Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.

Template:Shell

Policy analysis

The question boils down to an analogy: "reporting the news or making the news". If adding "gate" to a word in Wikipedia creates a new word, the word doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If "gate" has already been added by common usage outside of Wikipedia, and thus already exists, then "gate" is not being added in Wikipedia through the use of the word in Wikipedia and the rule does not apply.

Since "Climategate" is already in common usage, attempting to suppress the use of the word in Wikipedia is itself "making the news" as it suggests the use of a policy/bureaucracy to suppress information as has been done historically on political, economic, moral or religious grounds. This suggests the rule is being used opposite to it intended purpose. The rule is being used to “create news” rather than “report news”.

Here is how I interpret the policies with respect to the possible title "Climategate". All italics in policy quotations are mine.

• First of all: This is not a typical case. (The typical case would be something like "Vienna", where the policy tells us that we don't use "Wien".) In a sense it is both the common name ("most common English-language name of the subject of the article") and a descriptive title (Note that the policy section about descriptive titles specifically has "Attorneygate" as an example. There is no doubt that the title describes the debate as something like Watergate, only related to climate.)
• "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." – So we must find out if we are in the normal case. Does any of the exceptions apply?
• "When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best." – This is what we will have to do if an exception applies, so that we can't just use the common name.

If and only if and there is no WP policy as interpreted by people like me or (say) Jimmy Wales (a well known WP editor) that supplies an exception. It is already a 'QED' DeepNorth (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• (A) "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." – The title "Climategate" is descriptive and does pass judgement. => An exception applies.

The 'Climategate' article proper has no commonly accepted descriptive title. It has a proper name ('Climategate'), hence the redirect. However, the article it redirects to is not (properly) about Climategate. The (alleged) 'hacking incident' certainly has a descriptive title and it should be left either as is or more neutrally worded since we don't know either that it was a hacking or is diminutive as an 'incident'. However, that says nothing of the controversial redirect of Climategate. DeepNorth (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• (B) "For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy." => This is almost exactly very similar to our situation, so the exception definitely applies.

'Attorneygate', being neither notable on the order of Climategate, nor as near as I can tell in particularly common parlance (certainly not like 'Climategate') is an utterly inappropriate example here. You can't draw any conclusion from this since the comparison is fatally flawed. It is apples and oranges for the purpose of this debate. The only thing of substance that they have in common is 'gate'. The appropriate example is 'Watergate', which Climategate matches in many ways and which is similarly in common parlance, involves things much more wide sweeping than the hotel that gave it its name and has a mindshare similar to 'Climategate'. Until this discussion, I had never even heard of 'Attorneygate'. I sure do not see thousands of dollars in taxes coming my way from that. Google is not the definitive research tool for this, but it gives an idea. There are about a hundred times as many references to 'Climategate' as to 'Attorneygate' and 'Attorneygate' has had a lot more time to gain traction on the web. DeepNorth (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• (C) "See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology."
  • "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." (From Wikipedia:Words to avoid.) − This is clear: Titles do not use -gate unless they are historical. => An exception applies.

Please do see the reference on this above. Read it all, not just the part above, which is effectively ripped completely out of context and whether design or accident is completely misleading as to the actual guideline at WP.

From Wikipedia:Words to avoid

* Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.

Here, BTW, is how the examples above stack up in 'googlespace' vs Climategate when I checked the last time this was discussed:

• Name/Hits
• "Boston Massacre"/310K
• "Tea Pot Dome scandal"/<2K
• "Edward the Confessor"/536K
• "Jack the Ripper" 2,180K
• "Climategate" 12,100K

Google is hardly the arbiter, of course. However, it is pretty clear from the above that if you are to go to major newspapers, networks, any involved institution, congressional records, blogs and other current reference sources you will find this thing and it will be called 'Climategate'. There are six thousand times as many references to Climategate than there are to the least prominent of the examples given in the guideline. Climategate has more than four times the references than all the examples combined. There is no judgement call here. According to Wikipedia guidelines and its customs this article belongs under the name 'Climategate' and WP visitors deserve to see a proper treatment of the subject.DeepNorth (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• (D) "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." – The title "Climategate" does not do that. => An exception applies.
• "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." – This suggests to use the common name, i.e. "Climategate". However, it is evident that it does not try to overrule the exceptions above, which all apply. Otherwise "Attorneygate" would be a legitimate title and most of the exceptions would make no sense at all. Moreover, the title "Climategate" is used by a majority of the sources, but not by a consensus of the sources: Some sources don't use it at all, some only use it in inverted commas, and some even say why it is problematic/wrong. At the moment some sources treat "Climategate" as a name, and others treat it as a mere description.

It follows from this analysis that "Climategate" is completely ruled out as a title by policy. It does not follow that the present title is better, of course. The problem of arriving at a consensus is made more complicated by the fact that there is also a debate over the scope of this article. Hans Adler 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales discussed the very point you do above and he (like I) arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. It is ironic in one breath that you say this can't be called 'Climategate' and in the other say that there is a debate over the scope of the article. If there was an article called 'Climategate', that debate, at least, would disappear. Climategate is a sweeping scandal that continues to grow. As it accretes even more matter under its umbrella, the moniker 'Climategate' will continue to apply and properly so. Unlike the Watergate complex, neither the department at ground zero nor the school at ground zero gave their names to this controversy except in the minds of a tiny handful of editors at Wikipedia. For better or worse, it acquired the moniker 'Climategate' and for better or worse, Climategate it shall remain. It is called 'Climategate', even though Wikipedia's poorly named entry has stood at the top of the Google page ranks for literally months now. No matter how vigorous the attempts here to erase it, Climategate is clearly its name. That shipped has sailed everywhere but here.

I disagree. "Climategate" is not descriptive, it is a proper noun. WP:NPOV#Article_titles talks about the differences between the two. This turns your entire argument on its head, because you depend on it being "descriptive." What does descriptive mean? It means that it describes something, like "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" which is obviously talking about an "incident" in which there was a "hacking" at a place called the "Climatic Research Unit". Climategate doesn't describe anything, it is a newly coined neologism, a proper noun, not a descriptive title. It doesn't mean anything besides the meaning assigned to it by common usage. Moogwrench (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering, i.e. trying to argue on technicalities of the policies in order to interpret them as saying the opposite of what they actually say. How can "Attorneygate" be descriptive, but not "Climategate"? Hans Adler 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to follow the policy. The descriptive titles example tells us that the title "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" has to be neutrally worded (i.e. not sometihng like Bush's U.S. attorney firing error, because no common name exists (i.e. "Attorneygate" never caught on as a common name for the controversy). Moogwrench (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that a title cannot be a common name and descriptive at the same time, from the point of view of Wikipedia. However, both "Climategate" and "Jack the Ripper" have this property. What is more, nowhere in the policies does it say that it is a dichotomy. Hans Adler 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper is a proper name, we agree? It happens to use a non-neutral term to describe the method of killing. If you followed the "highest degree of neutrality" and "neutrally worded" provisions of descriptive titles in WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE, you couldn't allow it. Therefore, we must assume that the particular provisions of descriptive titles don't apply to Proper noun names. However, there is not even a question when it comes to Climategate. What does Climategate, absent references from reliable sources, mean? Nothing. And so it can only be thought of as a proper noun in any case, because it describes nothing. Moogwrench (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Neutrality is measured by reliable sources, not by some absurd ideal standards. There are no reliable sources that avoid the expression "Jack the Ripper" or say that it is prejudiced. What does "Translationgate" mean? I have just checked on Google News that it hasn't been used before. It very obviously refers to a scandal that has somehow to do with something that was translated. If it will ever enter political discourse, then it will be non-neutral. Hans Adler 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously if it wasn't considered an example of a title with non-neutral terms it wouldn't have been inlcuded in NPOV, so don't say "Neutrality is measured by reliable sources". Acceptability and common usage are measured by reliable sources, and Climategate is common used and accepted as a term appropriate enough to include in titles and bodies of news articles on a regular basis. Moogwrench (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK: "proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. [...] Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." The distinction we need to make here is that between "non-neutral terms", i.e. terms whose appearance normally makes a description non-neutral, and "non-neutral descriptions", which is what we are to avoid according to WP:NPOV. I missed that in my earlier response to you. The sentences explains the conditions under which a description can be considered neutral even though it contains such a non-neutral term. It is perfectly normal for a policy that forbids some things to also mention some things that are allowed, in order to define its scope more clearly.

"-gate" is such a non-neutral term. The conditions under which it does not contaminate a description (i.e. make it POV) are not satisfied in this case. Hans Adler 01:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Again, we disagree. I say that the vast common usage validates it. You don't. The policy indicates common proper nouns, when supported by majority, are optimal, even if they do contain non-neutral terms. Essentially, it dictates that we follow, not lead our sources. The sources lead with the word, we should follow. It is not our choice. Moogwrench (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response has prompted me to write this section below. I think you are cherry-picking from the policies and interpreting them in such a way that a part of it which you don't want to apply would never be applicable. Please indicate whether you disagree with my "flow diagram" below or with my application of it to the present case. Hans Adler 12:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to address the substance of the argument. Simply declaring things to be the case by fiat is bad form for a discussion. "Climategate...doesn't mean anything besides the meaning assigned to it by common usage". Since common usage is nebulous, as you determined in your earlier incubator draft, there's a real problem in trying to use it as an article title. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not declaring anything, this is common sense--because the word Climategate doesn't indicate a who, what, when, where, why, etc. on its face, it does depend on meaning to be assigned to it by RSs. Common usage may be nebulous among climate skeptics that would like to use it as a catchall, but RSs use it to refer to the controversy regarding the information from the CRU servers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs)

It does less to indicate "who, what, when, where, why" than "Attorneygate"? Please do explain. Guettarda (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, my point is it is thoroughly indescriptive, unlike Hans's point, which is that it is descriptive. Is there a disconnect here? Moogwrench (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good analysis, very thorough. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that under WP:NPOV the examples of descriptive titles are all multiword phrases which are not proper nouns, like "Societal views on drugs" or "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy". The next part deals with proper names ("Where proper nouns such as names are concerned...") and lists proper name nouns, like "Edward the Confessor".

"Social vews on drugs" is not a noun, whereas "Edward the Confessor" is a proper noun. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" is not a proper noun, whereas "Climategate" is a proper noun. Proper nouns are not descriptive titles. Descriptive titles are ones made up by Wikipedians to address the lack of a common name. Moogwrench (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a deliberate lie or are you just not reading the policy passages that you are citing? "Attorneygate" is one of "the examples of descriptive titles" under WP:NPOV. If you can twist is so that it belongs into the class of "multiword phrases which are not proper nouns", you will really impress me. Extra credits if you can explain convincingly why the same does not hold for "Climategate". Hans Adler 11:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. I think Attorneygate should be the final nail in the coffin. Not only do we have a clear precedent on the issue, but it is the textbook example of a term to avoid. Furthermore, the fact that it is the phrase used by "a significant majority of reliable English language sources" remains to be demonstrated. StuartH (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Attorneygate didn't catch on like Climategate. The situations have nothing in common save the -gate suffix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the -gate suffix that is the core of the issue. Both WP:TITLE and WP:AVOID clearly oppose the use of the suffix. The only relevant difference between "Attorneygate" and "Climategate" is that the latter appears to be more widely used, but WP:TITLE also makes it clear that "most common" is not to be used indiscriminately if a more appropriate title is preferable. Most sources on the event manage to avoid the term and hence it is neither used by "a significant majority of reliable English language sources" nor is it key to describing the event. Most of the rest either enclose the term in quotation marks or qualify it with "so called", or make it clear that the term is used predominantly by "skeptics", implying an acknowledgement of the loaded nature of the term. "Climategate" fails on a number of fronts, and there is no compelling need for this to be the article's name. StuartH (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"The only relevant difference between "Attorneygate" and "Climategate" is that the latter appears to be more widely used" Thank you! That's exactly what I was trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, thank you for input. A couple comments:

• "The title "Climategate" is descriptive" Is it? It's a proper noun, right?
• "This is almost exactly our situation, so the exception definitely applies." How is it similar? My research indicates "attorneygate" didn't catch on like Climategate. Go do some searches with my reliable sources search engine. "Climategate" OR "Climate-gate" returns 41 pages of hits. "attorneygate" OR "attorney-gate" returns barely 2 pages.
• Also, WP:AVOID is a guideline, not a policy. When in conflict such as this case, WP:NPOV trumps WP:AVOID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google News archive search returns 100 hits for "Attorneygate" OR "Attorney-gate"[6] and a Google News search returns 75,245 958 hits for "Climategate" OR "Climate-gate"[7] although I'm not certain this is a fair comparison. I think my reliable sources search engine is a better tool for comparison. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing "attorneygate" to "climate"? You're damn right that's not a fair comparison. :) StuartH (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant "Climategate" or "Climate-gate", which returns around 958 hits. Moogwrench (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are recent news items. To compare apples to apples, archive of same terms generates3,520 hits. Moogwrench (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody else (I don't know who) created their own Wikipedia Reference Search. On their search engine, "Attorneygate" OR "Attorney-gate" returns about less than 3 pages of hits. "Climategate" OR "Climate-gate" returns 43 pages of hits.

