::::::: Yes I have seen all the refs under FAQ Q5. The hacking of the RealClimate server and the release of the Climategate emails are two separate events. It is quite possible that the RealClimate server hack was the illegal work of a hacker who received files via email from an insider in the CRU. It is quite possible that a skeptic sysadmin with root access to the backup server believed he had a moral obligation to expose the CRU management who were refusing to comply with FOIA law. The absurdity of your position is claiming that the article MUST say SOMETHING was illegal without us evening knowing what the 'illegal' thing was. Was 'it' a hack from Russia that was 'illegal'? If so that would need to be tried in a Russian court, agreed? Or was it the Russian government? If so that would be tried in an international court? Was it a hack from America? That would need to be tried in a US court, agreed? Was it a hack from the UK? Ok, that would be subject to UK law. Or was it an insider? Was it a scientist who was given root access a sysadmin? If so, it wasn't a hack. Did the insider believe he was releasing the emails in the public interest? If so, it might have been protected under UK law. Your position here is absurd, and Wikipedia looks very biased as a result.