The scientists complained about the efforts of skeptics to disrupt or discredit their work and often described them using pejoratives
4. The scientists discussed retaliating against journals which published papers by climate change skeptics
5. The scientists expressed concerns about shaping their message for public consumption
6. Climate change skeptics have quoted the emails out of context or in misleading ways
7. None of the emails rejects or discredits the IPCC's statement on climate change
8. None of the emails state that any data or conclusions were faked
9. Moderate climate change advocates who have examined the emails agree that the emailers were displaying the behavioral strengths and weaknesses normal for human beings who believed they were engaged in private communication

Does this about cover it? Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first point, on conspiracy, is one of the claims of some critics. It cannot be taken as fact and indeed has not been treated as fact by many commentators.

Your third point is highly contentious. The issue with Climate Research was that its peer review process had been compromised and it published a poorly written paper. The CRU emails discussing this have been misread as proposing retaliation, by some commentators who discount the fact that the publisher later repudiated the paper on the grounds that it made claims unsupported by the data.

The rest of your points are broadly correct, although I think at this stage we should emphasize that the university has commissioned an independent inquiry--which we should be careful not to pre-empt by overplaying exculpatory assessments, from any source (just as we should also avoid overemphasizing the critical opinions). --TS 10:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm doing here, Tony. I'm not summarizing the entire issue, I'm summarizing only the AP article. Are you stating that the AP article, just that article, is saying something different than what I'm saying? Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On my point 1, I think you're basing statement 1 on "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming." Your interpretation is more definitive and far less cautious than AP's (with which I agree).

On my second point I think the writer has completely misread Mann's comment. Other sources correctly interpret Mann's statement. Of course a reputable scientist would not want to submit papers to a journal whose peer review process is compromised. As I've remarked earlier in this thread, the opinions of the journalists don't matter because they're just journalists. The opinions of the scientists they cite, and the context they add, is what makes this article valuable. --TS 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"The opinions of the journalists don't matter because they're just journalists"? Maybe so, or maybe not, but we let our readers decide, we don't decide for them. Deciding which opinions from a newspaper article that we can use and which ones we can't is way too subjective and is a slippery slope. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have room in one WP article to quote and discuss every piece of the millions of megabytes of coverage this incident has received in the media worldwide. We have to be selective. We do that by applying our knowledge of the underlying issues (which, believe it or not, collectively between all the WP editors available, is probably greater than that of any single news reporter) and judging which are the best representatives of the most significant views expressed. This is an essential part of the processes of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABLE. It is not a slippery slope, it is the essential collective judgement that allows us to produce an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news aggregator. --Nigelj (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, why is the notion that Misplaced Pages's job is merely to provide a media aggregation service so prevalent? We're editors'. We use our collective judgement to decide what is more worthy of reporting. A journalist's opinion is worth nothing. An expert's opinion on his expertise is precisely what we need to build an encyclopedia. --TS 23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientist Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is general agreement that the "Scientist" section is in need of trimming.