I don't have direct link to this search engine. Instead, I have a link to its search results for Marco Polo (don't ask why). Just replace the search terms.

http://www.google.com/ custom?hl=en&client=google-coop-np&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcoop%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fimages%2Fcustom_search_sm.gif%3BLH%3A65%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23551a8b%3BGFNT%3A%23666666%3BDIV%3A%23cccccc%3B&adkw=AELymgVLU0ZjCq24XoO8NDojuXeZNlGkxFnhydbYx1HAczOOI-bzv2YjWjWKJMuAZPF306DiOqQlUH2nytM9J8Ljpa3MrofY_b2PDe5ttYhKhT67go7w8IuWLMEDDPLpN1rZhbxkYrJH&boostcse=0&q=%22Marco+Polo%22&btnG=Search&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So all 3 search tools reveal that Climategate is more popular than Attorneygate by orders of magnitude. Anyone want to try Bing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Google News? You're joking, right? Yeah, so something that happened 3 years ago has been mentioned less often in the news in the last month than something that happened a few months ago... Guettarda (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I used the Google News archive search. In any case, all three search tools yield the same thing. Climategate is more popular than AttorneyGate by orders of magnitude. I suggest we try Bing or Yahoo to see if they concur. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • A descriptive title is a title that is not (just) a name ("John Butcher", "New York") but describes it in some way ("John the Butcher", "Neuschwanstein Castle"). The description part is where problems of accuracy and POV can come in: Can John the Butcher really be described as a "butcher" without breaking NPOV? Is Neuschwanstein really a castle rather than a palace? These POV and accuracy problems are what the section on descriptive titles addresses. It makes no sense to restrict them artificially: To address POV and accuracy problems in titles only if some arbitrary formal condition (e.g. "must be randomly assembled by Wikipedia editors and rather long") applies. The section that discusses descriptive titles discusses "Attorneygate" as an example. It's a proper noun, right?
  • I don't trust your search engine, but I withdraw "almost exactly" because I cannot prove that "Attorneygate" was as widely used as "Climategate" is used now. Maybe not. Let's say it is "similar to our situation" instead. Note that the policy continues: "Another example is that the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law." Thus the principle described here is so broad that it clearly describes all cases of titles ending in -gate: We can't even make the title say "allegation" before there is a formal charge. Obviously we can't say "-gate" before we are close to something like a conviction.
  • WP:AVOID is a guideline that is being pointed to by the policy and thereby becomes part of the policy. And the guideline doesn't say anything surprising, does it? Its relevant part just gives examples of ways in which a title may be non-neutral. The policy itself says that's not allowed. Moreover, "it's just a guideline" is not a good argument at all. Even WP:Notability is "just a guideline". There is no conflict between the two policies and the guideline: Whichever way we look at it, the result is the same. Unless we apply serious wikilawyering tricks. (WP:Wikilawyering: 2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; 4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.) Hans Adler 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at your response tomorrow, but you're definitely wrong about your last point. The intent of WP:NPOV is to avoid interjecting our own editorial bias into our articles. As Jimbo puts it, we let the world decide. WP:AVOID is being used to override what the world decides. This is exactly the type of thing that WP:NPOV says you can't do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The world has not decided by consensus, as witnessed by a simple Google News search for "Climategate". A large number of hits has it in inverted commas. The inverted commas are obviously there because the source either distances itself from the term or feels that it is not neutral and must be treated with care. So long as there is no general consensus (as in the case of Watergate or Jack the Ripper), some balancing is required by WP:NPOV. In the title this balancing is impossible. Therefore it cannot be used in the title at all. It's all explained in the policy; you need only read it. Hans Adler 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I'm open to discussing whether the quotes makes a difference. But when I prepared yesterday's list of articles that incorporated non-neutral terms (Great Leap Forward, Alfred the Great, Corrupt Bargain, Patriot_(American_Revolution), Glorious Revolution, Saturday Night Massacre, Mugwump, Scalawag, Trail of Tears, Bataan Death March and Intolerable Acts), I consulted a history text book which used some of those terms in quotes and our articles used those terms anyway. But I would be happy to cross-reference these titles with other history text books.

FWIW, for 3-4 months I routinely cited WP:AVOID as the reason for rejecting Climategate. It wasn't until Jimbo's post that I began to suspect that I was wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

These are good points. I am not sure what exactly is going on here. It might be a disconnect between policy and practice (maybe the policy changed over the years and the titles stayed the same), or it might be a general feeling that NPOV doesn't override the common name for topics that are not sufficiently hot nowadays. But I need some sleep before thinking about this further. Hans Adler 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was very late last night, so I didn't see the obvious: It seems that the titles you mention pass an exception to the exception, which is mentioned in only one place: "proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms [...] are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." There are some important unspoken caveats in applying this: "Using" a word is not the same as "mentioning" it. If a source says so-called Climategate or "Climategate" rather than just Climategate, then it is mentioning the term, not using it. I don't think this happens with Alfred the Great. A tiny minority of sources may use inverted commas or refer to him as the so-called Alfred the Great when they mention him for the first time, but the vast majority just treat it as a legitimate name. That's not what we have here. If you make a Google News search, virtually on every page of results there is at least one source (usually several) that distances itself from the term, i.e. does not use it. That's not a "consensus of the sources". Hans Adler 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all your opinion. No where in policy does one find the "inverted commas" clause, or other some such thing. You have no sources to tell me why they put it in quotes, so you can't assume why they do so. What is this "some" balancing of which you speak? You have a novel interpretation of policy that doesn't even rely on citations or sources. Moogwrench (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The required balancing that is impossible in the lead is not my invention, but it's not as clearly explained in the policy as I thought it was. Sorry for misleading you. As to the inverted commas, we clearly have sources that explain how "Climategate" is a political fighting term, and it is not a big stretch at all to conclude that that's why many use inverted commas. Remember that what you are trying to do is argue that there is a consensus of reliable sources that "Climategate" is a neutral term. That's obviously absurd because it presupposes a specific position in this debate. If you'd win this particular argument on a technicality there would be something wrong. Hans Adler 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am trying to show that because it used commonly as the name, it doesn't matter that it is non-neutral. No where am I arguing that Climategate is facially neutral. Consider, though, Saturday Night Massacre, for example. Neutral, heck no. Common name, yes. Is it a Wikipedia article title, yes. Moogwrench (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The standard for using POV titles is higher than that for NPOV titles. (Use by a consensus of sources.) "Climategate" does not satisfy this higher standard. I don't know whether "Saturday Night Massacre" does. If you think that it doesn't, please go to the article's talk page and try to address the problem there. Similarly, I guess you wouldn't be happy if other people were using the present title of this article as an example for why certain things are acceptable. See WP:Other stuff exists for a more thorough discussion of the problems with this kind of argument. Hans Adler 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict - reply to AQFK}Exactly. For this reason you will see the word "follow" many times in the WP:NPOV. It is not our place to say what is "right". Moogwrench (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I am sorry, I think we will have to disagree on this. The wikilawyering accusation is just another way of saying, I don't agree with your interpretation, so why don't you just say that instead. Jimbo shares my point of view ([8], [9], & [10]), and while someone might argue about his grasp of policy (I don't), I don't think many doubt his vision of the spirit of Wikipedian policies, first and foremost NPOV, which he has always harped on, especially in regards to BLPs. So please don't just throw out the notion that I am violating the spirit or underlying principles of Wikipedia. Moogwrench (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are new and can't know this, but the WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem is highly problematic. Jimbo is founder of the project and some kind of constitutional king. He doesn't decide such things: because it wouldn't be healthy for the community. Sometimes he says or does things that prove that he doesn't really understand the fine points of Wikipedia that are not part of his role. I believe that this is one of them, so I have asked him on his talk page to clarify whether he meant to overrule policy.

This may sound pretentious; however, Jimbo has been with the project from the beginning and has made 5,000 edits over that period. Much of what he remembers about policy is from many years ago when it was less refined. I joined the project less than 3 years ago and have made 13,000 edits in this time. (Others have joined even later and have made even more. I am not trying to brag.) I have represented unpopular minority positions with some success and without ever being blocked, and I have a track record of convincing others with my policy interpretations. This makes me confident that I am usually getting things right. Hans Adler 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're not reading what I said, I said that you can think Jimbo doesn't know what he is talking about as far as nitty gritty policy details, but he has the vision and the spirit of Wikipedia down pretty well. You were saying that arguing the same point he argues is wikilawyering and against the spirit of Wikipedia, which doesn't make sense in that context. I understand and have read a lot of things, including WP:JIMBO, and it can seem condescending to have someone misinterpret what you said and then try to talk down to you ("you're new"), albeit in a friendly way, about your supposed lack of understanding of Jimbo's role. Moogwrench (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you're missing the point that WP:NPOV means we don't get to interject our bias into our articles. We're supposed to be neutral. If the world has decided that the common name is Climategate, then we don't use our bias to over-rule them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "If the world has decided that the common name is Climategate, then we don't use our bias to over-rule them" (a) Hans has explained, quite clearly, per policy, why a simplistic interpretation of the article naming convention doesn't apply, and (b) "the world has decided"? Really? When did the New World Order meet and decide that? And why didn't I get the memo? Guettarda (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I told them to include you in the memo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid getting involved in this debate... but think I need to comment, as I was one of the editors who was heavily involved in drafting the language of both WP:TITLE and WP:NPOV#Article Titles and can speak to intent as well as language.

As I see it, this article should be entitled "Climategate", as that title most accurately meets not only the wording of these policies, but also the intent behind the policy wording ... "Climategate" is clearly a proper name for this event (along exactly the same lines as Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal), moreover it is by far the "most common name" for the event.

A lot of people have commented that "Climategate" is not neutral... I think this argument this is off base. The policy makes it very clear that when something has a commonly used proper name, that is what we should use, even if that common name is viewed by some as non-neutral. This is the entire point behind the last paragraph of WP:NPOV#Article titles. In fact, when it comes to situations like this, not using the non-neutral but common proper name (and instead inventing some other name that is unique to Wikipedia) is what would violate the NPOV policy (as doing so means an editor or group of editors has substituted his own POV over that of the sources).

Having said that... Consensus is important on Wikipedia, and there does seem to be a strong consensus against using "Climategate". That is very understandable. I think the consensus might even be strong enough to justify an invocation of WP:IAR. But barring that, I have to say that both the letter and the intent of policy indicates that "Climategate" is what should be used. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed for now, per discussion below. There were a number of suggestions for Climatic Research Unit document controversy, which also would work as a title. However, as there was less explicit support for this one, this is probably something that should be decided independently of this move request. If you believe that the page should be moved to that, please just start a talk page discussion to discuss the two options: Climatic Research Unit document controversy versus Climatic Research Unit email controversy. NW (Talk) 23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The title "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" seems to have almost universal support, but is rather long. Someone proposed to remove "and document", and this makes a lot of sense. Most sources don't talk about any documents other than the emails, and we can still discuss them even when they are not in the title – just like we can still discuss the hacking once it is removed from the title.

Many would prefer "scandal", but many reject that. On "controversy" and "scandal" see WP:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal: Care must be taken when using "controversy" to make sure that the article is technically about a controversy rather than just something offending. There is no doubt that we have a controversy here. On the other hand, "scandal" is a much stronger word, tends to express a POV, and "should not be used in article titles" – except under a specific condition that obviously doesn't hold here. Under these circumstances it seems unlikely that there would be a consensus for "Climatic Research Unit email scandal". Moreover, even from the point of view of those who favour "scandal", the title I propose here should already be a significant improvement.

