I've been busy with other things, and was taken aback when I read our current lede. I don't believe the lede presently has an impartial tone, and I reverted a recent "conspiracy theory" addition; see above. Here's what WP:NPOV policy says about impartial tone:
- Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
- The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Source: [1]
There are quite a number of loaded words in the current draft of the lede. Here's one set of examples:
- ... when a server was hacked ...
- ... Soon after the data theft ...
We had a very long and very contentious discussion of this topic, and I would encourage editors who are proposing to use such loaded terms in the lede to pleas spend some time in the Talk archives, before reopening this particular can of worms. There you will find reliable sources who describe the unauthorized release of the CRU documents in many ways, often slanted, some inflammatory. Indeed, many RS's, perhaps even the majority, use such terms. But Wikipedia cannot, to achieve an impartial tone and NPOV. Both policy and clear consensus here, then and now, is to avoid such loaded terms in the lede, and instead use neutral language such as unauthorized release.
Editors who contribute to this article should be aware that it has been extraordinarily contentious. Please make every effort to keep your language neutral and impartial, and to build consensus for proposed addittions, Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)