Does anyone else think this section could stand to be trimmed down quite a bit? Aside from any concerns about weight, it is essentially unreadable right now--a huge list of individual comments. Seems to me that it could be profitably trimmed such that repetitious comments were removed, and the section itself just listed what scientists are saying instead of what each scientist says. Obviously the refs should be retained in a note section or something to that effect. Drolz 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this proposal as relating to the work already under discussion at #Broadening Article. The effect on the scientific community has been quite marked--one might say that a certain "circling of wagons" is evident. This should be covered in its appropriate place, and relevant quotes from prominent scientists should be used there. --TS 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some of these scientists are speaking on their own behalf, others are giving the view of an institution. So the section needs to be divided on that basis. The director of the IPCC is definitely in a different category from an individual climatologist, no matter how prominent. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As there is already a section for scientific institutions, perhaps the comment of the director of the IPCC should be moved there. --TS 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Two others need to go there, I think: Wigley, speaking on behalf of the NCAR unless it says "personal capacity", and the UK Met Office and its petition. I would also suggest that the comments by those directly involved should not really be in this section - that includes Jones, Mann, Trenberth and RealClimate, as well as UEA. That leaves the following: Somerville, Reay, Pierrehumbert, Karoly, Pitman, Michaels, Hansen, Curry and von Storch. Nine, so it is too many. I think we need to choose on the basis of a) who is notable, b) who is taking up a notable position, i.e. echoed in the reliable media, perhaps also c) a point that would not otherwise be present. Does that make sense? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If we remove some, what do we do about von Storch? His is very much a minority position among scientists. Perhaps we would end up pruning his viewpoint according to WP:UNDUE --TS 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Prune is fine. But he is an important figure so he will probably meet any criteria we set. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope so. He is probably the most credible critic of CRU at present. --TS 15:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it seems reasonable to me that we would break it down into who is saying what, so if six scientists say "this is a war against science," or whatever, we could quote one of them and add that these others "make similar statements." That way you get an idea of the relevant ratios, but in a more concise fashion. Drolz 20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That could work, though as nearly all individual scientists are saying pretty much the same thing it could easily get out of hand. We can't possibly list all the names. --TS 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it should be possible to make it clear that a great many more are saying whatever it is most are saying, than are criticizing CRU, while still including von Storch. Consensus seems to be that he's definitely a notable character, and I think we can easily balance that with the need for RS weight. Drolz 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"When Science Becomes a Casualty of Politics"

Interesting analysis at Reason (magazine) by Cathy Young :

"Virtually every commentator's position on the issue—is this a scandal that exposes global warming as a scientific sham, or a faux scandal stoked by climate-change denial propaganda?—can be predicted by his or her politics. You can look at the byline or the publication, and predict with near-100 percent accuracy what the article will say. It is no surprise that The Wall Street Journal deplores the arrogant and dogmatic mindset of the "warmists," or that The New Republic assails the brazenness of the "deniers." "

--which is certainly true here as well. A cautionary tale. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with what you say, if a lot of it was prefixed with 'US' - US politics, US commentator's, etc. We need to maintain a global outlook and I think what you (and this magazine) say has very little relevance to African, Asian, European, in fact most other countries on earth's, politics. --Nigelj (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Nigelj says. It is also worth noting that political and media commentary is of secondary importance compared to what has actually happened and how it may or may not influence the debate. I'd also challenge the "warmists" label as nonsense, quite frankly. There are those that understand or believe the scientific evidence, and there are those that don't understand or have a vested interest in pretending that the evidence is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Um. I wonder which of Ms. Young's groups you would fall under? <G> Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for those who think global warming is a partisan issue: Conservative Party (UK): Where We Stand - Environment

With some very notable exceptions, acceptance of the science of global warming is universal among mainstream political parties in almost every country. --TS 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see a similar analysis from another area & viewpoint.

As for the "notable exceptions", they include almost all of the Newly Industrializing Countries: China, India, Indonesia, etc etc. Would also be interesting to see their perspective. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You imply that the Chinese government is skeptical of the science of global warming. Where do you get your information from? The current Five Year Plan incorporates a 20% cut in energy intensity by 2010, and China and is actively negotiating at Copenhagen.

You imply that the government of India is skeptical of the science of global warming. Where do you get your information from? At Copenhagen, Jairam Ramesh has pointed out that India is committed to act in a manner that would ensure that global temperatures meet the two degrees centigrade threshold by 2050.

You imply that the government of Indonesia is skeptical of the science of global warming. Where do you get your information from? The President of Indonesia--the same country which hosted the Bali Summit a couple of years ago--recently told the delegates at Copenhagen “Remember: We can negotiate about the climate, but we cannot negotiate with the climate. We cannot ask the climate for more time.”