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit email controversy — More neutral title; a compromise between "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate". Hans Adler 11:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See also, question in next section about possibly splitting into a "controversy" article (covering reaction to the incident) and an "hacking incident" (covering the incident itself) article instead of renaming and keeping the content the same. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is the least bad proposal of all mentioned so far. I understand that the "email controversy" has overtaken the "hacking incident" in significance, and "scandal" goes against WP:AVOID guidelines and is far from a neutral term. Removing "and documents" makes the title more concise without sacrificing accuracy, as most reliable sources focus exclusively on the contents of the emails, and indeed that is the focus of the "The Independent Climate Change Email Review" investigation. Climategate, Argumentum ad Jimbonem aside, is extremely worrisome for multiple reasons. "-gate" suffixes explicitly go against WP:AVOID and "Attorneygate" is a textbook example of a bad article title in WP:TITLE. It is a highly loaded and partisan term, and while it has some popular support (overwhelmingly from one side of the debate), it is not used by a "a significant majority of reliable English language sources". Most manage to avoid it when discussing the issue as my analysis of the article references above illustrates, several explicitly reject it or make it clear that it is a label applied by "skeptics" and most of the balance retain quotation marks around it. Also, it is not a historical case, as WP:AVOID makes an exception for. Most reliable sources manage to avoid the loaded term, and we should follow those sources and come up with a concise, neutral and accurate description instead. "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" is a good suggestion. StuartH (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Huge improvement over current title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Big improvement. -- Chadhoward (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It doesn't really matter. It is, to the rest of the world, Climategate. Calling it hacking incident makes Wikipedia look like it is pushing an agenda, and isn't consistent with the NPOV pillar. As civility is also a pillar, compromising on email controversy respects all points of view and since Climategate redirects here it will still serve the reading public. Gerardw (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Gerardw. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have previously been none to impressed with seeing this article come up at WP:RM over and over again (This is the 4th time in the last 3-4 months). However, there appears to be a family of support for this new name and I sincerely hope that this is the end of the requested names changes for this page. I would equally support Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy, as per the discussions above.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Huge improvement from the current title, but as Scjessey document may be better than email (but that can be taken in the next step ...). Nsaa (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As this is more or less what GoRight and I proposed, I am of course happy to support it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd rather see a reorganization, with "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" being a parent article to this child article (which should keep the existing name). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Even if there were a split, this article name is POV, as only the hack of RealClimate has been established. I suppose RealClimate hacking incident might conceivably have an artcle, but this one would need to be Alleged CRU hacking incident (although I'd prefer CRU data breach). Split discussion may still be appropriate, but this article name, even if kept as a redirect, should be tagged as a Wikipedia invention violating WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that this is the final time we'll have to deal with anyone currently editing this section asking to have the article moved to Climategate. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Oppose This far and no more. An inch was given - up here, and a mile was taken on the article. As such, I oppose such a move unless the intro to the article makes it clear that "Climategate" was coined by sceptics, as if we move it without such, we'll just be back here again in a week or two. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Minor comment: The name could potentially be even shorter. 'Climatic Research Unit controversy' is even shorter and no less accurate as there is no other controversy relating to the Climatic Research Unit, right?91.153.115.15 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" [or similar title] which covers the main issues of the subject, and avoids possible miunderstandings or widening the article to some other alleged controversy. Make minimal changes to the lead to suit the new title, and discuss any proposed additions or alterations on the talk pages before changing the text. . . dave souza, talk 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) under review, dave souza, talk 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Having thought it over, restore support, coverage of the Climatic Research Unit documents issues should be increased as a more detailed summary style description of the main issues of controversy discussed in detail on that page. dave souza, talk 09:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support new title for WP:DUE reasons, but I figure both topics (hack/controversy) merit an article, especially if people felt so strongly about that "hacking incident" title for so long. I also figure this incubator article, if renamed to Climatic Research Unit email controversy or something very close, could serve as the controversy article. Of course, some NPOV work would need to be done on it afterwards, but there is no deadline, after all. Moogwrench (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have an article called Climatic Research Unit documents. That article does not list or reproduce the documents per its title, it discusses the controversy surrounding each of the more notable documents. So, rename that article to Climatic Research Unit document controversy and leave this one as it is, discussing the attack on the CRU security, its timeline, and notable reactions to the incident. This is much less disruptive to the existing well-sourced and long-discussed content. The alternative proposed here would imply moving all that document-specific controversy back into this article after the rename, which would make it too big and so some other stuff would have to moved out of here to somewhere else... Then what would be the purpose of the 'documents' article... etc. --Nigelj (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting prospect, it could end up pretty huge but I'll think it over. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Having considered the idea, it seems best on balance to expand this main article rather than expanding the detailed sub-article, but it's a close call. . . dave souza, talk 09:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support this proposal if we also redirect "Climategate" to point to the document article. JPatterson (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Weak support, as proposed rename is somewhat better. But please see WP:COMMONNAME: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." As Jimbo has recently reminded us, almost everyone else on the planet calls this topic Climategate. Eventually, we will too. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support While this is not what I think it should be - that being, "Climategate scandal", since that's exactly what it is - I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. Macai (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as improvement. Though qualifiedly, as the code and documentation is discussed in the literature (see Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Code_and_documentation). As E-mails are documents but documents are not emails, "Climatic Research Unit Documents Controversy" is a better title.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support New editor, I just have to say I prefer 'document' as opposed to 'e-mail'. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Controversy is encyclopedic, accurate, and a good compromise. It also had broad support in previous discussions back in mid-February. ATren (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the previous times William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Me agreeing with WMC on this shows how bizarre this situation has gotten. WMC (I surmise) is strongly of the opinion that the current article title reflects the best title for this article (if one is to suffer such an article at all). I, OTH, think it is practically the worst. However, changing it to a watered down version of this hardly fixes things. What it does is make the controversy about the title less clear. In its current form, it displays its POV honestly. I think the title is sufficiently ridiculous now that it will inevitably collapse and be replaced with an article on Climategate, which I suspect even WMC would bet is the search term most likely bringing people here. If it gets watered down it will neither reflect any version of WMC's reality or mine. Not all compromises are a good thing. Either 'Climategate' has traction or it does not. If it does, it will eventually replace the redirect. If it does not, then it is not a controversy of any particular note, so who cares what the article is called for a while? For the record, I think that everyone (me too and now even Jimbo) should recuse in favor of people chosen from a pool of 'science/logic/math/english/' literate editors who have yet to edit any of these pages. This is no guarantee that the new crop will lack bias, but it is probably better than the current situation. No matter which side of the camp you are on, this is wasting valuable time that could be going into improving the various 'Climategate' articles, none of which is very good. DeepNorth (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Small disimprovement. Cardamon (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: as per Nigelj. Ignignot (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: sure, it's not the real name, but it's far less blatant than hiding 'Climategate' behind this story about a possibly nonexistent hacking incident. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good enough for the time being, dropping 'documents' altogether would be even better. It of course should be Climategate in the end. I'd take Jimbo's interpretation of NPOV over any experienced editor camping out on these pages claiming they are neutral writers on the topic. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose anything, but climategate, the most widespread term describing the incident.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice, my first choice is to rename Climatic Research Unit documents to Climatic Research Unit document controversy and redirect "Climategate" to point to it. Sole Soul (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sounds reasonable. I would only ever endorse "Climategate" if – once a sensible amount of time has passed and various investigations brought to a conclusion – a majority of reliable sources inform us there is a real scandal here and the name sticks. Not before. Wikispan (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I agree with MickMacNee. The controversy isnt about hacking its about what the hacking uncovered.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - "Documents" can be used to describe both emails and generic documents (as can "data"), but "email" cannot be used to describe anything other than email. Should I assume that the choice of "email" implies that supporters of this name change agree that only the emails themselves form part of the "controversy", and that the other documents/data do not? Also, Wikipedia uses "e-mail" (with the hyphen). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Scjessey is right. If the choice is between "email controversy" and "documents controversy", I think documents controversy is more appropriate. Moogwrench (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the other documents? Programming code and... anything else? -- Chadhoward (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not too terribly keen on the editors deciding what best constitutes the controversy (meaning incidentally, not accusing anyone of an active attempt to control the narrative). Take "trick". A term that can mean 'a clever solution' as in "that's the trick", can also mean deception. So the 'trick' to 'hide the decline' may well be innocent, but if we were to agree they aren't part of the controversy (I am using this as an example, mind you) rather than have the title reflect the existence of the other documents would seem as editorializing at first glance. I understand the body will still reflect the non-email documents, however. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There needs to be an article on the controversy. What I don't understand is how this is somehow a compromise between "Climategate" and "hacking incident". Is the hacking incident not notable enough to merit its own article now? Was it ever? If not, then why such a huge defense of "hacking incident" heretofore by some people? If we rename this article, will a new article on the hack be created? This article suffers from schizophrenia, because it tries to be both an article on both the hack and the controversy. Moogwrench (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  No, separate articles are not needed. Hell, even the granddaddy of them all, the Watergate scandal, is self-contained , with sub-articles to flesh out greater details as need be to keep the article size. Not to split it up into "the incident" and "the response", as you seem to feel is necessary here. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Right, so I ask again, using the example you provided, are we going to have a separate article on the hack, just as Watergate burglaries exists as a sub-article to Watergate scandal? Is there enough info/notability to do so? Moogwrench (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  In case you are wondering where I am going with this, practically speaking, is whether or not there should be a split instead of a rename. Moogwrench (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Here comes the request for mile! Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Look Hipocrite, I am actually trying to make make sure that "hacking" gets its due treatment, instead of being whittled down due to WP:UNDUE concerns once the subject of this article changes. Why else would I essentially advocating for the existence of an article treating on the hack by suggesting a split instead of a rename? Assume a little good faith, there, and actually think about what I am proposing. Moogwrench (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  The more pertinent question is, is there enough info/notability on the so-called "controversy" angle to warrant an article separate from the initial incident. "No" being the answer to that, IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Some people don't believe that the hack has sufficient notability for a separate article, while others don't believe that the controversy has sufficient notability (even though that is what the media has been talking about for the past 4 months). Fine. Why not have a split? Thus we have an article on each topic. Note, this wouldn't be a POV/content fork, because we actually are talking about 2 discrete topics. Moogwrench (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Because the split is even less notable than the combined topic? Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  No, because a compelling case might be able to be made for both topics being sufficiently notable for separate articles. I was just trying to be helpful...but it is pretty obvious that some people can't abide the idea of the controversy, as full of crap as its proponents may be, being a notable subject. Anyways, whatever. Moogwrench (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  (ec)Think for a minute about what we're talking about here. This so-called scandal hit its high water mark in December. It's pretty clear that there's nothing in this that's going to undercut the science in any real sense. It's pretty clear that it didn't have any impact on Copenhagen - that was dominated by real politics. It may spawn more nonsense like the South Dakota law, but that's just opportunism. It may have lasting impacts on the CRU or on Jones' career. But that belongs in the CRU article, or Jones' bio, or the global warming controversy article. In a year or two, someone will come along, merge a sentence or two from the the documents article back in, and trim the "reaction" section back to a couple paragraphs. Keep the hundred-year-rule in mind. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Why don't we wait to have the split/separate article discussion after we renamed the page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  OK, I am sorry. I thought to kill two birds with one stone, because I know that not having an article on the hack is odious to some and I thought that this might placate them. Moogwrench (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  (ec) I think it makes sense, actually, to discuss it now. A split would preclude a rename - the hacking incident, if separated from the reaction, would certainly stay here. I disagree with the split, but I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with sorting it out beforehand. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  That was essentially my point. Moogwrench (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Sorry I'm so late chiming in here. It's a big improvement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment to Arthur Rubin: This fiction that you keep repeating is really quite tiresome. "Hack" is well supported by reliable sources, and is not "POV" at all. Peruse the archive of this talk page and you will find that the "hack" terminology has been shown to be appropriate many times. "Data breach" has some mileage, but "hack" would be a perfectly legitimate alternative. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Once again, I must agree with Scjessey. Many sources mention "hack", and I think drifts a little into pedantic territory when we start asking things like, "How many sources says its alleged hacking, how many assume it took place, how many state it took place, etc. etc.". Where he and differ in regards to having an article titled with hack isn't the word "hack", but my contention that between the "hack" and the "controversy", the "controversy" is more notable. I know what Scjessey would probably say about having an article for the "controversy", and chances are it would involve the use of the word "faux", but I honestly think that we could have one "hack" article and one "controversy" article. It is fine to use "hack" in the title for the "hack" article, and any additional qualification of the use of the word "hack" (i.e. alleged) could be done in the text. If people don't want a separate article, I think the title is fine for a redirect. I think it is safe to say that among the reliable sources, the idea that the incident wasn't a hack is a minority one. Moogwrench (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  While "hack" is in some RS, it is not in others, and challenged in yet others, so treating it as settled is problematic. Yet, that isn't even the major problem. The major problem is the implication that it is a central issue. To made the obvious comparison, we might never have learned about the Watergate incident had it not been for a piece of adhesive tape, so the adhesive tape was important in one sense, but no one seriously thinks a reasonable title would be the Watergate adhesive tape incident.--SPhilbrickT 13:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends if the name stuck :-/ Given the inconsistent use of the "c" term these days, even by partisan sources, that's questionable in this case. . . dave souza, talk 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment to Scjessey: Interesting. You really think this is notable enough to support several articles in the long run? Fitzmas, anyone? (And yes, I was clearly wrong on that one). Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Guettarda. We need only one article at this time. I've looked at the incubator and document forks, and when you remove the fluff, you are left with only one article. I'm concerned about the forking and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment to Moogwrench: I am concerned abut the work being done on Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Climategate and the timing of a proposed move. If this current article is moved per the above discussion, what will happen to the incubator article? Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  As stated above, err below, I was imagining that instead of moving, the incubator article could act as an effective split of this article. We could excise the controversy stuff from this article, leaving the incident and the university and police responses as a daughter article to the controversy article. The name of the controversy article would not be Climategate, even though the incubator article currently has that name. Any takers? Moogwrench (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• (comment originally directed at Scjessey, moved down to comments section) Would you support moving the content at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Climategate to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, keeping this article as a daughter to it, and of course understanding that the parent would continue to be the subject of as much work as it needs to be to bring it into line with NPOV? I only mention this because I eliminated a lot of the extraneous stuff there and took a lot of the controversy stuff from this article, with the plan of excising it from the daughter article once the article was brought live. Moogwrench (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• My understanding is that you are working with an older, problematic version of the article. For example, the lead section you are working with equates political punditry and climate denialism with the scientific consensus for climate change; That is neither accurate nor a correct application of NPOV. I think the version you are working with can be condensed into half its current size, with a lot of the fluff removed. I don't see the need for more than one article at this time, and I expect the documents fork to be merged back. The constant article forking needs to be brought under control. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've done quite a bit of work on it, actually, so it is a substantially different article than it was a week ago. Also, please, do not confuse the controversy of CRU's actions with the controversy over AGW. Two different things. For example, the political leaders have no training to criticize climate science. However, they do have bearing as to whether or not they are calling for investigations of denial of FOI requests. One should try to separate in their mind "the consensus regarding climate change" and "the stuff the CRU did". Two different things. Moogwrench (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The stuff the CRU did" is best criticized by scientists who understand their work. Which ones are you using to do that? Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if its "best" or not for non-scientists to criticize scientists. People have criticized them. A lot. And defended them. A lot. Newpapers, etc. have reported these facts. We document those criticisms and defenses. We don't pass judgment on the criticisms or the defenses themselves. Moogwrench (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for precisely illustrating the problem. You don't discriminate between political punditry and climate science. You attempt to portray all opinions as equal, when they are not. I don't think any political pundit is in a position to criticize the scientific process. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• <ec> We give due weight to expert opinion in the subject, and when newspapers etc. raise criticism of the science or scientific methods, we show these criticisms in the context of how these opinions have been received by mainstream experts in the subject, with sufficient detail to clarify differences between mainstream and minority views. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both of you continue to confuse the subject of this article, and continue to support dealing with coverage of this controversy as though it were a judgment on climate science in general. We are essentially documenting the fact that people have criticized or defended the CRU scientists over certain allegations. It is a fact that they have been criticized and defended. One does not need a Ph.D. in climatology to understand that some have criticized or defended the scientists. This is not an article on climate science. We are not evaluating the truth of climate science, nor are we documenting defenses or criticisms thereof. It is an article documenting the criticisms and defenses of the behavior of scientists who study climate science. See the difference? Moogwrench (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the issues here are the science itself, the methods behind the science, and the ethics of science in particular, and of academia more broadly. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Moogwrench, how can you say that when the very sources you are using criticize the climate science? Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Viriditas, there are loads of sources that criticize the scientists without criticizing the science. Reliable news articles have described the criticism of the scientists that is separate from criticism of the science; scientists who agree fully that there is AGW have indicated they are scandalized by the behavior suggested by the emails. Admit it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• John, please don't take such a battleground approach. There's controversy about the inflated criticism of the scientists being used as part of a continuing disinformation campaign about the science, as well as criticism from all sides that the scientists concerned did not deal in the ideal was with the pressures put on them by the disinformation campaign. There's an interesting question of whether the science is now to be conducted in the traditional methods of peer reviewed publication in journals, or more in an open-source sort of way with input from blogs and the mass media. A change in peer reviewed processes is likely under the political pressure, but not necessarily a Good Thing. Our article should represent the various views of this. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dave, please don't be so quick to make an accusation of a violation of policy about a statement that is addressed entirely to the discussion points. If I did the same, I'd be bringing up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about some comments elsewhere on this page. One of the problems with focusing on the supposed "hack" is that it distracts from covering the wrong charges that the science behind AGW is itself corrupt -- a very important topic that the article should emphasize even more. (For instance, too much emphasis on the hacking also distracts from the article giving a more prominent explanation of how "hide the decline" and "trick" don't actually mean anything nefarious.) The focus of the reliable sources (and most of the reliable sources are news media sources) has been the conduct of the scientists (and secondarily, what that means about the authority of climate science), therefore, to turn the central focus the article toward the purported "hacking" or anything else is WP:UNDUE. This is why we need to remove that over-emphasis, including removing it from the article name. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment to Hipocrite: I'd be inclined to tentatively agree to that as long as if any truly new, non-meat, non-sock editor does come by and ask about it, you dont cite some variant of "we already talked about it, so you can't bring up Climategate as an article title." Moogwrench (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• The proposal in the incubator has severe problems of undue weight and is muddled in some areas, but also includes useful information and ideas. When (and if) the article is moved to the new title, each point should be discussed on the article talk page as a proposal for improvement, and problems addressed to get consensus before altering the article. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment(s) - I'd like to make two points. Firstly, all this comment-moving malarkey is really annoying. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. Secondly, I've been asked to clarify the meaning of my "oppose" !vote above, although I confess I do not see what could possibly be ambiguous about it. My contention is that this article should remain with this name, and that a separate article documenting the broader controversy be created with the proposed title (although I prefer "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy"). Others have asked why I would be in favor of what is essentially a POV fork, and my answer to that is that I am not. It is my belief that the "controversy" article, if created now, will eventually be merged into Global warming controversy once it becomes clear how insignificant and unimportant this faux controversy is. In the meantime, this article will largely cease to be the battleground it currently is because most of the skeptics will have moved on to play in their new sandpit (which will not be on my watchlist). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Amen to your first point and most of your second point. It can't believe how much I am agreeing with you today, Scjessey... Moogwrench (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Interesting. I suppose I agree with Scjessey's assessment, since it's pretty much the same as my argument for not splitting this article. And since Moogwrench agrees with Simon, that would mean that, per my disagreement with Moogwrench, I agree with Moogwrench. And that just as I was beginning to acquiesce to the inevitable. Need to think some more about this... Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  What we have here is verifiable evidence that spacetime has been torn asunder. Up is now down, white is now black, and the invisible pink unicorn is clearly visible and demonstrably pink. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Nigelj's proposal is also very interesting. But if the unicorn is visible, wouldn't it also be demonstrably not pink? Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Well you could certainly make that claim, but I fear the rules of conditional logic have also been rendered unreliable by this cataclysm. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Prefer climate-gate, but this is an definite improvement. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because it downplays the central event--the hacking. The controversy is a somewhat tangential matter, and largely a media event. --TS 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This article should focus on an incident. The article about current controversy about climate science should be written from scratch, perhaps depicting IPCC as central and CRU as subordinate. I would strongly support if the move is just "hacking" to "e-mail". --Masudako (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. More neutral title. My vote appears to bring the total for support to 25 versus 7 opposing. Cla68 (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose 'hacking incident' describes what happened, and thus is NPOV; 'email controversy' is not neutral but is based on feelings that the emails seen were controversial and thus supportive of climate scepticism, which is a point of view. - Jane
• Support I've noticed this very late. Climategate would be the common sense option but this is still an improvement. Jprw (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The hacking is not the story. The hacking has never been the story, outside the world of Wikipedia. This proposed title more accurately reflects the impact and importance of the incident. Thparkth (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support This article has had an issue with it's name forever, now. This is the article title which makes the most intuative sense. It requires a very partisan viewpoint to seriously think otherwise.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've believed for a long while that the name has been a problem and unfortunately it looks like it's going to be a continually point of division. However some degree of compromise is needed by both sides and this seems like a decent proposal. As so many people have pointed out, acknowledging there was a controversy does not imply that the scientific consensus is changing nor even necessarily that the controversy was legitimate. In fact there have been plenty of controversies which I regard as far more nonsense then this (the idea that this is some sort of 'final nail in the coffin is nonsense but plenty of people have pointed out there was some silly behaviour from both sides on this so it's not a completely nonsense controversy in my book, although as I've said ultimately that does not matter). Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with this, but still feel, as I said way above, that it would be less disruptive to the current content to rename the other article, Climatic Research Unit documents, to the proposed title and keep this one as it is. --Nigelj (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  While not opposed to the suggestion, IMHO it would still be necessary for the controversy to be the primary article and it would clearly be covering a lot of what is currently in this article, in other words, it may ultimately achieve the same thing and even if less disruptive it's likely to entail more work so like Dave souza, I'm not sure if it's necessarily the better proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The hacking element was never the central focus of the incident in the sourcing and we shouldn't have undue emphasis on it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Title is better, and isn't prejudicial as "climategate" would be. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• We have consensus. I count 32 in support, 10 opposed, and the seven-day period for the discussion has passed. I suggest that an uninvolved admin confirm the consensus, close the discussion and change the name. I left a note on this at at the GSCC enforcement talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  While not opposing the close since the 7 days is up, I wonder if it might be better to just wait and see if a regular at the RM page shows up. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per ChrisO and ATren. --GoRight (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Three articles or one two??

