Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy
(Redirected from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident)
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Asukite in topic Requested move 26 June 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Climatic Research Unit email controversy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Norfolk may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009. |
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 17, 2011, November 17, 2014, November 17, 2018, November 17, 2019, November 17, 2021, November 17, 2022, and November 17, 2024. |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Frequently asked questions
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 Wikipedia articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent [needs update] 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. Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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.[1] Both the University [2] and a science blog, RealClimate [3] [4], have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".[5] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Wikipedia article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia, 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. |
 | On 26 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Climatic Research Unit email leak. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Issues related to this article elsewhere on Wikipedia
|
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
"stolen" data
editIt seems that RS, at least the AP, seem to agree that the data was "stolen" except for the fact that the rightful owners were never deprived of access to it, which is a key component to conventional theft. It is unfortunate that sources want to draw analogues between theft of conventional property and copying of data, because data piracy is a different thing altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- So what? I think it is unfortunate that the reliable sources do not call the people who bought the stolen mails "fences".
- Why is this on this Talk page? How is it connected to any suggested article improvement? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article Data theft which points out
The phrase data theft is actually a misnomer
(without a source). The term is still used, and the article exists. I cannot see any problem with using the word "steal" here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article Data theft which points out
- Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Taxpayers?
editHot Spots From Twitter:
Toby Young on Twitter:
The Foreign Office is helping to pay for the rewriting of wikipedia entries on climate change to eliminate all traces of doubt about the claim that we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency'.
Sissy Willis on Twitter:
"The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the #StockholmEnvironmentInstitute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Wikipedia’.
SEI is closely connected with the United Nations & the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”
Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”
Source:
Any British taxpayer here for the comments? Kartasto (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- See The Daily Sceptic. If the article is correct, "The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines[9] and climate change denial". Looks like a waste of time. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Climate Deniers
editThis is a wrong description used throughout this site. The scientific consensus is not Science. Science is and always has been a process of proof. When the Climate change believers are asked simple scientific questions, which they cannot answer, they try to be-little the scientific question using derogatory terms in order to demean the other side of the discussion. If this article were to be balanced, please remove terms such as. 'Climate Deniers' and replace with 'scientific unanswered counter arguments'. I feel that this article is a white-wash of the real problems with using exclusive terms such as consensus and science in the same sentence. 86.21.163.120 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. So, it is no problem for Wikipedia that your opinion and Wikipedia articles do not match, it is your problem.
- If you had reliable sources that agree with your opinion, it would be a different story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 26 June 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. The term "Controversy" was selected as better encompassing the subject matter in this case, but from reading this the possibility of a better title, should anybody find one, is still open. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climatic Research Unit email leak – 'leak' is more WP:NPOV about what actually happened: the mail leaked. The controversy part is what some hacker wanted to create by leaking them, but in the end there wasn't really any controversial content and the scientists were just doing their job fine. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower. This was burglary. The "controversy" (such as it was) was the result of selective release of the messages with misrepresentation of their content. The effect was to undermine the political of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, causing an unforgivable delay in response to it. So the key factor was the effect; the method is incidental. I agree that the name is not great and should be reconsidered, but 'leak' won't do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- >First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower
- Yes, they were stolen by a hacker indeed, but that hacker then leaked them to the public, taking over the job that is usually done by the insider. I'd say leak is an appropriate term here.
- Do you have any alternative suggestions? I'd be open to moving the page to a different name if there is a good alternative. Climate Research Unit email hack would be good to me as well. The page Category:Email hacking contains some title inspiration. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, that puts the emphasis on the hack as an exploit (which was almost insignificant) rather than on the deliberate disinterpretation of the messages and consequent reinforcement of the denialist conspiracy theory – which led to politicians failing to act on the IPCC report. "Controversy" has the benefit of focusing on consequences rather than the proximate cause. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It was never a great title but the controversy is what has mostly been written about and the controversy had an impact on climate change policy, as has been pointed out. So keep as it is in its imperfect way. Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.