But this is probably getting a little off topic. If as an encyclopedia we are misrepresenting the opinions of these recently developed countries on the science of climate change, that should be remedied in the appropriate place. --TS 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony: actions speak louder than words. Please mention any concrete steps any NICs have taken to combat AGW. Also see the magnificent accomplishments of the Kyoto Protocal. But, I agree, we're getting pretty far OT here. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting more and more off topic. Take this elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak article. It assumes a position up front, and then remains unconvinced by the facts, even the facts in its own articles. Even in the US, this dichotomy doesn't exist. A variety of conservatives - Andrew Sullivan, Charles Johnson (of LGF) - are clearly on the "other" side. And Monbiot - who she even quotes in the article - has sharply criticised his own "side". I think the key line in the essay is "I don't have enough knowledge of science or familiarity with the scientific method to be able to come to a truly informed conclusion". Got that one right. I've already provided a link to a far better example of this "story" - one from the peer-reviewed literature that actually takes a thoughtful look at the problem. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood her point. She's not saying that all conservatives are anti-AGW and all liberals are pro-AGW. What she's saying is that, if people were rational and objective, you would not have any expectation that their opinions on the two following questions would have any correlation:

1. Do you think the information uncovered by the hackers disclose a serious breach of proper scientific process by CRU?
2. Do you think there is significant scientific evidence that human forcings are causing climactic change?

And yet people correlate very highly (negatively) in their opinions on these two questions. Hence, one can conclude that very few people are approaching the incident rationally, and are instead just advocating for their "team" in the AGW dispute. I think that's a point worth considering as we strive for NPOV. MarkNau (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

s/people/some American publications/

It really is terribly misleading to cast this as a left/right divide. --TS 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand the point quite well. It's a silly false dichotomy that's not supported by the sources she quotes, let alone by the rest of the world. One could write the same sort of an article about creationism vs. evolution. The American right has a long history of doubting science. But that doesn't mean science is a left-right issue. Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Move references down to the reference section – Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

In the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Jones_e-mail_of_8_Jul_2004 section replace

with

and the following added under the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#References section

<ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov">{{cite web  
  | url = http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10612165&pnum=0
  | title = A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?
  | last = Gibson
  | first = Eloise
  | publisher = ]
  | date = 2009-11-28
  | accessdate = 2009-12-08
  | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m33TOj7p
  | archivedate = 2009-12-15
  | quote = 
 }}</ref>
<ref name=popularmech_2009-12-01>{{cite web
  | url = http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?do=print
  | title = What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change
  | last = Kelemen
  | first = Peter
  | publisher = ]
  | date = 2009-12-01
  | accessdate = 2009-12-08
  | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m33oK4QO
  | archivedate = 2009-12-15
  | quote = 
 }}</ref>
<ref name=wsj_2009-12-03>{{cite web
  | url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567921682049840.html
  | title = The Real Copenhagen Option
  | publisher = ]
  | date = 2009-12-03
  | accessdate = 2009-12-08 
  | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m37SsdqB
  | archivedate = 2009-12-15
  | quote = 
 }}</ref>
<ref name=bbc_2009-12-03_russel>{{Cite news
  | title = Chair for climate e-mail review
  | newspaper = ]
  | pages = 1
  | date = 2009-12-03
  | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8393449.stm
  | accessdate = 2009-12-10
  | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m37cXbig
  | archivedate = 2009-12-15
  | quote =
 }}</ref>

Nsaa (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternately, get rid of that horrible referencing system and switch to something more normal. Guettarda (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with wp:LDR? It's a far better referencing scheme than most articles use. Only a few months old, so not everyone is familiar with it, but it cleans up articles nicely. It's really quite an improvement.--SPhilbrickT 02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's no opposition, it's just wonder at why this is something important enough that it should clutter this already cluttered page. Which clutter, I realise, I am now adding to. Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as this page is fully protected, this is the way of adding material, fixing material etc. If you have problem with that please request a unprotecting of this page unprotect the page. Nsaa (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference 'Clutter' is removed from the text and moved down where it belong (in the reference section), so it's really improve the readability of the text in edit mode. Nsaa (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are there two sections now? Puzzled. Guettarda (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Two different sections ... Nsaa (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate, global warming, and the tree rings divergence problem