I came here b/c I noticed the incubator draft article on this subject (which I obviously won't be transferring to mainspace unilaterally). I have no prior opinions, and clearly see from a review that a lot of people have some really strong opinions here...

Currently there are two articles on the incident:

• this article, in theory about the incident itself
• Climatic Research Unit documents, about the documents

This creates a problem because the controversy (or whatever you want to talk about) surrounding the content of the documents is by far the most covered aspect of the whole thing. That, of course, doesn't make it the most relevant thing necessarily though, leading to potential problems of undue weight.

There are two possible solutions. The first option is to rename this article to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy", "Climatic Research Unit document controversy", or some other variation as suggested above. This option has the benefit of not spreading things out too much, but the downside of de-emphasizing the incident which started the controversy.

The other solution, also suggested above, is to keep this article as is, but move the controversy material into a separate article, leaving only a summary here. This option reduces the chances of violating WP:UNDUE by allowing the third party reaction to the incident to be discussed in more detail. The downside, obviously, being that is spreads things out more.

I am willing to make a tough decision about whether there should be 2 or 3 articles, but certainly not unilaterally. As such, consider this a request for feedback on the two options. (There is currently a ton of discussion on the name, but considerably less on the possibility of spliting.) Please try not to get bogged down in the exact content of the (potential) article(s) for now, but instead concentrate on whether the content currently housed here is best handled in two articles or one. Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a tricky situation. One of the concerns is that most of the email controversy has been coatracked into this article, which should just be on the hack, while the controversy itself likely warrants its own article. I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other whether the "hacking incident" should remain as an article, but this article has become something that is better named "e-mail controversy" or something to that effect. We need some form of reorganisation of the content at the various pages -- this one, the documents one, and possibly some content from the "climategate" incubator (but without the title), but what form that eventually takes, I'm not sure. StuartH (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuart makes an excellent point here... I commented above that I think that the article should be titled with the unpopular and non-neutral name "Climategate"... however, I will amend my comments... I do agree that "Climategate" refers to more than purely the hacking of emails... it refers to an entire chain of events, including what occurred before the hack, what is alleged to have occurred before the hack, the hack itself, and what occurred after the hack.

So if this article is supposed to be purely about the hacking, then I can see not using "Climategate". That said... The problem with doing this is that such an article attempts to discuss the hacking without discussing any of the context that makes the hacking notable in the first place. I think that this is the reason why there has been a perception of coatracking in this article. The fact that someone hacked a bunch of email is not that notable... what is notable is what those email's said, how various groups interpreted what they said, the accusations and counter accusations that followed, and the fall out (and lack of fall out) that resulted. In other words, what is notable is "Climategate"... not the hacking. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This was four months ago, but the article was originally was titled "Climategate" and was about the Climategate scandal. See here. Unfortunately, there have been a repeated series of edits which give undue weight to the fringe theory that the scandal is actually about the hacking. There's no need for a separate article. Just fix the undue weight problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was originally in the "No name change - No new articles" camp. After reading comments by the Jimbo and others, I've come to think that claims of WP:UNDUE are justified. In my mind the "hack" itself seems notable, and the "contraversy" surrounding the documents seems notable. I would suggest then 2 pages, 1) Climatic Research Unit Hacking Incident covering details of the hack, and 2) Climatic Research Unit document controversy covering the contraversy that arose. Apologies for proposing a third solution and complicating.

I think if we are going to get anything done on this very contraversial page, we've got to setup a really clear poll on this issue.

P.S. This article has got far far more attention than it deserves. The world has moved on from this issue. There seem to be a bunch of conspiracy theorists keeping debate alive here. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't think the disagreement is caused by conspiracy theorists. The media might have moved on, but we aren't a news source. Ignignot (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am definitely not a conspiracy theorist... I am firmly in the "Climate change exists and is a concern" camp. However, I am a historian, not a scientist... so I am sure that I approach the entire topic from a different perspective than a scientist would. I have difficulty with isolating the hacking incident from the larger context surrounding it. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really BlueBoar? It doesn't seem that hard to me seperate a "theft" from the thing that was stolen. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article was ever meant to be only a description of a hacking incident, and that is not what it is. It describes the known facts about that briefly and then goes on to discuss the major reactions to the incident, and it used to discuss the emails and documents too, and the notable reactions to those, but that has been moved into separate article for reasons of space. It also can and should go on to describe the effects the incident has had in the wider world. Much more about that will be clear when the investigations and reviews that are in progress begin to report. If anything becomes known about the incident's precursors and the selection of material for, and the creation the zip file, those elements of the incident too will be covered. --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the title has been very useful in the last few months in maintaining the focus of the article - it's about an incident, its precursors, effects, reactions and ramifications, but it is not about 'everything that's wrong with climate science', science or scientists in general; it's not about errors in IPCC reports, or the cold winter we just had, or the Copenhagen conference, etc etc. With a vague - and getting vaguer - title like climategate it really would have been a coatrack for all of these things and much more. As it is, all these things have their own places in their own articles and we have a good structure. If there ever was a Climategate article, I think it should be about the term itself and all the meanings that have been attributed to it since its first usages back to at least 2008 (the domain name climategate.com was registered 5 Jan 08). --Nigelj (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone knows what Climategate is about, but if you think the term is nebulous, how about "Climategate scandal"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked you this in a above thread and you never responded: What is climategate? Briefly describe it. In your explanation use two of the best sources you can find. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed it. Off the top of my head, here's a simple, one sentence definition of Climategate:

• Climategate is a scandal that happened after private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit were leaked onto the Internet.

Here's a slightly longer definition from Wiktionary[11]

• A scandal involving the theft of computer records in November, 2009 which contained information about climate change research conducted at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England.

I'll search for sources in a couple hours. My dog has a basal cell tumor and is going for surgery tomorrow morning. I want to take her outside to play while it's still light out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can supply two more sources, although there is already a long list above at "List of reliable sources which use the term 'Climategate'" and another compiled by a different editor under "News sources referring to Climategate as a Scandal" on the talk page of the incubator article. Forthwith:

"Climategate" is a controversy that arose in November, 2009 following the unauthorized publication of electronic files on the subject of climate change research that had been obtained from a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. from [[12]]

All those facts are found in articles from these two sources:

• http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100217/full/463860a.html
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html

I think what Viriditas rightly wants to avoid is the suggestion that "scandal" would apply to the alleged actions of the scientists rather than to the public furor. Likewise, that "Climategate" would imply wrong-doing on the scientists' parts rather than refer to the whole event from hacking to public fallout. Note that the Slate article, which happens to have a hyperlink to this one, calls it the Climategate affair.

What must be accepted is that this is an encyclopedia, not a legal document or technical journal, and some readers will interpret words to mean one thing and others another. Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to take you seriously when you claim, as you do on the article incubator talk page, that you are working to try to gain "ascendancy over ideologues who want to spin it to the left." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please don't cherry-pick quotes to misconstrue my comments. The comment in full reads:

Please publish post haste! This, and Jimbo Wales' comments re. Climategate, renew my hope in the possibility that Wikipedia's stated principle of neutrality may regain the ascendancy over ideologues who want to spin it to the left. (Just please don't anyone accuse me of wanting to spin it to the right--I don't. Conservapedia exists for that purpose. It's dismaying when WP veers almost as sharply to the left as they do to the right--let's work together here for neutrality and verifiability.)

I take you very seriously as a threat to Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy. [Whoops--another missed signature--sorry--signing several days later. Yopienso (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)]

Reply to Yopienso: The New Scientist link you provide above goes to a very short news item on the subject written by Fred Pearce. The term "climategate" is not used at all in the news article, but only in the headline, presumably for attention. The link to the Nature news brief, although only in abstract view, appears to use the term "climategate" in scare quotes, only in the headline. Could you provide a good source that uses the term consistently, in an actual article about the subject, and not in a headline designed to get the attention of readers? As editors have shown in the above threads, there are many articles on the subject that do not use the term "climategate" at all. Why should we use it? Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We should use it because it is the most widely used and recognized name for it and is far less awkward "The Climate Research Unit hacking incident."

The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web....As the repercussions of ClimateGate reverberate around the virtual community of global citizens... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8388485.stm Yopienso (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is my, very inexpert definition of what "Climategate" is:

• Climategate is a chain of events, starting with various decisions made by several climatologists and discussed in a series of emails... these emails were subsequently hacked and made public... the emails, appear to show improprieties in the collection and retention of data concerning global temperatures readings and their release cause a public furor. This appearance of impropriety has, whether justified or not, resulted in increased public skepticism about the science behind climate change models, and an on-going decline in the amount of trust given to the scientific community by the general public on the subject of Global Warming.

No, that is not how I would phrase it in an article... but that is a broad outline. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people are following the line that 'climategate' started in November 2009. How does that square with the verifiable whois fact that climategate.com was registered in January 2008? Taking the historian's view of this implies that the events of Nov 2009 were long in the planning and part of a concerted effort by many people. It is widely surmised by reliable sources that the November date was simply chosen for the 'launch' of 'climategate' in view of the impending COP15 conference in December 09. The fact is that, until the history starts to get published, all of this is irrelevant to WP as it is WP:OR. Recently we counted at least seven independent reviews, investigations and enquiries under way into the CRU incident. When they start to report, people will have some facts to base the story upon and the story will be published and discussed. When that happens, we don't want to have to run around renaming articles again to come back into line with what comes out. Until we have reliable secondary sources, we do have enough evidence, and experience between us, to know to hold back on the speculation until more comes out. We are not investigative journalists any more than we are a news feed. There is more than enough doubt to know we should hold fire until more is known. --Nigelj (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"IPad" was used years before Apple Inc. made their product announcement, but that doesn't mean that the iPad article can't be named "iPad". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

True, so very true. Lightening the mood, have a look at: [13]91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Krosnick

This material may belong here, or perhaps it's more suitable for public opinion on climate change.

Jon Krosnick is professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University. Recently he presented a detailed, methodical analysis of a public opinion poll on US public attitudes to global warming--perhaps the first of its kind to take a scientific look at the effects of this incident on public perceptions of climate change. Krosnick's paper is discussed in the following articles:

• Some scientists misread poll data on global warming controversy, USA Today, Dan Vergano
• Stanford Researcher: Data Show That ClimateGate Has Had Limited Impact on Public Perceptions, Matthew Nisbet, Framing Science blog.
• Majority Of Americans Continue To Believe That Global Warming Is Real, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University.

Krosnick's data was gathered in late 2009, but he says that from his experience US opinion is unlikely to shift much on a two-month scale. --TS 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallup poll [ID:nN11236876] * 48 percent of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, up from 41 percent last year and 31 percent in 1997, the first time Gallup asked the question * 19 percent said the effects of global warming will never happen, up from 16 percent last year * 16 percent said it will not happen in their lifetimes, up from 15 percent last year * 46 percent said natural changes in the environment are more responsible for increases in the world's temperature than pollution from human activities, up from 38 percent a year ago * Conducted March 4-7 with 1,014 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent

Thanks, the Woods Institute page is particularly interesting, and refers explicitly to findings based on telephone interviews "from Nov. 17 to Nov. 29. During that time period, controversial emails from prominent climate scientists were leaked to the news media. The emails, which were hacked from a server at a British university, included vitriolic attacks on critics of global warming and raised questions about scientists manipulating climate data. The controversy, called "climategate" by global warming skeptics, soon made headlines around the world. But according to Krosnick, the effect on public opinion was minimal." Worth noting in this article, the freely downloadable pdf giving the full report uses effectively the same wording on page 2. On a similar topic, Joe Romm comments on what a Gallup poll shows, and on political developments in Texas. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the implicit question, I don't think the material is suitable here. If anyplace, ast the public opinion page, but my immediate reaction was under whelming. Of course the majority of Americans still believe that global warming is real. It is, and Climategate didn't do anything to change that conclusion. It has had a significant effect on public perception, but that question is missing the point. If anything, it is startling that belief in the existence of GW has dropped five points in two years, as that's a fair drop given the lack of new information. They may be experts, but if their goal was to judge public reaction to Climategate, they blundered.--SPhilbrickT 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction – they are experts, your self-claimed expertise or opinion as a Wikipedia editor is irrelevant. To the extent that our article touches on the effect of the story on public opinion, the expert opinion is highly relevant. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct - they are experts, but not necessarily on this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Correction" implies an error. There's nothing to "correct". They may well be experts, but they blundered. No point in discussing further, as I do not see that this article touches on the impact on public opinion. Let's take it up at the other article if anywhere, and get back to issues relating to this article.--SPhilbrickT 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, please don't blunder and bluster about like that. They're a reliable source with direct relevance to the issue of the effect publicity arising from the hacking incident is having on public opinion. Arthur Rubin, I'll agree that their expertise applies to that aspect, not to other aspects of the general topic. . . dave souza, talk 15:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting analysis from the left-leaning Slate.com.[14] Also, I note that they use the term "Climategate" without quotes. And they use the word "scandal", not "controversy". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That link didn't work. What's the title of the article? Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this: http://www.slate.com/id/2248236/. The title is "Climate scientists are getting a little too angry for their own good". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Nisbet is the author. He is not exactly what you would describe as a well-regarded scientific commentator. This pretty much sums up the problem with him. And this, from a fellow Scienceblogger, shows that he's been pushing the same line of argument for at least 18 months - well before the CRU controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still curious who registered the climategate domain name in 2008. Has anyone looked into it? Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the title is "Chill out". I like this quote and I think it applies to this very article, although I don't know if any of the editors active here are actually climate scientists,

“ If communication researchers have trouble establishing clear evidence of a significant impact for Climategate, what explains the apparent overreaction by scientists and their bunker mentality? Past research shows that individuals more heavily involved on an issue, such as climate scientists, often tend to view even objectively favorable media coverage as hostile to their goals. They also have a tendency to presume exaggerated effects for a message on the public and will take action based on this presumed influence. ”

Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I discussed this piece in the section #Krosnick above. This section seems to be spinning the same data beyond all recognition. --TS 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the two sections. --TS 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? The first section was about Krosnick. The other section was about Matthew C. Nisbet. Please self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Both sections are on exactly the same subject. Nisbet is merely a commentator on the subject, which is public opinion research by Krosnick. One of the problematic features of the forking of the discussion was the undue emphasis on a single comment, aggravated by the loss of context of the comment. --TS 09:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninformed speculation

I've removed a reference to uninformed media speculation on the nature of the hacking. All reliable sources (those with access to actual evidence) are treating this as a hacking. The rest are engaged in a guessing game which has no informational value. Wait until the police investigations are completed. --TS 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true, at least two sources, including one, ComputerWorld with expertise in computer issues, have stated that it could be a leak from an insider. And, we include media observations and expert opinions in articles all the time. The statement that I added included the view that it was a hacker as well as possibly from a whistleblower (although I didn't use that word). So, what's wrong with a statement that gives both opinions, supported by reliable sources? Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's uninformed speculation, as I said. Handwaving. We discussed this to death and it evaporated like spiders webs. We go with the reliable sources. --TS 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, your line of reasoning has already been debunked several times. Do I have to add an item to the FAQ? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Debunked in your mind perhaps, but Tony has a valid point. It's speculation by individuals and sources who have absolutely no direct knowledge of the case. What does it add? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It adds the fact that no one has established that the server was hacked. Besides, we're not supposed to decide whether reliable sources are "uninformed".

And Tony's comment is bogus. There are no reliable sources who have access to the actual evidence, as CRU and UEA cannot be considered reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Do I honestly have to remind you that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? We have entire articles based on speculation. Even speculation that has been disproved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I verified that Pearce reports that the data was hacked in New Scientist (2009-12-19) 204:2739. 4-5. Do we have reason to believe it wasn't? Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The hacker could have been an insider. This is what expert analysis has indicated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

According to whom and analysis of what data? They had holes in their servers going back to 2008. The simplest explanation is that anyone could have got the data. There's no need to appeal to an "insider" at all. And so what? Now that we've got the data, how does it change the face of climate science? Nothing has changed, and the shrill vocal cries of the climate deniers remains the same. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The "shrill vocal cries of climate deniers remains the same"? This is a very provocative statement. It presupposes that the documents indicate that nothing wrong took place, and that anyone suggesting otherwise is some sort of conspiracy theory lunatic. It's frankly a disgusting, intellectually bankrupt comment. I suggest you apologize for it to save some face. Macai (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you presuming and suggesting that something wrong took place? If so, what is it, and how has it impacted the climate science? If the answer is no and it hasn't, then who is "intellectually bankrupt" here? How much of our time has been wasted by foaming deniers complaining about climate science in the op-ed pages of American newspapers and on infotainment television shows, ranting, raving, and screeching about how climate science is a fraud and how scientists should be jailed and even executed? If anyone deserves an apology, it's the scientists who have been maligned and attacked by the cretinous talking heads for the last four months. Get to it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To some degree it adds an element of explanation for the public's perception of what occurred... which is just as important than what did or did not actually occur. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We discussed before how this misrepresented what Computerworld actually wrote. I'm dismayed to see editors again misrepresenting the same source in the same way after having been corrected before.Hipocrite (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the pattern: No matter how much discussion we have on each point, and no matter how many FAQ's we post, the same editors (and some new accounts with bright eyes and bushy tails) will show up to ask the same questions and pretend we didn't address them hundreds of times before. But, please, post the conclusions reached from the previous discussion on this below in brief bullet form. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Tony's point which has already been discussed and debunked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with the notion that extensive speculation might at some point become significant. As far as I'm aware only a few isolated news articles have explored the possibility of an insider and none (no, not even Computerworld) have presented or even hinted at the possible existence of evidence to support this. A few months ago I was of a mind that, should the speculation become common public opinion, it might be worth mentioning (if only to underline that no reliable source has supported it). But that hasn't happened, so we're still going with the reliable sources and not bothering with the odd bit of guesswork.

Of course there are any number of blogs engaging in such speculation, but they're in the same boat as everybody else. A blogger is just a Wikipedia editor with a megaphone. --TS 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the media sources which have speculated on a "whistleblower" appear to be overwhelmingly op-ed sources. Actual news stories, on the other hand, speak overwhelmingly of the files being hacked or stolen. There seems to be a clear split here between the facts as they have been reported and the interpretation (or in this case, speculative repudiation) of those facts by individual commentators. As WP:RS says, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution." We are not doing anyone any favours if we mix reported facts and speculative interpretations by commentators who very often have an overt political agenda ("Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. However, some sources state that he was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim").

By the way, the speculative lines in the article were appallingly badly written - "The Guardian, an article, states that..." Did nobody bother to read that before they pressed the "save page" button? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The missing "in" was my fault, and my fault alone. The earlier misrepresentation of sources was not, however. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Informed Speculation

The article can be improved by not arguing that there is no reason to assume a leak rather than a hack. The appearance of the FOIA.zip article on the net should be treated NPOV.

From a hacker: "So you’re saying that any cave man can gain admin control of any WordPress blog at any time? Nope. There is a fix via a short script to patch the issue that is also well known. If you are saying that physical access of insider is the best explanation — I concur. A good root kit can do wonders, but physical access is better. When people have lost passwords, or a system won’t boot I routinely mount drives in another system (Linux or Windows) and pull of email files (hidden sometimes) and all the data files –as a courtesy aid to them. It’s quite straightforward. Even if the hard drive has a partial failure this works. Give a day or two to prep for an opportunity (writing parsing programs), then wait for the physical opportunity etc… I suspect that even under pressure I could have copied the files then created a program to obfuscate the email source and had it done in a weekend. Remote access slows down the process and requires good system control of the target workstations or server.I’m with you on this one, and could have done the work myself given a trusted position (or not even that trusted). This does not look like a script kiddy — not in the least. Professionally — I would never do what I am describing — except maybe this once.