Here's a nice, in-depth article from the Christian Science Monitor on the divergence problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good article. Lots of explanation, with very little in the way of opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor is consistently superb on science issues, in my experience. A brief scan of this article suggests that it lives up to my high expectations. --TS 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks very straightforward and clear, with no nonsense that I saw. --Nigelj (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article, thanks.SPhilbrickT 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. We should use it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we all just agree on something? Somebody pinch me. :) Seriously, I agree with Bill's suggestion. Let's incorporate it into the article with a few sentences or so to explain divergence problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be an entire section on the divergence problem in this article. Let's completely blow away the nonsense with some real science. --TS 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see a new article on the divergence issue, which then could be linked to this article, if appropriate. While my next phrase may sound snarky, I mean it quite seriously–let's not jumble an inherently political article with real science. --SPhilbrickT 13:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but it's not really an either/or question. An article on the science would be very interesting (though not trivial to write, since it would require a proper survey of the literature). But a paragraph or two on how the question applies to this issue should be on this end. I could see a "see main" link from here to there for details of the science, and a "see also" link from there to here for a discussion of the politics. Guettarda (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is mentioned in one of the many GW related pages already?
—Apis (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Any idea as to how best we might fit this into either of the outlines below? Guettarda (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just mention the divergence problem and have a "main" or "seealso" to a relevant article--which could be an existing article on paleoclimatology or the new one SPhilbrick suggests. The CSM article is very helpful in this respect because it provides secondary references to relevant research as well as good outlines from experts in the field. --TS 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Later: we do have a very brief section on the divergence problem at Dendroclimatology. Due to its topicality and significance in the field, we could probably now expand that to a stub article. --TS 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that to achieve NPOV, any discussion of the divergence issue will also include the possibility that if X tracks Y for one period of time but fails to do so for a later period of time then perhaps:

a) X may not be a good proxy for Y for even earlier periods, and the tracking was a coincidence; or

b) Y may have been mismeasured in the later period of time when X does not track Y.

The Christian Science Monitor article achieves this balance through its comments. --Rumping (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We would of course report the opinions of experts in the field on the appropriate handling of divergent data. Suitable opinions are given in the article. Original research will not be included in any article on Misplaced Pages. --TS 16:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate on CRU data

An interesting article here by Kevin Wood and Eric Steig of the U of Washington: . Worth mentioning in connection with the state of the science following the hack? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant and timely. It may be useful on othe articles, too. --TS 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Delingpole on CRU data

It's interesting to note the following about the data used Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming of course the data corresponds then … Nsaa (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

James Delingpole again. Of course we won't be turning Misplaced Pages into a blog recording his latest personal views. --TS 00:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But using the blog realclimate.org it's ok? (I've not proposed to use the above article in this article, just commenting on the probably bad foundation of the data used in the analysis from realclimate.org reported paper) Nsaa (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the RealClimate post I cited above are two professional climate scientists whose work has been published in scientific outlets. That falls squarely within the "expert source" exclusion clause of WP:SPS, i.e. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I also don't think you have any grounds to claim that the data is likely to be bad just because it comes from RealClimate. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This question keeps coming up. Can someone please add this to the FAQ? (I would do it myself but I don't have a lot of free time right now.) Please reference the following discussion at the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's already there in the form of question 3 of the FAQ. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What are Delingpole's qualifications again? English or PPE or something? --TS 11:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Content of the documents – Adding IDL (programming language)?

In the section Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Content_of_the_documents maybe we should further specify that the code released also contained IDL (programming language)?

Change from

to

and in the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#References reference section

<ref name=fsm_2009-12-16>{{cite web
  | url = http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/open_science_climategate_ipcc_cru_needs_take_leaf_out_cerns_book
  | title = Open Scienceand climategate:  The IPCC/CRU needs to take a leaf out of CERN's Book
  | last = Richmond
  | first = Gary
  | publisher = ]
  | date = 2009-12-16 
  | accessdate = 2009-12-16 
  | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m4jAFILy
  | archivedate = 2009-12-16 
  | quote =  Coding was done in Fortran and IDL If you view any of the code, first, there’s a hell of a lot of it (about 15,000 lines) and a lot of commenting 
 }}</ref>

Nsaa (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. I've removed the editprotected template because I'm not at all sure that this is a reliable source. It seems to be a highly opinionated op-ed-style piece. It looks like it's self-published in the style of examiner.com articles - the author doesn't even appear to be a professional journalist (see ). Free Software Magazine's "Write for us" page strongly indicates that its content consists of submissions from members of the public (see ). This does not look anything like a reliable outlet. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So you oppose adding IDL? Are you serious? Nsaa (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose adding IDL on the basis of it being sourced to a self-published non-reliable source, yes. But if you can find a reliable source (by which I mean a mainstream publication) then we can certainly consider it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite the original code rather than a published source? This seems like it might even be a better source. While you are at it, why not include more than emails, like some actual code analysis since there was a lot of code included in the files. Example: http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.83.16 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A slightly better source would make all the difference here. It's an uncontroversial statement. I think one of the problems we've had with all references to the source code and comments is that so few reliable sources have covered it that we don't have a decent factual description of it. This may be remedied in time, should the contents of the code prove to be significant, but so far we're seeing very little expert analysis. --TS 14:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested article outline

I would like to suggest the following outline for the article, but it's up to you guys if you think there's any merit to it:

• I. Intro
• II. Background - brief description of Global Warming controversy and the composition and work of the East Anglia university research team
• III. Hacking incident - details on how the emails were stolen and publicized and resulting police investigation
• IV. Controversy

A. Allegations of scientists conspiring to withold data from skeptics or interested outsiders

a. Evidence of, including email quotes

b. Rebuttal- scientists felt that many of the information requests were attempts to delay or disrupt their work and data was already available elsewhere

B. Scientists express doubts on quality or accuracy of their measurements and observations

a. Evidence of, including email quotes

b. Rebuttal- emails taken out of context, normal give and take involved with research, tree-ring analysis explanation, etc

C. Scientists complain about and insult skeptics

a. Evidence of, including email quotes

b. Rebuttal- Scientists are humans with feelings and believed they were engaged in private communication

D. Scientists discuss retaliating against journals which published papers from skeptics

a. Evidence of, including email quotes

b. Rebuttal- scientists sincerely thought that peer review process of journal in question had been compromised

E. Scientists discuss shaping their message for public consumption

a. Evidence of, including email quotes

b. Rebuttal- Nothing wrong with carefully planning publicity efforts, etc.

• V. Fallout

A. Use of emails by climate change opponents to discredit IPCC, Copenhagen conference, climate change research, etc.

B. Death threats against scientists involved and law enforcement investigation.

C. Observers note that none of the emails discredit the IPCC's statement or reveal that any data or conclusions were faked

D. Univolved scientists question the motives for not sharing research data per the norm in scientific research circles

E. University has initiated an independent inquiry

For what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks very well done, certainly seems like it would portray a more balanced article than the one we have now. jheiv (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Per a comment about this on my talk page, I don't advocate naming the subsections, "Evidence" and "Rebuttal". Instead, I suggest having one untitled paragraph with evidence (with one or two, brief email quotes) followed by an untitled paragraph of rebuttal, under each allegation. This should help avoid any WP:UNDUE problems. I'm looking for another article which follows this pattern to use as an example, but haven't found one so far. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to the structure of the outline itself, but keep in mind that WP:Weight requires that the weight given to particular topics be in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. So, given that most reliable sources give a large weight to the hacking incident itself, that should continue to be a large part of the article. Additionally, we have to make sure to keep the headings NPV, especially as there are BLP issues involved. LK (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources are focusing on the e-mails, and not the alleged hack or whistle-blowing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is POV. It intimates a view that the e-mails released reflect on the validity of science. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, if you completely disagree with my outline, please suggest your own. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is very similar to what I would have come up with, I support. The emails do "reflect" on the validity of science, it's just not yet established exactly how. Drolz 04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as an improvement over the outline I posted a few days ago (and which, it appears, has recently slipped into the archives). It was based on a list of "facts" that Tony came up with, and has been modified to reflect SPhilbrick's suggestions:

I. Lead Summary of the major points of the article

II. Background

Why the CRU is significant here, mention of/links to the hockey stick issue, and the FOIA issue (if we can find reliable sources for all of that); context with Copenhagen. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

III. Timeline

Theft of the docs; posting to RC and all that. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

IV. Reaction to the release

Accusations and death threats. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

V. Analysis of the emails

What the critics say they mean, what the authors, etc., say they mean. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

VI. Reaction of the scientific community

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

VII. Investigation into CRU and others

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

VIII. Investigation of the hacking and the death threats.

Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident.