As for the RC hack — I suspect that I would have found a password given access to CRU. So my sense is physical access is not necessary but made it 95% faster and gave 100% ability to do what was done." --Oiler99 (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Publishing climate data

According to my library system, Chadwyck-Healey published the climate data of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 1992, and it has been publically available since that time. Can anyone talk about this dataset and whether it shows that CRU has a record of transparency that is being glossed over? Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion. Are you suggesting an improvement to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the claim that the CRU was "hiding" data is also bogus. We know that their dataset was corroborated by others, such as NOAA. The entire issue of "climategate" is a distraction. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then go seek an Internet forum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, why not document the incident in its entirety, from the beginning, like all good articles are supposed to do, perhaps starting with the December 2008 incident regarding the hole in CRU's web server. For an organization accused of hiding data, they sure didn't do a very good job of it. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite the "distraction!" Phil Jones contemplated suicide, lost a stone, and is on beta-blockers and sleeping pills. He had to appear before Parliament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8502823.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8543289.stm

The e-mails show that Phil Jones, then-director of the influential climate unit at England's East Anglia University, refused to share his global temperature data, a key component of scientific evidence that the Earth is warming. Sidebar on recent USA Today page. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-03-10-warming_N.htm Yopienso (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a significant topic, covered in outline at Climatic Research Unit documents#Freedom of information. We did discuss before how the raw data is held by archiving organisations, not by CRU. CRU update2 has a section on the point, headed "CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available". Also, in his statement, Jones says that "We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner. We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so." CRU Data Availability includes a link to a pdf of typical data agreements preventing full release, as with the NERC-Met Office agreement. In the scripted BBC interview, Jones responded that "Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.... Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series." This is emerging as a more significant topic than the original froth about "hiding the decline", and we'll have to improve our coverage of it. . dave souza, talk 10:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a big problem here that is contributing to the extraordinary length and contention of this page is that the more "activist" editors--perhaps not the precise word but the best I can think of at the moment, meaning those who have strong opinions on the guilt or innocence of the scientists and want to see only their opinion presented--are confusing a dispassionate narrative of events with a moral or criminal judgment. Our purpose is not to pass judgment but to tell "just the facts, ma'am," with impartial "So-and-so alleged..." "Other sources stated..." etc., not giving undue weight, of course, but neither ignoring any "inconvenient truths." Yopienso (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Our purpose also entails a responsibility to use reliable sources with care and discrimination. Although Joe Friday never uttered the words, "just the facts, ma'am," the process of collecting the "facts" (eyewitness testimony) from witnesses did not end there. Editors must at all times demonstrate common sense and good judgment using reliable sources, and they need to be used wisely. A good example of what I'm talking about can be seen, ironically, in a mistake that I myself made using a source, demonstrating poor judgment, based on my own ignorance. You can find it here. We do not simply copy and paste what sources say. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hiding the decline

With this edit, A Quest For Knowledge described e-mails including discussions of "how to 'hide the decline' in temperatures" as a major focus of the scandal. That focus is covered in the Documents sub-article, and is well covered in Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies | Environment | guardian.co.uk as an email soundbite which is demonstrably false. Think we should put additional coverage of that "major focus" in this article? . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The brand-new account that added that line looks very much like a Scibaby sockpuppet and has been reported to checkuser for investigation. I would like to remind AQFK that restoring a banned editor's edits is not permitted. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty bad that AQFK is restoring obviously invalid edits from a pretty obvious Scibaby sock. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that semi-protection recently expired, which explains Scibaby's return. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Prolog has now restored semi-protection, though only for a couple of weeks. I've asked him to consider a longer period of semi-protection given Scibaby's persistence. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hide the decline"

This has been done to death. Please check the archives.

An article on Climategate without the "hide the decline" quote is like an article about the Munich Pact without the "peace in our time" quote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Are you comparing Imhofe and Palin to Goebbels? ;-) More seriously, presumably you want a well sourced but brief statement on that much misrepresented quote. The source cited above covers its misuse admirably, will see what I can do. . dave souza, talk 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC) No, I don't think the quote should be included. If you include the quote without any context or explanation of what it refers to or what it means, it's materially misleading. If you then include the context and explanation, you just duplicate the lengthy explanation that is at Climatic Research Unit documents#Climate reconstruction graph. There is also an issue of undue weight in highlighting just this particular e-mail. Bear in mind that the paragraph in question is merely a short summary that leads into Climatic Research Unit documents. It's preferable to describe the e-mails broadly without going into specific details, as then you don't end up with the problem of having to provide detailed context and explanations that duplicate the content of the documents article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) "If you then include the context and explanation, you just duplicate the lengthy explanation that is at Climatic Research Unit documents#Climate reconstruction graph." Then maybe that article should be deleted and we move that content here? "There is also an issue of undue weight in highlighting just this particular e-mail". Dude, you're not getting WP:UNDUE. That quote is probably the most famous part of the entire controversy. It's against undue weight to not include it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

Okay chaps, you know you can use any blog or forum on the internet to engage in this badinage. On Wikipedia it's off-limits. Discuss how to improve the article here.

---

AQFK--you would be right about the "hide the decline" quote in your 2 comments in this section, except for two facts:

1. This article includes allegations that "....climate scientists colluded[1] to withhold scientific information,"

2. The documents article has a whole 30-line section dedicated to that quote.

I think that takes care of it pretty well.

Dave--that's Phil Jones to Chamberlain! No decline in our time.  ;) Yopienso (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor update – Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com, more links at Global cooling bites the dust: Hottest January followed by second hottest February. Now March is busting out. « Climate Progress. Could be useful in other articles. . . dave souza, talk 22:45, 19 March 2010 (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.

"Hide the decline" pt 2

Actually, I don't think we've discussed it since the sub-article was created. If you can point me to that discussion, I'll take a look. I think that this is the first time I noticed that one of the most famous quotes from this topic isn't in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's beyond obvious that the "hide the decline" quote incited controversy. Some say it has an innocuous background, others say it looks real bad. Show the quote, give both sides. It's not our job to say whether this quote should have caused controversy. It did cause controversy. End of story. -- Chadhoward (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do include relevant cited references in the article. Moaning about it here is marginally off-topic. --TS 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Discussing improving the article is "marginally off-topic"? May I remind you that nobody owns this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and put some suitable, relevant material into the article. I have already commented that one section ostensibly devoted to improving the article was really just a moan-a-thon. Try not to prove me right. --TS 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate material added, briefly summarising the source discussed above. . . dave souza, talk 10:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I could prove you right even if I tried. In any case, how about merging the sub article back into this one? I think there's general consensus that the documents article is about as WP:NPOV as we're likely to get, so there shouldn't be any WP:NPOV concerns to add it back. Then we can delete the subarticle. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose a merge if you like. We got to this point by a process that I described here. It worked for me. Do whatever works for you. --TS 00:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I just thought I'd say that if (and only if) the documents article is merged back into this one, I would switch my !vote on the proposed name change to support, although I still think "documents" is better than "email". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Support merge and redirect back to this article. I've looked at the sources and we only require one article. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to see the documents article merged back in. Simon, the issue of this article's title and the future status of the documents article are really two separate things - please don't let the latter issue hold up a resolution of the first. If we can get that bigger issue out of the way we can get on with developing the article(s) properly without the endless distraction of the title. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, but I'm going to have to stand firm on this. I cannot support the name change unless the merger occurs. Obviously I am just one voice in this, and I can't filibuster the process; nevertheless, my support is conditional on the merger and I will probably throw my toys out of the pram if I don't get my way :D -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline

I'm not willing to make any changes to this article myself, but I'll note that the following two sentences in the "Content of the documents" section are, in my opinion, NPOV and clumsy;

Many commentators quoted an e-mail referring to the "trick", or clever but legitimate technique, used in Mann's graph to deal with the well known tree ring divergence problem and "hide the decline" that particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These phrases were taken out of context by some climate change sceptics as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.

I'd like to change the text as follows simply because I think it reads better;

For example some commentators quoted an e-mail referring to "Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline". While Jones has confirmed that the email is genuine, he and other commentators contend that the phrases were taken out of context. Jones states that "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do." <ref>Schiermeier, Q., "Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails" <i>Nature</i> 462, 397 (2009)</ref>

My contention is that more detailed handling of the various opinions, explanations and responses belongs in the "Responses" section, whereas this section is only meant to give a short overview of the documents themselves.Thepm (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal weakens and misrepresents the clear majority view. It misses out the essential explanation, evident from the emails and context, that the "decline" relates to the divergence problem with proxies, not with measured global temperatures. It's not just Jones stating this, it's evident to the reputable science journalist who we cite. My own preference is for wording which accurately paraphrases the source –

The most quoted soundbite refers to the "trick", or clever but legitimate technique, used in Mann's graph to deal with the well known tree ring divergence problem and "hide the decline" that particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. This was widely misrepresented as though it meant a decline in measured global temperatures, even though it was written when temperatures were at a record high.

The current wording isn't as good, and the start of the first sentence really should be improved. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's okay in principle but the grammar is weak (I find it almost unreadable as British English). Try:

The most quoted soundbite refers to the "trick", or clever but legitimate technique, used in Mann's graph to deal with the well known tree ring divergence problem and "hide the decline [shown by that particular proxy for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising]." This was widely misrepresented as though it meant a decline in measured global temperatures, even though it was written when temperatures were at a record high.

--TS 23:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, the "Hide the decline" thing was some desperate nonsense that appeared on blogs in late November and early December, was quickly debunked and has played no significant part in any serious controversy since then. The only reason I can see for covering it now would be to make climate skeptics look pathetic. Why is so much talk page activity here of late centered around that? Trolling talk pages with long-dead arguments wastes our time and makes it look like we're digging up this ancient nonsense just to give it another kicking. --TS 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see the issue started with this edit from Biltmowre, a now-blocked Scibaby sock, reverted and then re-added by A Quest For Knowledge. It's become a honey-pot ever since. --Nigelj (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So, Scibaby is secretly batting for Team Science? Weird. These trolls are so difficult to read. --TS 23:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"The only reason I can see for covering it now would be to make climate skeptics look pathetic" This is a major focus of the scandal, perhaps the most famous. We simply report back what reliable sources say about a matter. If it makes climate skeptics look pathetic, that's not our concern quite frankly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the reason I describe it as "the only reason" is because this subject is not what reliable sources are reporting on over the breadth of the affair. To dredge up this nonsense probably has no encyclopedic purpose here, though it might be part of more complete coverage in the other article, which can afford the space to discuss the development of the issue. --TS 23:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We have to cover the controversy whether it's legit or not. In any case, I'm in favor of re-adding the sub-article's content back into this article. If we end up doing that, then this discussion and the article edits are moot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's some contentious editing going on here on the definition of "trick." Is it necessary to define the word here? Doesn't the other article deal with that? If there's a consensus to define, I would go with the official Penn State wording, but it makes this recently-discussed sentence even more unwieldy. If a definition is inserted, the sentence needs to be broken into two more readable sentences. Yopienso (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the article to be balanced, there should at some point, be a non-judgemental explanation of what caused the controversy. Central to the initial controversy (or, at the very least, a very good illustration of what caused the initial controversy) is the extract "Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline". When the documents were first made available, it was widely quoted and a central discussion point. For that reason, to my mind, it belongs in the "Contents of the Documents" section. A detailed rebuttal of the criticisms that caused the controversy belongs in the "Responses" section. Nowhere in the documents does it say that "trick" is a "legitimate technique" or a "colloquial term" (although this may well be the case). Those explanations or rebuttals were made in response to the initial criticsms and a balanced account will deal with them separately. We need to move beyond this article being a coatrack for or against AGW and move toward it being an historical account of the CRU breach/hack and the ensuing controversy. Thepm (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"and a balanced account will deal with them separately" - No. Criticism sections are a blight. We're writing an encyclopaedia, not a detective novel - we deal with the issues in one place. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've taken care of the unwieldy sentence that Yopienso pointed out. Good suggestion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done, that's much better. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The controversy

Sources for couple of controversy issues: South Dakota's legislation, originally intended to include in climate science astrological and thermological dynamics but subsequently simplified a bit, and Senator Inhofe calls for criminal investigation of climate scientists. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Climate Audit

ChrisO has removed a "blog-sourced" statement about the opinion of some skeptics. The blog in question is Climate Audit. Isn't Climate Audit a reliable source for the purpose of establishing the opinion of some climate skeptics? At the very least, it is certainly a reliable source for establishing the opinion of McIntyre. I would like to find out what the consensus is on this. At present the article misrepresents the opinion of SOME skeptics on "hide the decline" in quite an important way. Thparkth (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate Audit is a reliable source for it's own opinion, however, WP:WEIGHT should be established. Given that there are dozens of third-party reliable sources on the Climategate scandal, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And which climate scientists have expressed this opinion? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for McIntyre's opinion. But why do we want McIntyre's opinion? If it's notable enough to include, we should be able to source it off a secondary source. If it's not covered by a secondary source, it's worth asking why we are interested in that particular primary-sourced, self-published comment. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' editorial status

Moot, off-topic and definitely not useful here. Please find a more suitable place to discuss this subject.

This is wrt several comments from a few days ago asserting that Jimbo Wales is merely a contributor like the rest of us. While he is the very model of discretion, restraint, and civility, his walking softly doesn't mean he doesn't carry a big stick, even though he rarely wields it: Apart from that, on occasion, "higher" bodies (e.g. the Arbitration Committee, Board of Trustees, or Jimbo Wales) can impose decisions regardless of consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Thank you, Jimbo, for Wikipedia and your fine example of respect for others. Yopienso (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC) As Hans Adler has said above, Jimbo is effectively "some kind of constitutional king. He doesn't decide such things: because it wouldn't be healthy for the community." Please go and read Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo, which may clear up some misconceptions for you. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC) ? WP:DONTBOTHER doesn't address Yopienso's points. It states that appeals to Jimbo are generally not worthwhile, it says nothing of his editorial status. Are there other guidelines concerning this you could point us towards? Heyitspeter (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Jimbo Wales had a surprising amount to say about it, Peter, right here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=349311726&oldid=349308330 He speaks as a rational, informed person who in essence is saying that of course the row is called 'Climategate.' But the biased editors who insist that only fringe groups use the terms will never be convinced. There's no use trying; Wikipedia loses this round to bias. Maybe the whole game. Mr. Wales seems content to let his creation run wild. Chris, the misconception is yours--I had no intention of appealing to Jimbo Wales. I was just saying that he reserves the right to make unilateral decisions. My personal opinion, which none need share, is that he is due a certain amount of respect just because he is, as Hans calls him, the "constitutional king." Whether or not I agree with him has no bearing on my respect for him. For the record, I totally agree with this: One can firmly believe in science, the scientific method, the scientific consensus, etc., and still acknowledge the simple truth that the name of this incident which matches Wikipedia policy is "Climategate". I'm quite sure you wouldn't deny that this is, in fact, a scandal - and even some of the scientists involved have admitted that some of the emails were 'pretty awful', etc. If there's anything partisan here, it is the attempt to control political language by Wikipedia editors, no matter how well-intentioned. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what it is called - it is up to the world at large, and they have - overwhelmingly - decided.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC) And I totally disagree with his allowing those editors to pursue their harmful agenda. Regardless, I respect him. Yopienso (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Insofar as I understand the rules, the only legitimate argument left for not using "Climategate" is WP:IAR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't see that as a legitimate argument, since WP:IAR is about not getting bogged down in rules when common sense will produce an improvement. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR Since no one has responded to my last link above to the BBC, I think it's been established that the correct term for the row is "Climategate": The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web....As the repercussions of ClimateGate reverberate around the virtual community of global citizens... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8388485.stm Yopienso (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The University of East Anglia itself used the term in January: "Sir Muir Russell is currently conducting an Independent Review of the issues surrounding what has become known as ‘Climategate’ and we very deliberately made our handling of FOI requests part of the terms of reference. I look forward to receiving his report and as I have said before it will be published and I will act accordingly if he finds there is indeed substance in these allegations." http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/vcstatement Therefore, there's no reason not to use it, although my personal preference would be to enclose it in quotation marks. Yopienso (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC) That isn't even remotely approaching the reality of what we're discussing here, but whatever floats your boat. I find it disappointing that the co-founder of the project is so eager to flout and disregard our policies and guidelines on the neutral point of view regarding article titles, and just as disappointing that the pro-Climategate faction is championing and enshrining his every word as if it is a pronouncement from the Oracle. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Tarc: If reliable sources have adopted "Climategate" as the common name for this topic, that means it is neutral. (Again, boldfacing the "if" that begins so many of my sentences.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC) <ec> ChrisO is right about Jimbo's status and how his thoughts have the same credence as those of any other editor. However, the quote above is not The Final Thought on the subject from Jimbo – in this later comment "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy will be fine. The main point for me is that it eliminates the false notion that the scandal is primarily about the emails being leaked/hacked... this isn't news because it is a "hacking incident" but because of the content of the emails and documents. That's the key point for neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)" Is this the final word from The Oracle? It doesn't really matter, what counts is the emerging talk page consensus. And a BBC article from 1 December 2009 doesn't establish that the term has continuing significance, any more than occasional mentions in reliable sources that partisan sources have used the term. . . dave souza, talk 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Talk page consensus cannot be used to override WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV specifically states that it "cannot be superseded by ... editors' consensus" and it's one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, not to mention one of the five pillars. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Dave, for that update on Mr. Wales' opinion. Mine may also change re. how important this issue is. What can't change is the fact that Wikipedia at present is out of step with the mainstream media in not using the term, "Climategate," particularly as a title. You must not have noticed the 7 February and 1 March BBC articles I linked to recently. My question is, "On what basis is Wikipedia refusing to use the term 'Climategate'?" Please support all answers with reliable sources. My perception is that our refusal to adopt the widely used and recognized term makes us look silly and POV. Many of us have given dozens of reliable sources that show "Climategate" to be the most widely recognized term. Try asking your office mates tomorrow about the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" and see if, after some groping for ideas, they don't say, "Oh, you mean 'Climategate'!" Yopienso (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) You started off this section rushing to the defense of Jimbo, which he really doesn't need any help on, and isn't the appropriate place to talk about it. Then you use that to immediately segway into a revival of an argument about the naming of the article, that has been absolutely 'done to death', and also has an appropriate place to talk about it. These arguments have a tendency to take over and fill any section where they are referenced, like a gas expanding to fill the space it occupies. Unfortunately here space is infinite, so the arguments are going on forever. Please don't find new places for that to happen. Ignignot (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It needs to be pointed out that if we violate WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE, then people are going to keep coming in to complain about it. That shouldn't surprise anyone. If we named the Kristallnacht article the "German broken glass incident", people are naturally going to say, WFT?! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) Stop it.Ignignot (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I already invoked Godwin's law a few weeks ago. Nobody listened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Kristallnacht basically means "glass night" in German. It does not even mention that it was broken. It is a poor analogy. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It's a fine analogy if you understand what I'm getting at. If we're not using the common name, people will keep asking why. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It was an excellent example. In English Kristallnacht works as a title because it's just a name. English speakers can guess that it means something like "crystal night", but it's not really descriptive. In German, however, it is both the most common name to refer to the event and descriptive, expressing an anti-semitic POV. Which is why the German Wikipedia doesn't use the common name as a title. It also doesn't use the recent coinage Pogromnacht. It uses the descriptive title de:Novemberpogrome 1938. They have slightly different policies than we do, but as you can see they led to the same result in this case: Titles that express a POV about a current debate are out unless it is the POV of the overwhelming majority. By the way, you are still lecturing other people about policy, aren't you? Is there any indication that you understand it? Hans Adler 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I don't work on the Germany version of Wikipedia so I have no idea what the rules are there. But here in the English version, POV-titles are legitimate article titles if they're the common name. See Jack the Ripper, Corrupt Bargain, Great Leap Forward and many others.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I will simply assume that you know what you says makes no sense because in section #"Flow diagram" for checking a title we reached a point where it had to become absolutely clear to you, and that's the point where you stopped answering my arguments. Hans Adler 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Hans, your flow diagram is wrong on point #2. Per WP:V WP:NPOV, "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." And actually, you were the one who stopped answering my arguments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) This comment is so strange that it's really hard to respond in a coherent way. So I will just address several independent points: What you are quoting is from WP:NPOV, not WP:V, just in case anybody wants to look it up. By the way, my little policy reader has been archived and can now be found here. You can't prove that point 2 doesn't belong in the diagram by coming up with another point that also belongs there (i.e. what you quoted from WP:NPOV). What you quoted is point 3 of my flow diagram. Points 1 and 2 are from WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles. It doesn't make much sense for you to attack point 2 anyway. Without it it would be harder to use a title, not easier. It seems to me that you continue to ignore the meaning of the words "used" and "consensus" in the passage that you are citing. Applied to our case it doesn't mean more than half the sources have the word somewhere, perhaps in quotation marks or introduced with "so-called". It means almost all sources use the word, and do so without any qualifiers. Hans Adler 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The overarching guiding principle to article titles, on the English Wikipedia, has been, is currently, and likely will be for the foreseeable future: Wikipedia:Use common names. That is the first idea expressed in every Naming convention, and there is a good reason for that. This is a ridiculous example of POV pushing at it's worst, and from exactly the group of people who shouldn't be doing that, since their some of the core editors of Wikipedia. This whole subject area has been turned into a surreal quagmire for months now, and over a fairly straightforward current events style article. Get back with the program here, folks. (*goes back to ignoring this silliness* hopefully the RM will close soon, so it's not continually in my face any longer. Sheesh!). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC) There are some necessary exceptions to this "overarching guiding principle" and they have been codified in policy. It is simply not on to ignore them just because you don't like the result of applying them to the present case. That's known as cherry-picking. I don't know if that's what you are doing or if you just don't know about the exceptions. But that's what A Quest For Knowledge is doing. Hans Adler 09:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC) What exceptions? You appear to be making up rules that have no basis in policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) What Ohms said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) What I said. When you realise your position is untenable you simply withdraw from reasonable debate and try something else. This makes it appear a bit pointless to argue with you at all. Hans Adler 01:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) You're right about one thing. If I can't get my point across, I try something else. I was hoping that Ohms law, a very respected editor here, might get you to realize that your interpretation of Wikipedia policies is wrong. Clearly, my hope was unfounded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe that was a bit too optimistic on your side. If Jimbo can't convince me without providing any actual argument, why should Ohms law? Hans Adler 09:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC) So Jimbo, Ohm's law and me haven't provided an argument, only you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) You got it. Hans Adler 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "What Ohms said" is a carefully-parsed half-truth. We follow ALL policies, namely WP:NPOV. We don't get to cherry-pick the single one that supports one's position and ignore the rest. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC) But see, that's an argument in favor of "Climategate". The letter and spirit of WP:NPOV is that we, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to overrule reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Overrule reliable sources"? There are reliable sources that discuss naming and usage? Please share these sources that you claim are being overruled. It's not very nice to keep them to yourself. Guettarda (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I do hope that you actually have sources that discuss this. It would really not be very nice if you were intentionally deceiving your fellow editors. Guettarda (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC) If you're asking about etymology, no, that's not something I've researched. But if you're asking what is the common name used by reliable sources, then I direct you to this List of reliable sources which use the term Climategate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC) No, you clearly said "we, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to overrule reliable sources". So either you're talking about sources for usage, or you're making false claims. Because anecdotes do not make data. Your list is original research, not a reliable source. It's cherry-picked list that doesn't even bother to distinguish between usage and usage in scare quotes. Far more importantly, it says nothing, not a thing at all, about usage - do these sources use the term predominantly, or very rarely? Only in quotes, or never in quotes? The plural of anecdote is not data. More to the point though, if you're going to accuse people of ignoring sources, you need to provide sources. Sources that address usage. You either need to provide sources on usage, or you need to stop making false accusations against your fellow editors. It's that simple. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Like I said, I haven't researched the etymology of the term. However, CNN provides a definition here: Q&A: 'Climategate' explained. As for the quotes, that's not a qualification mentioned in WP:NPOV or WP:TITLE. So, you're making up a rule that doesn't exist. But even if you weren't making up rules that don't exist, I've already done some research into this area. I cross referenced some of the articles listed here with a history textbook and a political science textbook and found many instances of sources using the common name in quotes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Don't pretend that you are not only ignorant of the use-mention distinction but also haven't even got an intuitive grasp of it. In this entire paragraph I am using the word "ignorant" once and mentioning the word "ignorant" twice. The policy speaks about use of the word. Moreover, the policy's intent is very clear: Mentioning how NPOV a word is by checking whether it's used by a wikt:consensus (you also seem to conveniently ignore the meaning of that word, too) of sources. Therefore any source that makes it clear that it feels uneasy about using the term obviously doesn't count. Hans Adler 20:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Would someone please provide a reliable source that uses the phrase "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" to refer to the unauthorized publication of emails exchanged among climate scientists at the UEA? Yopienso (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC) That's not what we are discussing here. The question were are discussing here is whether Climategate is a policy-compliant name. I am arguing that it is no more policy-compliant than the current name (or at least not much more so). I have proposed renaming this article to a policy-compliant name. You still have the chance to support the #Requested move. Hans Adler 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Using the imperative, you are asking AQFK not to pretend that he is not ignorant of the use-mention distinction (I missed the part where he claimed to know of or understand it)... or are you accusing him of not knowing/understanding it? And "haven't even"? Of course he wouldn't have an intuitive grasp of something of which he was ignorant. Talk about trouble with parsing and syntax! Also, and more importantly, how is your above post not a perfect example of WP:OR itself? Or do you have reliable sources which indicate why certain other reliable sources sometimes place the word "Climategate" in quotes? To wit, how do you know that they feel uneasy about the word? Or do you merely suppose it? Other reasons, perhaps its status as a neologism, are perfectly acceptable alternative reasons behind this particular use of quotations. Furthermore, your argument doesn't hold water because what you refer to as "mentioning" is self-referential. I have not yet seen a reliable source that focuses on "Climategate" the word itself (looking at etymological development, etc.). Instead, the sources have always employed the term when discussing the scandal, "using" Climategate to refer to the scandal, not the word. Moogwrench (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Hans: I'm not sure that WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE observe the distinction between use-mention. They certainly don't say anything about it. Regardless, if I produced a list of reliable sources which use (as opposed to mention) the term "Climategate", would that resolve your concern on this matter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Here's one: You need a steady nerve if, like me, you think it is a matter of evidence, not belief, that the world is warming as a result of human activity. After Climategate — the emails that appeared to show scientists using tricks to “improve” the evidence for global warming... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6999815.ece Yopienso (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC) It seems clear that right or wrong, there will be no consensus for a change of the article name to 'Climategate' or any variation thereof in the near future. Jimbo himself has expressed his support for the compromise rename which looks almost certain to go ahead. Given all this, is there any point in continuing this particular discussion? Will be article be improved in any way by editors here agreeing on who does or does not understand the use-mention distinction? Maybe it's time to call it a draw and shake hands before anyone gets provoked into making a starring appearance on the Requests for Enforcement page. ;) Thparkth (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Indeed it's long since digressed from the original topic (which was never particularly relevant) of Jimbo Wale's editorial status Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced

CRU Announcement (22.3.2010) [16]

MSM coverage:

BBC [17] Guardian [18] Times Higher Education [19] Telegraph [20] 130.232.214.10 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks very useful. Propose a new short paragraph in the UEA:

On 22 March 2009 the university announced the composition of an independent panel to reassess the science covered in key CRU papers which have already been peer reviewed and published in journals. The panel will be chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and members are to be members of the panel are: Professor Huw Davies of ETH Zurich, Professor Kerry Emanual at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Lisa Graumlich of the University of Arizona, Professor David Hand of Imperial College London, and Professors Herbert Huppert and Michael Kelly of the University of Cambridge.

Any of the references would cover that statement, there don't seem to be individual articles for the unlinked names. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth briefly mentioning each person's area of expertise? Thparkth (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"dubbed climategate"

The dubbed climategate language in the lede was a long and complicated discussion that appeared to have reached consensus - which I stood aside from - that we would not bold it, not use it in paranthesis and not note who was the dubber. I was happy with bold and paranthesis, but I thought that just saying "well, it's climategate" was not fully factual. It was returned to the paranthesis and bolds from the lede without any note of it's genesis by Jprw, who I assume was unaware of the previous work on the topic. He and I were working out language through editing on the page, but then AQFK, who has made zero substantive edits to the article, decided to attempt a version even more sever than Jprw's first attempt.