Reasons I think the original proposal is better:

• Personally I don't think that "controversy" sections are very useful to begin with. It's just poor style for an encyclopaedia article. Similarly, the "charge and rebuttal" form really isn't a very effective communication style.
• A bigger problem here, and that is the fact that the "controversy" here is very much in the eye of the beholder. We obviously can't decide that one controversy is the "real" one and the other is manufactured. So that creates real NPOV problems
• The "Fallout" is a hodgepodge of different issues.
  • A: This is "the other" controversy, not fallout
  • B: I think some of this should be worked into the reaction - the death threats seem to fit in with the broader reaction to the incident, while the investigation fits in with the broader investigation into the hacking.
  • C: This isn't "fallout" - this is part of the analysis of the emails. Several good articles have been written about this, and many more will almost certainly be.
  • D: As phrased, this has serious POV problems. I think a balanced discussion of this belongs either in section V or VI of my outline
  • E: I would make this a stand-alone section, and as SPhilbrick pointed out, there is talk of investigation by groups other than the UEA, such as Penn.

Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Guettarda's suggested outline includes everything that was included in mine, just in a different order, so I think it's fine if the editors here decide they prefer it over mine. I made mine more rigidly structured as an attempt to diminish content disputes by strictly defnining what would go in each subsection and controlling the weight given to each. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with Guettarda's in that it puts the death threats in exactly the same section as the criticism. This would be like finding some eco-terrorist and putting his quotes right next to the scientists'. Given the persistent failure to achieve NPOV on this article, I think that a structural solution like Cla68's is called for--that is, establish very clearly where everything goes and make sure it does. Drolz 06:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the Russian claims of weather station data removed from analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.81.224 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 has made a very nice attempt at an outline. I had earlier commented positively on Guettarda's effort, and still prefer it, but Cla68 makes a good point that a more detailed outline (if it gains consensus), helps define weights to some extent, and may help alleviate battles over that issue. The way to get value form both is to carry Guettarda's outline one more level down - right now it is major sections containing anything relevant. The timing isn't perfect - I almost wish that protection were ending a few days later. However, if we can generally agree that Guettarda's high level is a good start, perhaps we could add a little more structure to the individual sections. I do want to make one minor point, picking up on Drolz's observation. The current outline mentions death threats in two different sections. I started to say that is overkill, but perhaps that's not a good phrase. Seriously, inclusion in section VIII should be sufficient. (We can separately return tot he debate whether it deserves mention in the lead, but not now).--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede must continue to summarise the article, whatever its structure. If there are death threats in the article, that surely is notable enough for a brief mention in the lede. That's not including it twice, just the normal purpose of the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not take a shot at adding some detail? I don't think you need to treat the outline as a "signed comment" - just add your initials to your changes, or insert small comments. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thought - what do people think about a /rewrite subpage? Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any merit in that. The main article is where we should perform edits. be bold (but not reckless). --TS 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that it could provide space to edit an outline. But then I'm probably far too fond of outlines. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If it works for you, go west! Ignignot (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Support --SPhilbrickT 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think both outlines are substantively equivalent and editors working from either shouldn't have much problem interacting with one another. I like Cla68's decision to incorporate detail and note that he has also changed the presentation of some of the controversy in response to earlier criticism. --TS 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