I am basically finished dealing with AQFK - I find his unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints tiresome, and his willingness to twist policy to say what he wants it to say disingenuous. However, I feel that to just revert someone without noting why on a talk page is inapropriate, so I'll note it here for the record - you need to discuss and negotiate, either through iterative editing or talk pages, with people you disagree with. You cannot just take extreme positions and hope they cave to you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the number of edits important? I think AQFK has brought a lot of substance to the table. I personally try to contribute by giving suggestions and raw data such as the section above for others to interpret. I have made zero actual edits on this article to date. Is my contribution not worth the effort? Time will tell. Are your contributions worth the effort? Time will tell.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The "dubbed as" point is significant and was well discussed, the snowclone issue seems an unnecessary inference, so I've reformulated it to refer to it being a neologism commonly used by mass media. . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Hipocrite's reference to snowclone is disingenuous, at best, and AQFK's edit summary gives adequate reason why it should not be in this article. Guidelines suggest "Climategate" should be bolded, as the redirect goes here, and {dubbed "Climategate" by global warming skeptics, but now generally accepted) seems reasonable. And it's an outright lie to say that AQFK has made no substantive edits to the article. On the other hand, I decline to speculate whether you (Hipocrite) have made any constructive substantive edits to the article. I can't say I recall any.

Dave's edit seems a reasonable approach, once the grammar is corrected. I don't think I should change it, but "which was commonly been used" probably should be "which commonly has been used", or if one wishes to split infinitives, "which has commonly been used". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, grammatical tweaks which keep the substance will be welcome. I've no comment to make here on other editors. . . dave souza, talk 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, with his second revert of the day (1rr!), Dave has been reverted by Jprw. I have numerous content edits to this article, most of which have stuck. I am happy to detail them to you, but as compensation for me taking the time to detail them, you will have to agree to 0rr across all climate change articles. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That they've stuck doesn't mean they're constructive. Still, I probably shouldn't have said that. I was trying to avoid the obvious reference to your user name being descriptive rather than nominative, which I still don't believe to be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm eagerly awaiting your request that I detail my edits so you can determine if I'm being hypocritical. How much do you really have to lose, being placed on 0rr across all climate change articles? Only one non-sock needs to ask! Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've introduced new wording once, Jprw again removed "dubbed" in Jprw's second revert, so I've dropped a reminder at user talk:Jprw suggesting self-revert and discussion. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to define the history of the word, the proper place would be in the body. The use of the word is hardly limited to AGW skeptics at this time, so the strained definition in the lead is both out of place, and wants to present a specific point of view. I see no reason to change Jprw's very short, neutral, and concise wording. Arzel (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a second endorsement of Jprw's formulation, per Arzel. Diff. Thanks! -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I don't really see the difference between "often referred to" and "dubbed". And uh... it is usually referred to as "Climategate" in the media. With quotes. Ignignot (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFK is one of a tiny few editors in these climate change pages who is sincerely committed to Wikipedia's neutrality. Add my voice to those supporting his improved wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede is wrong as long as the topic is the incident and not the controversy. I don't think anybody is calling the hack Climategate; the controversy is what carries that moniker. The successful name change should change that, however. Moogwrench (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, 130, Arthur and Alex. I appreciate the kind words. To be honest, I think we've made some nice progress over the last month or so. It appears as if there's widespread support for compromise name above and I've prepared a ToDo list of the remaining POV issues per Franamax's request.[21]. We're close, guys. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So this is a campaign, then? With two competing sides? And you 'represent' the side making progress? Please explain how that relates to WP:NOT. --Nigelj (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Yes YES! We represent the side that is not going: no... No... NO!!! all the time. (an attempt at humor)85.76.222.195 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with following WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I felt that the changes I made were copy editing ones -- it just seems to sound better now, but may still be able to be improved -- "often referred to as...in the media", for example. There seems to be an additional fixation that it is only sceptics of AGW that refer to it in this way, but on what basis are people saying this? Is there any evidence? If so, I will retract my wording in good faith. Jprw (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the name, in quotes, is used by the media to refer to this, so simply saying "skeptics call it Climategate" is no longer tenable. I agree with the current language: "(often called "Climategate" in the media)," (after these two diffs [22]) and we could even leave out "in the media". We don't need the longer explanation in the lead because the topic just isn't that important, although it could be discussed in the body of the article (see the links I've provided in this comment). It's been noted before that these names tend to start out as part of partisan rhetoric then spread to people who are not partisans, get used in the media (first within quote marks, as has now happened) and may eventually simply become the name used by everyone. Isn't this how the words "Tory", "Whig" and "Yankee" and "Nutmegger" all start out -- as jeers taken up by even the ones jeered at? When a good number of sources such as the BBC and Washington post start calling it "Climategate" without quotes in their news stories, it'll be time to change the article name to that. By that point, the name "Climategate" may refer to a broader set of incidents, too. Just remember that it's an evolving name and as the facts change, it will eventually come up again for discussion. I hope the next time it's suggested for the article name that there will be a good number of news accounts from very reliable news organizations where the first reference to "Climategate" is not in quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one quick point: the NY Times in a recent article said that climategate was how it was referred to by critics. I think that would be a good qualification to add, sourced to the Times. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But you can't go by what just one says. Other articles don't present it that way. [23] [24] [25], note the headline here [26] [27] (Agence France Press: dubbed "climategate" in the British media) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Your footnote 46 goes to an article in the Telegraph dated 22 Mar 2010 uses "'Climategate' inquiry" in the title, "climategate' scandal" in the lede, refers to "a scandal known as 'climategate'" further into the article, and continues on to use "climategate" without scare quotes twice: "Prof Kerry Emanuel has commented on climategate before and is from the university at the centre..." and "One of the ongoing inquiries about climategate has already been criticised for employing scientists who were felt to have already made up their minds..."

Since I started writing this the footnote number has changed from 46 to 5. I'll just repaste it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7498279/Climategate-inquiry-led-by-oil-boss.html Yopienso (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper distances itself from the name by putting it in quotes. But it doesn't simply say that only people who don't believe in AGW use the term, which was my point. Using the word in quotes seems to be the practice of the most reliable sources. If only for convenience, I think the quotes will eventually come off. If any of the official inquiries into this announce that they've found wrongdoing enough to punish anyone for anything, we'll likely see the quotes come down sooner because to use the word without quotes is to confirm that this is a scandal -- at least while it's still controversial. Eventually, when this story is no longer really reported on by the news media, the quotes will come off anyway, because there is no more convenient word for this than "Climategate" and no other name has stuck. The Telegraph seems to me to be a little ahead of the pack in dropping the quotes from the word further down in its article, but it goes against the grain of a newspaper to keep using quotes around the same word, and by initially using quotes they made their point high in the story that they don't consider the word theirs to use unreservedly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Global warming sceptics tried to used the leaked memos to evidence that global warming science is a hoax which to them makes it a scandal. If it turns out that they are correct then the "Climategate" term will stick. Otherwise it will remain partisan terminology, like homicide bombers, Islamofascism and death panels. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the term already has stuck. They don't have to be "proven right" for a name to stick. Even if every person on the planet, AGW skeptics included, thinks that this incident turned out to be rubbish in the end, when we hear the term "climategate", our minds will immediately go to this incident. Case in point, while I think the Lewinsky scandal was silly, when I hear "Lewinsky scandal", I think of Bill Clinton and his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. I sincerely doubt many people think of anything else when they think "Lewinksy scandal". Furthermore, they already have been shown to be right. Since this isn't a forum for general discussion, however, I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to go into detail as to why. If you like, I'd be happy to take this to another place, like Google Wave, a forum, IM, etc.Macai (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As soon as we reach the stage where we have "a consensus of historical sources", we will be free to proceed. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The only people who have any interest in the story are people who believe that global warming science is a hoax and the e-mails are evidence of skullduggery. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. A sampling: [28] [29] [30] [31] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is being proposed here? It's clear that there is a controversy, and the controversy is known informally as "climategate", a term used by many, avoided by some, and often put in quotes for whatever reason. Qualifying the term according to who invented it or who used it would be hard, and unnecessary detail. Although I think the word "dubbed" sounds slightly quaint I can't think of a more direct way to say it. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Hudson

The format was allowing me to edit question #9 in the collapsible file at the top of the page, but I decided to cut and paste it here since this page is on probation. Not sure about protocol here.

Apparently there's a mistake or at least a question about this. Paul Hudson himself said, "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml The Daily Mail repeats and comments on this information. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html On what basis does WP assert, "...some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this."? We don't do original research.

Yopienso (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well firstly it's in the FAQ, not the article, so some leeway is allowed. In any case, I'm not sure what the dispute is about. Even before any clarification from PH, people had pointed out in the comments and other forums that what he meant was he was sent copies of the e-mails that concern him from some party involved in them. In his very next blog post, PH confirmed this was what he meant [32]:

As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?'

These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others.

although it's not even apparent if he felt he had to clarify or it's just something that arose in his posting (in other words, he may have felt any controversy that arose was because of people grasping at straws).

As I've pointed out before, all this was before the Daily Mail's article, which doesn't say much for their journalism standards (hopefully no one thinks writing an article about some blog post and not even bothering to read it carefully let alone the very next blog post or the plenty of existing discussions pointing out the misunderstanding in many forums at the time is good journalism). I can't remember if the Daily Mail even indicated they had attempted to contact PH, if they did I presume he ignored them because he didn't want to waste his time on people with such shoddy journalism standards.

As I also pointed out before, postings in the Daily Mail's comment section which pointed out the article was crap (in a polite way) and had missed the clarification received many negative feedback, which doesn't say much for their readership or at least readers who participate in the comments section. No further discussion of this misunderstanding (or whatever you want to call it) has occured, not even by the Daily Mail AFAIK, I presume because they've all realised clearly PH did not receive the entire archive early on.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It may be helpful if you also read the first blog post in it's entirety, in particular the paragraph before that which you missed is important (as is perhaps the paragraph before that which makes it clear it's just a brief comment):

But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

The link above is in the original blog post. If you look at the comments on the blog entry from before climategate, unsurprisingly when climategate first blew up and before PH had said anything, the only specific e-mails people generally referred to were the chain of e-mails concerning him (why would they talk about random climategate e-mails on his blog?). Following the link is also a big clue.

In other words, from a careful reading of that blog entry even without the later clarification, it's clear that he's solely referring to the chain of e-mails concerning him, not the entire archive (which isn't really a chain anyway).

Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, read the first sentence of the Daily Mail article, which comprises wholly and solely the following false statement:

The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.

This is the basis on which we say that Hudson's statements were misinterpreted. --TS 23:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't follow Nil Einne's thought. Not meaning to criticize--I just can't figure out what it means. Thank you very much, TS, for your direct answer. I did read that statement, which is why I raised the question here. How do we know the statement is false? Yopienso (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's false because it contradicts Hudson's representation of the facts. --TS 00:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've found he said:

"I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml What am I not seeing? Yopienso (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The bit where he says

"These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others." (already quoted above), which makes it clear that he had copies of the e-mails regarding his article forwarded to him, in the normal way. Mikenorton (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Thank you, editors, who worked through this long process. Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that the page has been moved, perhaps it's time to address the minor consistency changes that the move has introduced. For one there is a mix of "email" and "e-mail" in the text, and there are a few references to "the incident" that make less sense now. There may also be support for moving "Climatic Research Unit documents" back into this article. Does anyone see any other changes that need to be made? StuartH (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, that was bugging me, too. I wasn't going to say anything, but since you bring it up, I think we should resolve this inconsistency. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(Well, there's poor old Yopienso showing her ignorance again--the article wasn't retitled, it was moved!) Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To reflect the article title, I changed the lead, [33] for the most part simply rearranging phrases and sentences already there (although I added "presumably" to "hacked"). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

Well, I had high hopes that we had finally resolved all the major WP:NPOV issues yesterday, but thanks to this edit[34], the lede no longer summarizes the article nor does the lede explain what the scandal is about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted ChrisO's edit per WP:NPOV and simplified sentence slightly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AQfK is absolutely correct here. Frankly, I think "about whether these e-mails indicated misconduct on the part of climate scientists." still doesn't do enough to describe the debate. Suggest we switch to "about whether these e-mails indicated attempts on the part of climate scientists to misconstrue or exagerate the effects of climate change." NickCT (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Following my last comment, I just want to note that I'm convinced this whole e-mail shinanigans is devious political character assasination similar to what happened to ACORN or Kerry's purple hearts, but I increasingly get the feeling that there is an attempt on this article to "smear" this smear campaign. I'd advise against this. We should accurately describe the issues at hand and offer notable counterpoints to the allegations. To do otherwise would violate NPOV.

Additionally, as I've said before, this article gets way too much attention paid to it. No one cares about these e-mails anymore ladies. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's getting attention primarily because it's an absolute obsession among anti-science activists and sundry right-wingers. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they do care about these e-mails, deeply so, and they're engaged in an aggressive advocacy campaign in which the e-mails are a major weapon for them. We get to deal with the consequences of that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFK is blindly reverting and introducing inaccuracies into the article. I updated the intro to reflect the current status and take out an incoherent misrepresentation. The issues are as follows:

• I wrote that the Russell review had been instigated at the request of the UEA to review the e-mail exchanges and the CRU's policies. This is stated in this UEA press release. AQFK's version of the lede does not reflect the review's remit.
• AQFK's version of the lede reflects the situation as it existed in December 2009 when the UEA first announced the review. It doesn't mention the second review of the science that was recently announced.
• AQFK's version contains an incoherent part-sentence which has been slipped in without discussion: "about whether these e-mails indicated misconduct on the part of climate scientists." This simply doesn't belong in the sentence in which it appears. It literally makes no sense. "The ... controversy began... with the unauthorised release ... about whether these e-mails indicated misconduct on the part of climate scientists." What is that supposed to mean? If it's meant to refer to the Russell enquiry's remit, it's inaccurate. The remit, which you can read here, says nothing about "misconduct on the part of climate scientists". That's a gloss on AQFK's part - POV and OR. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be sorted out. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)