General warning

Protection of this article is going to expire tomorrow. Before the scrum resumes, I recommend editors submit their editorial disagreements to mediation, and avoid using edit warring as a tactic for gaining dominance. Should the situation deteriorate when the article is unprotected, I will request arbitration. If anybody has been disrupting, stonewalling, or attempting to own this article or any related page, they may be sanctioned. Hopefully a word to the wise is sufficient. Jehochman 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconding that warning, and agree after a look through the history that getting this article under probation would be a very good idea. --SB_Johnny |  14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Round up the meatpuppets, register your mother for a Misplaced Pages account and take bets on how long the article stays unprotected! Or, to phrase things differently - avoid making changes without first discussing them. Bear in mind that "consensus" means consensus for a change and that it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRoopsIjustviolatedthe3rr. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is arbitration suddenly the fix-all suggestion for everything? ArbCom is already seriously overburdened, and they aren't supposed to accept cases unless all other forms of dispute resolution have failed. Everyone just needs to relax just a bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that comment. Dispute resolution hasn't even been attempted yet, much less failed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So. C'mon then if you think you're 'ard enough! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Get a dispute resolution process started then. The article was protected to give time to work out differences. If the edit warring resumes, then we have to enforce a solution. Dispute resolution is only working when people choose to use it. If people choose to edit war, then we move along to sanctions. Jehochman 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that there was a current dispute. Did I miss something? Apart from the badge of shame slapped onto the article by one of the AGW skeptics, everything seems fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two distinct RFC processes running on this article: one on the "hacking" question and the other on whether death threats should be mentioned in the lead (the latter was the disagreement that led to the current period of protection). Also as regards interpersonal issues, at least one user has listened to, and agreed to, my suggestion that he take his conduct issues with other editors up in dispute resolution.

In addition, there is an ongoing move request.

To say that those involved in this discussion haven't resorted to the usual dispute resolution methods is incorrect. It might be better if we had more of this, but we're already going through a pretty substantial amount of confidence-building and flame-damping and we're doing our best to involve a broader range of editors in the discussion, through the processes mentioned above. Please give credit to those who are working hard here to resolve and eliminate destructive methods of prosecuting disputes. --TS 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. While I also agree that some incidents have proceeded too quickly without fully exhausting other dispute processes, those example shouldn't color the fact that many aspects have followed appropriate dispute resolution procedures.--SPhilbrickT 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Can we make sure the article doesn't become perpetually protected? As long as normal measures are working, we can hold off on arbitration. Jehochman 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We should all be on our best behavior. Here's my feeling on the main bones of contention:

• Naming: this is ongoing and a proposal is in active discussion, with consensus to be reckoned by the Requested moves process. This has a wide range of participants, many of whom are not directly involved in editing the article. This can continue until any disagreements about the naming are worked out.
• Hacking: RFC is active, no resolution in sight. Very disappointing (lack of) participation by wider community. We may need to go to mediation on this.
• Death threats in lead RFC is active, no resolution in sight. Limited participation by wider community, nothing that is likely to achieve consensus.

I don't feel strongly enough about any of these that I want them to get in the way of our current plans for reorganization, as discussed by me, Guettarda and Cla68. I think the latter is the priority and we should put our effort into that. --TS 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Russians Weigh In

This is interesting:

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

How to incorporate? WVBluefield (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Does it belong here? The article seems to be discussing the British Meteorological Office, not the CRU email hacking. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's an error in the report which has been addressed by Tim Lambert (in the blog post mentioned by Chris Owen below). --TS 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point--which I don't know what we should make of--is that the text of the second and third paragraphs of the section "Russia affected by Climategate" on that page look awfully similar to the text of recent revisions of this very article. I think this unlikely to be a coincidence.

The actual story seems to be based on a press release issued by an unknown Moscow-based outfit that calls itself the "Institute of Economic Analysis". It would be more credible if the owners of the weather station data themselves corroborated this independent claim.

RIA Novosti attributes the report to Kommersant. --TS 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the IEA's website: http://www.iea.ru/

It is not to be confused with a Washington D.C.-based organization with the same name. --TS 15:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The original IEA piece is here: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

For non-Russian speakers, it can be translated using an online translator such as Google's language tools. An author's name and an editor's name is given, but there is no other attribution. They're just these guys, you know? --TS 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the significance of this is (once again) being overstated. The Russian IEA is basically a conservative free-market think-tank, similar to the American Enterprise Institute. The editor is Andrey Illarionov (А.Н.Илларионов), a libertarian economist and former Russian government policy advisor who now works for the Cato Institute as a senior fellow; he has no discernable scientific expertise and a history of outspoken climate change denial (see Andrey Illarionov#Global warming views). I've not been able to find anything about the qualifications of the author, N.A. Pivovarova (Н.А.Пивоварова), but someone of the same name is listed as a co-author on scientific papers in Russian about oil and gas technology. It's not at all clear how significant the IEA actually is. The accuracy of the report's claims is already being questioned - see Tim Lambert's review on Deltoid . The report is undoubtedly going to get some coverage by climate-sceptic bloggers and media; however, I think we need to be cautious about assigning what could be undue weight to a non-expert viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's early. This is potentially quite important, but potentially much ado about not very much. However, I've yet to see the direct link between this claim and Climategate. Obviously, Climategate involves CRU, and so does this claim, but without a direct link, this incident, once verified, is relevant to an existing article such as Global warming controversy or some other article, or maybe a new one on CRU activities in general. But I don't see it belonging in this article without more evidence of a direct link.--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another article about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the link between the two is fairly obvious and stated in the article. No one would have looked into the CRU’s temperature reconstruction had these emails not become public. WVBluefield (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a notable nor reliable source. MarkNau (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems evident from the reporting that this actually has nothing to do with the CRU. The claims are being made against the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the Met Office; the Daily Express report that AQFK cites quotes a Hadley Centre spokesman rebutting the claims. It seems that anti-science activists are trying to advance a sort of grand unified conspiracy theory that "they're all faking it" by sticking the "Climategate" label on any fresh controversy, manufactured or otherwise, involving climate science. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the RS policy is being misinterpreted again. ChrisO, are you saying that because the group is a conservative think tank, their analysis is automatically void? They are obviously a reliable source for verifiability, in that what they say is necessarily what they say, so it seems like you are saying that their alignment nullifies their analysis, and I believe this is a claim that requires considerable support. I also question the selective tagging of sources as "expert." I don't see why one need be a climatologist to comment on the statistical methods of analysis employed by climatologists, and most of the notable skeptic sources do have verifiable backgrounds in statistics or similar disciplines. On this too, I believe a showing of cause is necessary if they are to be deemed unreliable, provided that there is enough support for a reasonable person to conclude that the source is qualified to offer an opinion. Drolz 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Most fundamentally, as I just said, the claims aren't even about the CRU - this entire discussion is off-topic; (2) no, of course it's not automatically void because of its politics; (3) there's actually no evidence that I'm aware of that the author has any relevant expertise, since there seems to be no information about her credentials; (4) knowledge of statistics doesn't qualify a person as either a reliable source or knowledgeable about climate science. Making numbers add up is a very different thing to knowing what the numbers mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate redux

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED - IT REFACTORS LANGUAGE FROM THE SECTION ABOVE OUT OF CONTEXT IS AN ABUSE OF ALL STANDARDS OF CIVIL DISCUSSION >

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus is consistently against a fork. There are ongoing discussions about renaming the article and reorganizing it.

Agree, this is more suited for a Climategate article. We really should cleave the millions upon millions of international news stories, commentary's and leadership posturing that are known as "ClimateGate" from the CRU incident.99.151.169.221 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK. No. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is an international and near universal reality, we simply record it:

1. Time magazine referred to the incident definitively as Climategate in the headline to a news article, "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?" .
2. Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen",
3. as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen",
4. The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""
5. The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"
6. Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist , "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"
7. Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"
8. Reason magazine, ""Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us?" _99.151.169.221 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ and attempt to reach consensus if you feel the name must be changed. Merely listing a bunch of people who said "Climategate," is unlikley to convince people who disagree with you. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ is one editor's undiscussed opinion. The supposed "prohibition" was taken from the "suggestion" section of a "Style Guidline". Hardly the basis for a decree by unilateral fiat.99.151.169.221 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same person who was disrupting the talk page and FAQ earlier, from 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); he was blocked first for edit warring, then for 72 hours for block evasion, but has gone back to his same behaviour, promoting the same arguments, as soon as the block expired. If he persists I will ask for a much longer block. Please do not engage with him. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Old ways Chris? I entered into a civil debate - and you promptly deleted my comments, and then began to archive and bury them before finally gaming me into a block. My edit history is clear - and my disgust with Misplaced Pages methods of "Winning" at all costs is palpable.99.151.169.221 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates