Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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

Inclusion of FoIA material

This edit removed information about the ICO's statements on the UEA's alleged breach of the FOI act (*pauses to catch proverbial breath*). The text was re-added. I figured I'd open a dialogue to make sure that re-addition meshes with consensus. If people feel it's necessary to propose alternative versions of the given text that could be productive as well. I suppose I'll interpret silence as consent.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO's statement is still removed, while UEA's "damage control" about the statement is now present. ICO found that UEA breached the FOI, but that prosecution was time-barred. I'm not going to restore the appropriate information at this time, but it should be done soon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of hidden at the end here: Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#UK_Government. The context for the statement (added by Dave Souza here) obviously dwarfs the statement itself, which might be remedied a per WP:UNDUE. Any thoughts on another version?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hidden is being nice. The majority of the section is now the EAU's response to.....what exactly. I was temped to re-insert it pending the previous discussion now that it appears that the primary reason for removal was the belief that "The Times" is not a reliable source. Clearly I don't see how anyone can make that claim per WP:RS, so the next step is to agree on a version. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, our article has never shown the ICO's statement as given in the newspaper. We showed an extract of a private letter from the ICO to the university, selected by the newspaper out of context to give maximum shock horror newsworthiness. Wikipedia is not news. The current version shows more, not less, of that letter from the ICO dated 29 January 2010. You can download all three letters at the link used as a reference, and read them yourself. According to the newspaper article, the ICO's statement regarding the university's submission is:
"The commissioner has provided the select committee with a copy of the January 29 letter to which the university referred in a press statement. This is so that the committee can be aware of the full contents. The commissioner has not been invited to give evidence to the committee but stands ready to assist the inquiry."
The response from the university was that: “The point Professor Acton was making is that there has been no investigation so no decision, as was widely reported. The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.”
It's worth noting that the ICO letter of 29 January states near the end that "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them, particularly when the ICO has not itself referred to penalties or sanctions in its own statement..... our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry." So far that original statement does not seem to have been made public, I'd expect it to appear during the Select Committee hearing or, if need be, in response to a FOI request to the ICO. At present the paragraph follows the "he said, she said" format, we can expand it to clarify these points, or seek to agree here a brief statement summarising the present state of public knowledge. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mixed up. The quote you give is a statement from the ICO that they have handed over the letter they sent to the UEA. It's not a quote from the letter they sent, and it gives no indication of their position regarding the CRU researchers.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought I made it clear enough. On 29 January and 1 February 2009 the university and the ICO exchanged private letters. These are not public statements, though they've just been made public by agreement. As reported in the press on 25 and 26 February, the university made a statement. The statement by the ICO above, which doesn't say very much exiting stuff, is the ICO's response to the university's statement. Now wait for the select committee findings. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did you say not very exciting? The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to image more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offense may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of elapsed time, is a very serious matter... I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.” [[6]] There are some who get very excited indeed about this, including, apparently, those who want to conceal, camouflage, and delay the imputation of scandal. Oiler99 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza. The ICO quote you give states that they made a press conferencestatement. It obviously is not simply private correspondence. Even if it were, it's being reported all over the place, which suffices to make it notable. If we could get back to formulating the revised version and abandon this diversion that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? The quote I give says press statement, not press conference. Please read with care. Note also "our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry" in the ICO's letter. Just because rubbish is being reported all over the place doesn't make it right. In that same letter, the ICO say "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them". Nor, it appears, can they be expected to make their "statement" public. At Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk – "Former information commissioner Richard Thomas told the committee he could not comment on whether the university had broken the rules, as a recent statement from the information office suggested. But he suggested that there was a stronger case for public disclosure when data had been used to influence public policy, such as in climate science." Not a ringing endorsement of the "statement". . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, the ICO's statement emphatically does not indicate that they have found the UEA "guilty" of anything. It is very conditional. Note that it says "the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here." It does not say that such an offence has been found, or that it is proved, and goes on to say that there is nothing further that the ICO can do about it (including proving or disproving it) because of the statutory time limit. People who claim that the ICO has found the UEA guilty of a breach are simply wrong. The ICO has not made findings of any sort, as its letter makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless "prima facie" means something different in UK law than an US law, the ICO has not made findings, but the UEA "correspondence" web page contains misstatements. "Prima facie" means "on the face", and the ICO statement could not be interpreted as other than (including):

1. Section 77 prosecution is time-barred.
2. If it had not been time-barred, there would have been prosecutions for violations of section 77, unless evidence to the contrary was provided.
3. The fact that prosecution is time-barred is "extremely troubling" (to ICO).

Now, we can't actually say that, even though no other interpretation is possible, but it is certainly inappropriate for us to imply otherwise, or to allow UEA's implications otherwise to be treated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that inconsistent with the university statement? Also, where is the UEA "correspondence" web page? Do you mean their submission to the select committee? IANAL, but this would presumably be presecuted under English law (though it's a UK Act) and prima facie means that on looking at the emails, ICO think they could make a strong case in court. They hadn't consulted the university, so had not considered opposing evidence, and no "finding" could be made. . . dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what the outcome of this little tiff is. I'm not currently arguing content. I'm just saying that your original statement had no bearing on the debate at hand nor supported your conclusions in any way (though perhaps you can find such support elsewhere). Let's stick with straightforward, rational talk (something like WP:SPADE). p.s. 'conference' for 'statement' was a typo. Sorry about that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see how this comment is aimed at improving the article, or who it's addressed to. . .dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It was addressed at you, sorry if that was unclear. I was hoping for a more focused discussion as those currently active have become diffuse, to say the least. It makes consensus exceedingly difficult to sort out.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments are focussed on the issues raised on this page. . dave souza, talk 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The UEA press release (correspondence web site) is not a WP:RS, as being self-published and self-serving. The correspondence, itself is allowable as a record of the correspondence, not to used except as evidence that that is the official position of UEA and ICO, not toward the truth of the accusations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO's official position is relevant, and UEA's may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is a reliable source. According to WP:PSTS, it's called a "reliable primary source". As long as it isn't used to create original research, it's all good. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously coming from an actor in these events, the UEA press release can only be taken as an RS for its own views per WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion, and not even about itself or events relating to itself, per WP:SELFPUB (see Item 1--because the material is self-serving). Moogwrench (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the material that relied on citations from the UEA website in accordance with that policy. Seems commonsensical enough, anyway.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench and Heyitspeter, you forgot the qualification "unduly" in that policy. The statement is reasonable and attributed to the university, and in addition it's published by the House of Commons. I've reintroduced a minimal statement showing the university's response to the ICO's as yet undisclosed email statement to a reporter. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA for operating in an unduly self-serving manner w.r.t. to precisely the report in question: "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained."University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010. Reconsider? Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA. More than one? Also this is again getting strange.. ICO accused UEA, then the Uni defends..., one MP critizises the response.. so? Things should really be given in normal order. Hence I don't think edits of Heyitspeter are the best possible. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to rise an issue why Heyitspeter thinks the letters published by a respected university are in "reasonable doubt as to their authenticity"? To my knowledge the content has not been challenged. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I've reordered the statements to make the sequence a bit clearer, have attributed the comment on the response as being reported by The Times, and have followed the balance shown in the source by mentioning the university's response. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...and good edit but I feel this sections is starting to look bloated? Could/should the first part be updated?130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, J. Sketter, the answer is that I don't. There are 5 conditions on which Self-published sources are unacceptable, not just one. In this case the citation is unacceptable as per WP:SELFPUB because the first condition, that "the material is not unduly self-serving," is not fulfilled. The material is trivially self-serving, and a reliable source has reported that the material is unduly self-serving. That's about where I stand, and I do not see how a legitimate counter argument can be made.

That addresses yours and (apparently, though in conflict with past statements) Dave Souza's position. As for 130.232.214.10, hey! Welcome to the article and make yourself at home :) . It seems to me that removal of the self-published source will, in addition to bringing the article in line with WP policy, address your contention that it is too bloated.

That is to say, even if we decide to throw policy out the window for the betterment of the article, the self-published sources (and of course the responses to them) should go.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A few issues. Firstly, it's not a self published source, it's a submission published by the House of Commons. The UK parliament is not the University of East Sussex. It's a statement of the university's position, specifically referred to in three news stories, and as such is a primary source for that statement and a perfectly valid source. Your claim that it is "unduly self-serving" is tendentious and untenable. Secondly, the Times story says in its opening paragraph "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament." In the UK, the headline and opening paragraph are usually written by the sub-editor to spice up a story. No mention there of MPs making the accuation, and it's the oldest trick in the journalists' book to say "has been accused" when the newspaper makes an accusation. One MP gives his reaction to the accusation, but doesn't make an accusation other than to say that such behaviour would be unwise. Please read sources more carefully. Also, no need to repeat the same reference after consecutive sentences, one inline citation at the end will do nicely. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I owe an apology to Heyitspeter for not understanding the real issue and being hasty. Still... of course UEA own material is self-serving, but I haven't yet figured out why that fact makes the material outright unsuitable to use for what arguments and counters has been made. And this is honest wondering; I understand there's possible problems in using primary sources like this, 'freely' picking this or that out of the source, and that the university is not any impartial&objective actor here (but no-one thought so).--J. Sketter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Untenable"? I backed up the statement with a reliable source, so that's by definition false. The 'not self-published' contention is just semantics. We both know it fits the policy. Your second point is variously incorrect and original research. Anything else?

I didn't notice there was a citation for the Times until I'd already reflinked and such and figured I'd let someone remove them if it seemed right. Thanks for doing so.Heyitspeter (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On these issues, The Times is a lot less reliable than the very reasonable statements made in the UEA's submission. The UEA's a reliable source for many things, including particularly statements of its own position. As it happens, this is also published by the House of Commons, a more appropriate link which gets away from the dreaded .doc to the more open .pdf. As for your edit inserting a "who?" tag, it clearly wasn't MPs. My suspicion is this source, but that would be original research so I'll confine it to the talk page. Do see if you can get The Times to publish a statement saying who they mean. And not just generic "MPs", names needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing "reasonable" in the statements made by UEA, as of yet. Self-serving (especially those on the correspondence site) and self-published (including the submission to the House of Commons), but not reasonable. That being said, I don't yet see a reliable source for "UEA is accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament" or "UEA is accused of making a non-misleading statement to Parliament". Article titles and subtitles often have no relevance to the article. However, Dr. Evan Harris certainly implied that UEA made an unwise submission. A further implication would be that it was unwise in that it attempted to mislead. But being an MP, he didn't outright say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Harris certainly noticed the oddity of the ICO issuing a "finding" with only prima facie grounds, and no consultation with the accused. See Q73–Q76 where he grills the ICO's predecessor on it, but gets the "I know nothing" defence. The report should be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange thing is that The Times ~did put the sentence in single quotation marks. --J. Sketter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

but that would be original research so I'll confine it to the talk page Hey Dave Souza, WP:OR applies to talkpages as well: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, read it. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. . . dave souza, talk 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

Wending into WP:FORUM. Also, I believe a scan of the most recent move request will show that 'Climategate' just doesn't have the bipartisan support necessary for implementation.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Seconded -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't wish to reopen what was clearly a long and heated discussion. However, I see that non-English versions of this page typically go by the name of climategate (or foreign language variations thereof). At the very least there should be consistency. Apologies if this point has already been raised. --Junder1234 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) See FAQ #1. Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I read it ; it doesn't address my point. --Junder1234 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Different language editions of Wikipedia have their own content policies (within the primacy of the neutral point of view) and are not consistent with one another or with English Wikipedia. --TS 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC) A neutral point of view can hardly be said to have primacy if a "loaded term" is used in a page written in one language and not in an another. --Junder1234 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC). In other languages, the "-gate" suffix may well have considerably less of its American-English meaning. Interpretation of the NPOV may also have developed in different directions on other wikis. Possibly this may be something for discussion at Meta. --TS 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with Junder1234 and I also raised the same point before. I feel you are dodging the question by pointing to NPOV. Is it reasonable to believe that the English speaking Wikipedia is superior to all other language versions? In this case it would appear more likely that the English language version is out of sync. I frequently see shortened articles translated from the English language version. This means the content is typically shorter and I end up switching to English for the details. In this case it's the other way around. I also do not know of ANY part of the world that is unfamiliar with the Watergate scandal.91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC) You're confusing two uses of NPOV. My first mention of NPOV is just a historical reference to the fact that Jimbo Wales stipulates that NPOV is "non-negotiable". Junder then referred to NPOV within the context of this article's name (and NPOV has indeed figured in discussions of the article name, as Junder clearly understands when he refers to a "loaded term"). I'm not really clear whether Junder has a serious question. Yes, of course articles about any given subject in different language Wikipedias tend to have different text, predominantly prepared by different editors, and they have different names. Are we supposed to do something about that? If so, what? --TS 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Well I for one have the luxury of being multilingual so I occasionally read 5 or 6 different language versions of the same articles. If I find a reliable piece of information in one I try to translate it. Sometimes the translations are not perfect but it usually doesn't take long for someone else to correct my small mistakes. A certain amount of consistency is a good thing. At least the outlines should be similar. At some point the French language version of this article was preferable. Many others are shorter but well balanced. This also potentially clears up conflicting editing, done with almost religious dedication, by small groups of editors in one language version.91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Junder, I was one editor who previously pointed this out. The short answer as to why we don't call the article "Climategate" here is, there is a substantial group of editors active here who are absolutely opposed to that name. Because... well, because WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. In my view, of course. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Accusing people of engaging in disruption simply because they disagree with you is unacceptable Pete. Please retract your comment and try to assume good faith. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Or, perhaps they see WP:WTA as a sound and reasonable guideline, not to be tossed aside lightly for the pundit pejorative of the day. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) We've been through this before. Without objection, it has been stated and presumptively accepted that the WP:WTA clearly states that for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. The term Climategate, as a title, satisfies the wiki policy of using the common term, and does not violate NPOV since it is descriptive only, albeit pedestrian, and does not add an imputation of scandal not previously recognized. I solicit recognition of that. Best regards, Oiler99 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The problem with the title "Climategate" is that it is not generally accepted. It is similar to "homicide bomber", a term that indicates a certain point of view. People who call it "Climategate" generally believe that climate change is a hoax. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Au contraire, Climategate is generally used around the world by newspapers, magazines, and other wikipedias. The term refers merely to the scandal surrounding the revelations of inappropriate activity by those who wish to blame human activities for global climate. Climate change of course is not a hoax. The anthropogenic cause is however unproven, and more implausible with each passing day, whence the scandal. Homicide bomber is by the way a tautology, not used by thinking people outside of television studios. Suicide bomber is additive, and descriptive. Best regards, Oiler99 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Proof is for whisky, "climategate" is a partisan label deployed by those claiming that AGW is a "hoax" or "conspiracy" and treated more cautiously or avoided by many serious sources. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Do you seriously believe that all those who use the term Climategate are convinced that AGW is a hoax or a conspiracy, rather than a simple misinterpretation of the evidence? Oiler99 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) While I will accept that people who use the term "climategate" believe that climate change science misinterprets the evidence and that they do not deny climate change but the anthropogenic cause, the term "climategate" is still not neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) As it has been pointed out numeous times, in policies WP:NAME and WP:NPOV, proper noun article titles should follow common usage in RS, even if that common usage is non-neutral. Even in the guideline WP:WTA (which, as a guideline, takes a subordinate position to the aforementioned policies) naming conventions allow for a title involving a -gate suffix formulation in historical cases. How many months must pass with its usage as a common title for this controversy in order to satisfy those who would use this guideline to trump policy? Moogwrench (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC) If the label is entirely partisan, why do the media in the UK and US use it so extensively? Again, we are not talking about the first few days of the story. They have latched onto and continue to use this label after months of controversy. The term "Climategate", as it is employed by the media, centers around a pattern of conduct of the UEA scientists and the public's reaction, be it positive, neutral, or negative. One can believe that UEA scientists were sloppy, unprofessional, or committed some kind of violation of FOIA (or even admit others with reasonable minds believe this) without denying that climate change is real or that it has a significant anthropogenic component. So I find the idea that Climategate is a term only employed by "climate deniers" or "climate skeptics" is belied by its common usage and acceptance as an umbrella term for this particular controversy (unlike other -gate suffix inventions for other controversies, which never were extensively used by RSs and were the exclusive domain of a specific party to their respective controversies). One can believe that the scientists acted inappropriately while still accepting the overall science behind AGW. Moogwrench (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC) At what point does this constant bleating about how the article should be called "Climategate" start to produce blocks or topic bans for tendentious disruption? Must we have the same argument over and over again? "Climategate" will never, ever be an appropriate title. Those reliable sources that make use of the word almost always use quotation marks to indicate it is not "their word", and also only use it for convenience. But you will not find a single reliable source to corroborate the legitimate use of the word to describe the theft and illegal dissemination of data from the CRU. The word is non-neutral, best avoided and non-descriptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Referring to good faith, policy-based arguments as disruptive bleating is not exactly convincing. I appreciate your opinion that it will, in your words, "never, ever be an appropriate title," but a plain language reading of the common proper noun naming conventions of both WP:NPOV and WP:NAME seem to contradict your certainty. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Is there an good argument being presented here for why the Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy and scandal guideline should be set aside for this particular case? "Everyone else calls it that" is not one that I would call "good", however. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "Everyone (or, at least all reliable sources) call(s) it that is" exactly what WP:NAME suggests as a reason to call it that, even if the name contains words to WP:AVOID. Now, we're not there yet, but all media do call it "Climategate"; so far, the only reliable sources using a different name are UEA and the police. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) As has been noted repeatedly, in the eleventy-billion threads we've had about this, the notion that "all media do call it 'Climategate'" is a misrepresentation of the facts. Virtually all of the mainstream media refer to the term in quoted form, distancing themselves from it and indicating at the very least that is is a neologism. The media echo chamber has been used extensively by the skeptical crowd to promote the term's use, but that doesn't change the salient facts that the term is non-descriptive and non-neutral, making it inappropriate as a Wikipedia article title. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Common proper noun names are preferable to descriptive ones made up by Wikipedians, per WP:COMMONNAME, so I don't know why you would suggest that a non-descriptive title is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I find it hard to accept your assertion that news outlets are "distancing" themselves from a term by frequently using it their articles and reports, quotes or no quotes. Also, consensus is important, even if it does take "eleventy-billion threads" to hash it all out in the end. It sure does beat edit-warring on the article page, don't you think? Thankfully, participation in Wikipedia is voluntary; if one is tired of seeing alternative viewpoints, might I suggest a wikibreak? Moogwrench (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "Climategate" is non-neutral and ambiguous. Policies like WP:NPOV stomp all over guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, so we can put that argument to bed. Also, please don't make vague, nebulous accusations of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1. I don't know many people who would confuse the subject of "Climategate", so I can't see how it is anymore "ambiguous" than the current title. 2. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, not a guideline, as you erroneously state (it is a link to the WP:Article_titles#Common_names). As a side note, I have also documented how Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_titles permits the use of common, non-neutral names as "legitimate article titles," so I don't see how WP:NPOV "stomps all over" that argument. It actually supports it. 3. Celebrating discussion over revert wars is not accusing anyone of edit-warring. However, using phrases like "constant bleating" and "tendentious disruption" to refer to the talk contributions of other editors does tend to deprecate that process, don't you think? Moogwrench (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I'm quite happy with the current name as, while possibly being not the optimal name (then, what might be?), it also covers the theft aspect of the incident. My "cons" to climategate are: 1) it's kind of stupid compare to media-usage or normal talk, where you simply choose the most convenient and short name; 2) I have to agree with them here who consider "climategate" being a slightly non-neutral, colloquial name, trying to push a view that the incident is crucial to correctness of AGW 3) arguments based on some needed "consistency" with other wikis are quite funny but nothing more. 4) I can't help wondering why certain people so badly want to promote the name. And my "pros"? 1) the most used name in most connections, by my own experience 2) it somehow better describes all the hassle after the publishing of the hacked files. So, to summarize I'm against the name-change. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC) J. Sketter, just to engage you on your points that you made, take a look at what Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title suggests are the characteristics of an ideal (or optimal, to use your word) name: 1. Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. 2. Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). 3. Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. 4. Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.) 5. Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. 1) Per item 4 of the article title criteria, article titles should be "concise," i.e. "a convenient and short name" in your words. "Climategate" is far more concise than the longer "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" 2) As far as neutrality goes, WP:NPOV and WP:Article titles both allow for seemingly non-neutral titles when it is the common name for that thing in RSs. Also, "Climategate" really isn't about AGW per se, it is about the scientific process and people's reaction to it. People can believe that the underlying science is good, yet find the behavior of the UEA unacceptable or not... the reaction is the notable part. 3) Per item 5 of the article title criteria, article titles ought to be "consistent," and one could argue this applies cross-wiki, if possible. 4) As to why people are promoting it: It is Recognizable, Easy to find, and Precise enough to identify its topic. It seems to fulfill all the aspects of an ideal title. The current title, in the view of the proponents of the alternative title, seems less than optimal is many of those respects. Moogwrench (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) You were right about WP:COMMONNAME being policy, my bad. But WP:NPOV still trumps it as being second only to WP:BLP in the policy hierarchy. "Climategate" fits in with only a few of the criteria you list above. For example, it is not at all precise. It requires an understanding of the "-gate" suffix, which is largely a US-centric phenomenon. It is not consistent, in that it doesn't follow patterns found in other articles (a handful, at best) - and the cross-wiki issue is irrelevant because other versions have their own rules. But basically, it is the lack of neutrality that is the problem here. The term unforgivably adds a layer of "scandal" to what is essentially an article about data theft and its consequences by associating it with an event that wound up forcing a US president out of office. There is no reasonable comparison that can be made here. And I repeat: Bringing it up over and over again is textbook tendentiousness. If only there was a script that could automatically topic ban anyone who suggested it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC) You don't really think that is a good idea, do you? I mean, silencing people who disagree with you automatically? Moogwrench (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) The -gate thing is obviously from The Watergate scandal. Are you seriously suggesting that only Americans and people in the UK now about one of the most important political scandals of the 20th century? If you say Watergate people think Nixon scandal. If you say Climategate people think Climate change/science scandal.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) For the umpteenth time too, WP does have a page called Climategate - it's a redirect. That's our way of saying, 'some people call it this, but not us'. That kills the 'Easy to find' argument. Most of the other arguments seem to be either 'It's POV, but I like that POV' or 'It's POV, but that doesn't matter because of sub-clause X'. --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Not true, actually. WP does not have a Climategate page, it has a term redirect to Email Hacking Incident page, the latter being a subset of the Climategate, encompassing perhaps 10% of the controversy. Quite misleading. Hurricane, on the other hand, generates a redirect to Tropical Cyclone, of which hurricane is a subset. Quite different. Much more appropriate would be a link on the Climategate page to the email hacking / liberation incident. Oiler99 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Until/unless you can make your case over at WT:NPOV as to why such an article name is permitted, this is simply not going to happen, coming from a discussion in a single article's talk space. Policy can change, sure, and if you think you have case then go make it there. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" is as inappropriate as "Climategate". To date, there is no evidence that any hacking took place. Unless someone can present evidence that hacking did take place (not just allegations), the current title is inappropriate. If "climategate" can't be used because no scandal has been confirmed (only alleged), then "hacking" can't be used for the same reason.--chadhoward (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) This argument is addressed in FAQ Q5. All reliable sources say it was an unauthorized data breach; a hacking. CRU did not deliberately leak the data, nor is there any evidence to support accidental release. --TS 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Neither your comment nor FAQ Q5 addresses my comment. It may be true that many or even all reliable sources say the emails were hacked. My point stands: no reliable source has detailed any evidence for the claim that the CRU emails were obtained via hacking. Do you agree? If not, please provide a source that details evidence for the claim of hacking. --chadhoward (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) No original research. We're not Sherlock Holmes, you know. --TS 01:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) No original research not relevant. All that is required is a published source detailing evidence of hacking. Allegations of hacking are insufficient as basis for article title, just as allegations of scandal are insufficient to warrant the use of Climategate in article title. Possible improvements to article: remove "hacking incident" from title, as no evidence yet exists that would suggest a "hacking incident" has occurred; mention the sources who have alleged that hacking occurred (CRU, etc.) and that no evidence of hacking has yet been detailed in any published source.--chadhoward (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I suggest that you take your quarrels with Wikipedia policy to the relevant policy pages. We go with verifiable information, and it is verifiable that the Norfolk Police, the Metropolitan Police, and the University are treating this as hacking. No reliable source is saying it's anything other than hacking. --TS 01:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I have no quarrel with Wikipedia policy. No original research is not relevant because I am not asking you to "publish original research or original thought... [including] unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". I am asking you to cite a published source that details evidence of the alleged hacking incident at the CRU or consider working with me and others to change the article title. It is verifiable that the university has claimed that a hacking took place; it is verifiable that the Norfolk Police and the Metropolitan Police are conducting investigations into the alleged hacking; it is NOT verifiable that any hacking has taken place. Sticking to what is verifiable suggests avoiding the words "hacking incident" in the title. Furthermore, it is a factual contribution to the article to mention that although an investigation has been ongoing, no evidence of a hacking has yet been published. --chadhoward (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Greetings! I have little experience in regards to this, just moseyed here from another page I check every now and again. If I'm not mistaken, then what is being asked of you so as to advance this discussion is a source or multiple sources that say there is no proof of a hacking. Armed with those, people can bring this discussion better to bear. I.E. Verifiability, not truth, is what would seem to be necessary. Original research is important to avoid not only in regards with what to add, but with what to remove. If you know that happiness is the result of reactions in the brain, yet reliable sources in the page for happiness say that's not so, it is not enough to simply say they never provided proof that it's not neurological reactions. Instead, finding reliable sources that back up your assertions should help to further the discussion. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Greetings! I believe TS referenced No original research because he thought my original request was for Wikipedia authors to present their own evidence of hacking. In fact, I was requesting a published source detailing evidence of a hacking to substantiate the current title. It is problematic that the current title refers to a hacking incident if there is no published evidence that such an event occurred. Your suggestion that I ought to provide a source detailing evidence that hacking did not take place is asking too much. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something (think Russell's teapot), and thus impossible to find a source that presents evidence of non-existence. A cornucopia of articles mentioning the absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence. If your proposed standard were required, any outlandish claim of the existence of something that has been so far unobserved would be impossible to remove once added. On the other hand, a statement that something does not exist (evidence, for example) is easily debunked with a single source detailing the supposedly missing evidence. --chadhoward (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I invite that you may be responding to something I did not assert. You don't have to prove the hacking didn't take place, not at all. You simply need to find reliable sources that say what you are trying to convince others of. If there are reliable sources stating the incident was a hacking, and other reliable sources say that it was never proven to be a hacking (they don't need to prove that there wasn't one) then your fellow editors can take these sources into consideration. To say 'this has been said but that alone hasn't convinced me it is true' can be a compelling argument of course, but the concern is [7] verifiability, not truth. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Can someone explain why this ongoing discussion was archived, with readers pointed to a link to FAQ 5? FAQ 5 does not apply to my argument detailed above. I do not dispute that many or even all reliable sources allege a hacking took place. I do dispute the notion that mere allegations warrant the use of the phrase "hacking incident" in the title of this article. It is extremely odd to refer to an incident/event/occurrence if there is no evidence that said incident/event/occurrence actually took place. This problem, as far as I know, has not yet been addressed in a comment or in the FAQ. --chadhoward (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Reliable sources say "hacking" (or some variation), regardless of what may actually be true. In the extremely unlikely event that it turns out not to be a hacking incident, I'm sure this article will be renamed. Until that point, it reflects what reliable sources say. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Good, we're moving toward consensus. I agree that if it turns out that there was no hacking of the CRU's servers, the article should be renamed. My first thought is that, in the absence of confirmatory evidence, we need to resolve how long to wait before deciding that it has "turned out" that no hacking has taken place. The problem with this approach is that the non-existence of a hacking incident cannot ever be proved because it is impossible to prove a negative. Waiting for what can never be produced is counterproductive. So, instead of waiting, perhaps we can work toward defining reasonable deductions under which everyone can agree that it has "turned out" that no hacking has taken place. As a first attempt: because allegations are not evidence and no evidence has been detailed to suggest that a hacking occurred, there is no reason at the present date to believe that a hacking event took place. We can build consensus around the unlikelihood of a hacking for the same reason we can build consensus around the unliklihood of the existence of unicorns -- lack of evidence. I welcome discussion of other reasonable deductions. Also, I'm not a sockpuppet or the user named Scibaby. It feels really crappy to put work into improving an article and then get accused of being deceitful. --chadhoward (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I dunno anything about the sockpuppet allegation, other than the fact I am now aware of it. With respect to resolving "how long to wait", I would have to say that the answer to that question is indefinitely. Unless a preponderance of reliable sources say it wasn't hacking, the word will obviously remain in the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC) As I specified in my comment, it is unproductive to specify "how long to wait". Waiting for a preponderance of reliable sources to "say" a particular thing is useless for the same reason. Please address the actual issues detailed above in future comments. --chadhoward (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Until such a time as the police say "It was a leak not a hack" then the narrative will remain as is. That`s just the way it is sorry mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Let's try a thought experiment. There is some non-zero probability that, at some point in the future, the police will cancel their investigation or decline to release their findings publicly or otherwise abdicate their responsibility to settle our little Wikipedia dispute. In that instance, we will be faced with the same question we are faced with now: does the balance of evidence justify including the words "hacking incident" in the article title? Some may suggest that we wait a bit longer before making a decision, because perhaps someone with inside information will tell all within a year. However probable or appealing the suggestion, I submit that if we follow basic evidentiary requirements we will be able to answer the question at that hypothetical moment and it would be inappropriate to wait. Any expected future event that might settle the score should not prevent us from making an evidence-based decision in the present. Take a moment to think about the disarray the average Wikipedia article would suffer if saying, "let's not worry about the balance of published evidence now -- I think Event X will produce a more obvious verdict sometime in the future" carried the day on talk pages. So let's look at the evidence. We know that the CRU's private emails became public. We know that the CRU alleged hacking. Both are important parts of the story. Neither is evidence that hacking took place. Neither can support the current title. The current title simply has no basis in fact. Does anyone dispute this? --Chadhoward (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I dispute it. Hundreds of reliable sources saying "hacking", and until hundreds of reliable sources say otherwise the matter isn't open for debate. I support vigorous closing/archiving of this thread as this has been debated/discussed/deliberated ad nauseam already. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Heyitspeter, slow down on the archiving. It's been just a little over 30 hours since I introduced a suggestion to improve this article's title. The suggestion has not yet been dealt with by the FAQ or by any other commenter. I am not actually arguing for the introduction of the title "Climategate", merely pointing out that the current title is wanting for evidence. Why not let a few more people read through the argument during the week? --Chadhoward (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Hey Chad Howard. (I didn't actually close your section of the discussion, Scjessey included it in the collapse with his 'second.') I fully agree with you on several counts. FAQ#5 does not satisfactorily address the concerns raised here. See a brief discussion of this point at my talk. I also believe the current title violates WP:OR and have voted for alternate titles in the past. However I do not think 'Climategate' is that title, mainly because it didn't garner even a strong minority of the votes in the most recent move request. I'm sorry you got here after that closed, and I understand how frustrating it is to be told "this has been discussed to death" where you had no part in the discussion. However I think you'll agree that given the recency of the request and the weak support it received (other options received many votes), 'Climategate' is not worth pursuing at this juncture. That's why I support this collapse. However, if you have ideas for another title I'm sure many of us would be happy to hear it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At this diff, Jimbo Wales argues that a "strong case can be made" for using the title 'Climategate' and points out problems with the current title. Thought it was worth mentioning.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Earlier it was used as an argument that we shouldn't use Climategate since it was not historic or something like that. Now the term is even used as titles in many books:

• Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman, ISBN 978-1935071839,
• The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford, ISBN 978-1906768355 (Publisher: Stacey International Publishers, 2010 [8], hardly a Self published bookstacey-international.co.uk About ... Reviewed:[9]
• Climategate by Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller, ISBN 978-1450512435,
• Climategate: 1: The CRUtape Letters by Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller, ISBN 978-1901546347

So the case for moving the article is there now, even by this argument it seems. Nsaa (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the usual fringe authors have rushed into print. By the way, Thomas W. Fuller seems to have died in 1951, perhaps you meant another Thomas W. Fuller. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the author Thomas W. Fuller and see that the linking is to another Thomas W. Fuller. Sorry for that and I've removed the linking. Nsaa (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Historicism is relative, anyway, and the key was "reputable sources". The important thing was that the term had entered into widespread use and has stayed in widespread use in the RSs over term, making it "historical". Moogwrench (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-published books are not reliable sources. This has been discussed before; please stop rehashing old arguments. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For the first. Can you make a diff to this claim about "This has been discussed before"? For the second, at least one of the books is apparently NOT self published

The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford, ISBN 978-1906768355 (Publisher: Stacey International Publishers, 2010 [10], hardly a Self published book stacey-international.co.uk About and the book at their site [11]...

- "Or take a book published last month called The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, a rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing." Matt Ridley, The Spectator [12]

- "..the astonishing history of the fake hockey stick that was used to convince so many dupes the world hadn’t ever been this hot in human history. Learn how scientists put up the walls rather than help expose a critically important mistake. Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, Melbourne" [13]

- "In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all - the notorious 'hockey stick' graph......For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph "[14]

Nsaa (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable fringe authors promoted by right wing journalists shouldn't be given undue weight regarding science. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not make comments like this without serious sourcing? Attack the persons by calling them "fringe authors" and "right wing journalists". I.e. your not interested in the arguments just get rid off the unpleasant truth (Climategate named by at least one book published by a long running publishing company and commented by main newspapers/periodicals). Is for example Matt Ridley a "right wing journalist" supporting WP:FRINGE teories/books? Please sources this borderline WP:BLP violation. Nsaa (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already given considerable evidence that Booker is extremely unreliable, and would advise you not to take his advice that white asbestos is as safe as talcum powder. Ridley appears to be rather libertanian, the Spectator and indeed the Daily Telegraph have always been openly right wing. The claims about the hockey stick are classic pseudoscientific propaganda which pay no attention to the way science works. Trust that assists. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Jimbo Wales understands Wikipedia policy better than most of us, particularly WP:NPOV (I say this for those that have used that policy in discussions regarding the title as if it were a Dogbert, World Ruler card, whose mere mention instantly invalidates any arguments for "Climategate" as a policy-based, commonsense name). Moogwrench (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of weighing in with an opinion on the matter, Jimbo Wales is no different from anyone else. Whether it is an IP, a user, an admin, or a Wikipedia co-founder, all have equal footing here. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think his opinion is particularly well-informed in this instance, frankly. Snap judgments are no substitute for informed discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing uninformed in the opinion that we have "a pretty silly title that nobody uses". It's a fact that only requires a bare minimum of research to verify. Same for "[t]he scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something", all of which many of us have been saying for months. JPatterson (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll recall (I hope) that there was a proposal to rename the article Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy or something similar, which I supported, but which unfortunately failed to achieve consensus. I think many, probably most, editors involved with this article recognise that the current title is not ideal. But the issue of what neutral, descriptive title should be used in place of the current one has unfortunately got buried by the endless campaigning of a minority of very partisan editors for the non-descriptive POV term "Climategate", which is never going to achieve consensus. I think the partisan campaigning has been a major factor in making other editors unwilling to compromise. The majority of editors on both sides have already agreed that "Climategate" is unacceptable or is not going to achieve consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, so the question we should be asking is why we're stuck with a title nearly all agree is ridiculous? A strong majority of editors were willing to "move to the middle" and supported something more reasonable. Yet we still have a title defended by only the most partisan among us. Why is that? JPatterson (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, if I'm not mistaken, you and GoRight worked on a comprimise title here. What's the current status of this proposal? Perhaps now is a good time to revive it and make this proposal on this article's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The current status of that proposal is failed, as it was transitioned from being a proposal to change the name of the article to a stick to beat people who are not climate skeptics. If you'd like to reinitate it with the goal of changing the title, as opposed to the goal of winning some dispute on the internet, feel free. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, your example of 'stick-beating' was a comment by myself which you quoted as follows: "in the early stages, the article was being owned by a vocal faction that attempted to censor any mention of a controversy...until recently, when enough NPOV editors became aware of this article to balance out opinion." I don't see an example of using the proposal to "beat people who are not climate skeptics" here, nor even a mention of the proposal. I also note that I myself am not a climate skeptic, and that the proposal received support from all sides, including yourself until you came to this puzzling conclusion. If you don't have a reason (read:evidence) for your accusations, don't make them publicly (precedent). --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo said the following:

I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something. (emphasis mine)

Jimbo Wales

Jimbo also said:[15]

There was a case to be made at some point that Wikipedia could not and should not endorse the nickname, because it would be POV pushing to do so. However, that point has long since passed, and it is now overwhelmingly the name of the incident in all media. You can find examples of the use of the term by people in favor of the term and against the term. It is no longer POV pushing to call it that - the name was coined, and the name stuck. It is an abuse of the notion of NPOV to claim that no article can have a title that some people don't like, see for example Swiftboating for just one example of a political term that stuck.--

Jimbo Wales

130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, that is one person's opinion. It is not weighted any higher or lower than anyone else. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you in this case, but that isn't generally true. It'd be worth reading WP:JIMBO if you haven't already. Happy editing, Heyitspeter (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already, thanks; the essay does nothing to contradict what I just said. If anything, it reinforces it, as his powers have gradually waned over the years. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You've just rephrased my own statement.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Silly me, I must have just imaigned someone saying "that isn't generally true", which is the statement I was refuting. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have been confused by the fact that you did not provide a refutation of my statement.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Laudamus te, domine. This from one month ago:

I think Climategate should be reserved for an article discussing the perception of scientific scandal, its dimensions, and the denials of same. It will have the advantage of the ability to incorporate other events of similar nature such as the China UHI revelation, the pruning of world temperature stations from 6000 to 1500, the Darwin Australia homogenization, New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) data adjustments, NOAA's adjustments to Central Park data and others, and any further events that may transpire.

The other article (the residual of this current) should preserve the discussion of the origin and compilation of the file and of the release (hacking, leaking, liberation) of the documents and any legal proceedings or ramifications which may ensue. It may not have the "legs" of the Climategate article, and with luck should not attract anywhere near as much partisanship and umbrage. Oiler99 (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The "hacking" incident is just that, the disclosure of the computer files. "Climategate" is the public controversy, such as it is. They could be two (or more) sections of one article, or they could be separate articles. Some people were working on such an article in a sandbox but I don't know where that went. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That neatly describes the problem with "climategate", it's a catch-all partisan term already being used for issues that have little or nothing to do with the hacked emails and documents. Perhaps in the longer run it should redirect to global warming controversy. . . . dave souza, talk 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, that is just not true. The Climategate term is not used just by anti-AGW folks, it is used extensively by reliable sources. So you can't just keep saying that it is a partisan term per se, because more than one party--anti-AGW, media, and even some pro-AGW people are using it to describe this controversy. Those reliable sources all talk about the fallout from what was revealed in the emails and other documents that were hacked/leaked/whatever. So there is little ambiguity. You can't take the hobby horsing of the AGW skeptics and say that people don't know what Climategate refers to. Moogwrench (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been stated dozens, if not hundreds of times, almost all reliable sources that refer to "Climategate" do so by wrapping the term in quotes to indicate it is not their own construct. In addition, there have been a number of reliable sources that have explored the genesis of the term, and how it has been used to promote this faux controversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you mean when you say "faux controversy". Do you mean the there isn't a controversy or that there shouldn't be a controversy? Moogwrench (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, Hacked climate science emails | Environment | guardian.co.uk including the extensive Climate wars: The story of the hacked emails | Environment | guardian.co.uk special investigation. . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The unavoidable partisan slant of "climategate" as well as its ambiguous definition (it's unclear whether it should be about the hacking incident, or a WP:UNDUE dumping ground for each and every denialist talking point) make it an undesirable term to use in the title. Every other "-gate" article I can find redirects to a more neutral page title. Jimbo is clearly in the minority on this one. StuartH (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason that other -gate titles are redirects is because they never became common usage. Unlike the present one. Even if it does have quotes around it sometimes. Moogwrench (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is the norm

It's Climategate, literally in the words of thousands of politicians, heads of state, researchers and commentators. Climategate. The hacking incident was only a subset of the whole. Just as was the historic break-in and burglary from the incident through which it derives it's name.

1. Time magazine news article, "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?" [16].
2. Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen"[17],
3. as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen"[18],
4. The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""[19]
5. The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"[20]
6. Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist , "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"[21]
7. Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"[22]

By any measure, except here, the term climategate is the norm.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And frankly, I think it deserves a separate article relating to the story of climategate, it's not a science story - it's a very real cultural and politically historical event that only Wikipedia is ignoring.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted this on Jimbo's talk page and I'm posting it here. A thought has occurred to me: While "-gate" is indeed a word to avoid, WP:AVOID is only a guideline. WP:NPOV is a policy. When policies and guidelines conflict, policy always trumps the guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomen Omen

Please use this page to discuss how to improve the article

Scepticism, according to Diderot, is "the first step on the road to philosophy". With due respect to the Express's scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? Or dare I use the D-word? I'm talking about D for denier, as in one who denies (to those looking for fashionable hosiery who have been directed here by typing "denier" into a search engine: you are in the wrong place). We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics". David Marsh Mind your language - Guardian

Time to remove the badge of shame

Obviously not happening now. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's been very little discussion recently, with the article (and even this talk page) enjoying an extended period of stability. I propose that we remove the {{POV-title}} tag from the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support It has to refer to a current, specific and fixable POV or bias debate, not just to represent a vague or general WP:IDONTLIKEIT from one or two editors in the past. --Nigelj (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC) One or Two editors? Please. The !vote for vs the !vote against were virtually equal, don't poison the well with that kind of talk. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) He's probably referring to legitimate editors of good standing, rather than the meatery bussed in from the skeptical blogs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The !votes were for some new title, not votes about whether this one was POV or not: don't re-purpose other people's statements. Some want a shorter title, or a more descriptive one, or a more emotive one. This one is as neutral as we can get, which is why it's lasted so long. Many of the new ones that get proposed don't make consensus as they have POV problems. This tag ended up there ages ago because a few people insisted it be there, in exchange for removing the straight {{POV}} tag, after they ran out of new reasons for that to be there, if I remember correctly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support Its been there too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Agree. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support with the caveat that this may change if/when any relevant enquiry reports. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Reluctant Support, due to an apparent consensus that FAQ#5 is valid, even though there is no evidence presented either of accuracy or of consensus on that issue. Consensus needs to be established about the FAQ first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose, because of the undue weight given to the hacking incident in the title. This article is primarily about the controversy. The hacking incident is mentioned in the lede and then in the timeline. The topic of the controversy/response regarding content of emails is found throughout the entire article. One solution would be to excise the majority of the controversy/reaction stuff and place it in a separate article with an appropriate, consensus title. If the article were actually mostly about the hacking incident, then I would change my !vote to support. Moogwrench (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The point is, you have had your say on the matter, and it has failed to achieve any sort of consensus. POV tags are used to call attention to an issue, to discuss it, and then see where consensus lies on the matter. Articles are not meant to be tagged in perpetuity to simply signal opposition to the status quo. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support - no comment on title, I've found my life is much better when I stay away from that quagmire. Ignignot (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support as consensus on the matter is clear. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Consensus on the matter of the title is hardly, as you put it, "clear". The closing admin, Ucucha, of Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#Move_request indicated that he/she was "unable to detect any consensus". He/She pointed out that that the previous RFC at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change#Available_options_according_to_community "may have been interpreted as yielding consensus in favor of a move" to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, but since the subsequent move request was equal votes for both, their verdict was "no consensus". As I said, far from "clear". Moogwrench (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) That isn't relevant. The {{POV-title}} tag labels the title as not being "neutral", and yet there is a solid majority who have stated that the existing title is indeed neutral. It is fully supported by a preponderance of reliable sources, descriptive and accurate. And no consensus to change == no change. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) You are right when you say that no consensus to change == no change. If there is no clear consensus for the removal of POV tag, it should remain until a definitive alternative consensus has been established. Moogwrench (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC) How much more definitive does it get? We are currently at 11 to 3. At the time of the removal of the tag, it was 9 to 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Well, if you must go with that argument, after 8 more hours, we are at 13 to 9. As I said, hardly clear or definitive, especially after so little time. Moogwrench (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's time to remove it. --TS 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose Have any of the issues I've brought up over the past three months been resolved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Collapse commentary as per WP:DISRUPT The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. See, it's this kind of edit, and it's associated revert on the article page that leads people to think you're not working towards consensus. Which issues did you bring up that have not been adressed? Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC) See, it's this kind of question that makes me think no one's paying attention to what I'm saying. What was my answer the last time you asked me this question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) (ec) "I think that mentioning the death threats in the lede is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Sure, it's notable enough to warrant mention in the article body, but not in the lede. To be honest, it appears to be an emotional ploy to draw sympathy for the scientists." I re-read the lede again today (I looked at it after your complaint and failed to notice any mention of "death threats," back then, but since that conversation wasn't going anywhere, I decided not to call you on it.) I still don't see any mention of "death threats." In fact, I don't see any mention of death threats in the lede since Scjessy removed them - which, ironically, was before the last time you complained about (non-existant) death threats in the lede. Perhaps your problem is that you feel that mentioning the police investigation at all is a violation of a violation of WP:UNDUE, but it's certainly not whatever bad-faith accusation you made before. Is that your problem? You want the police investigation removed from the lede? That's a the POV violation? Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The death threats are still in the lede although the verbiage has changed to "personal threats". The article title hasn't changed either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC) BTW, did you just accuse me of making a "bad-faith accusation"? Please tell me I misread what you said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) No, I accused you of accusing others of operating in bad-faith - "It appears to be an emotional ploy to draw sympathy for the scientists." People, if there are any, who are editing an encyclopedia to intentionally include emotional ploys are engaging in bad faith. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Ah, then your accusation is unfounded and a violation of this article's probation. My comment was on the edit, not the editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Feel free to report me. I don't feel that anyone is operating in violation of the probation, except perhaps the edit warriors on the article page - of which you are one. Hipocrite (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Nah, the sanctions are a failure. I resent your accusation that I am an "edit warrior". Except for one edit a couple months ago (which I regret), I don't believe that I have ever edit-warred on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC) See, it's that kind of battleground-inducing comment that makes your comment to Jimbo so ironic. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) - Obviously not to your satisfaction, but "consensus" does not mean "as long as AQFK thinks it's okay." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Please. You have both singled out an opposing editor for leaving out justification where numerous (supporting) others give far less of it. Care to remove your comments as per the policies WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF?--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC) You must be joking. AQFK's response was obstructionism that offered nothing useful to the discussion, other than a reminder of earlier foot stamping demands. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC) support William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose. The title, for one, is still disputed by the huge number of people who signed in favor of alternatives in the recent move request.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC) As I recall, that process was shrouded in accusations of meat puppetry and canvassing. Besides, that "debate" does not relate to the obvious legitimacy of the existing title. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The accussations of canvassing were unfounded and the editor making the accusations declined to persue dispute resolution and was formally warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (ec)As you know, the repeated accusations of meat puppetry and canvassing resulted in a request for enforcement against the accuser (here) that ended in a formal warning that he not bring the accusations forward again. As to your last sentence, of course the "debate" relates to the legitimacy of the existing title. I would like you to stop wasting everyone's time. Please comment only where you have something constructive to say.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? We had a consensus, the edit was made, and then AQFK came in with another heavy-handed reversion with the usual "it's only okay if it says what I want it to say" question. Your comment is deliberately antagonistic and dripping with misrepresentation juice. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC) "We had consensus"?!?! Holy cow! It is highly inappropriate to declare consensus based on a few hours of !votes/ discussion; in my opinion, it is a perversion of the process of discussion on Wikipedia. RFCs usually last up to 30 days, especially if regarding contentious material. People who contribute infrequently to this article and other Wikipedians, not just the regulars who check the article every 30 minutes, ought to have the ability to comment on something before it is either decided or archived. For this reason I was pleased that Nil Einne lengthened the time 'til achive for this page. 2 days was ridiculously short, promoting people to quickly and constantly post the same arguments rather than providing a place where thoughtful debate could occur. Moogwrench (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC) That's just garbage. This isn't an RfC. It was a simple discussion that quickly reached consensus by virtue of the overwhelming support for the move, so an editor did the deed. The tag is being used as a badge of shame by people who eschew Wikipedia policies and guidelines to further their agenda. This accurate, non-ambiguous title is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Please don't call my edits garbage. Also, I used an RFC as an example--I know what one is. The point is that all discussions are meant to take time...moves and AFDs take at least 7 days, RFCs longer... the point is, we should be trying to solicit opinion, even opinion that doesn't agree with ours. To summarily declare just a few hours after starting a discussion on a contentious point that consensus had been reached is a tad quick. Moogwrench (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Support - I realize there is some debate surrounding the title, but I don't think that alone merits the tag. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose. The title and numerous other issues... that will be discussed in length when new info appears from the ongoing investigations shortly.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC) - Strange comment Scjessey... We have a fairly similar track record (looking at the last 500 edits)?130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) No consensus for change The proposal to remove the POV dispute tag was made at 07:31, March 9, 2010[23] and implemented less than 4 hours later[24]. How did that give everyone enough to time discuss the issue, let alone reach a consensus? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Strongly Express Astonishment - Man, I was going to sign in to support this as a protest because nothing could speak more eloquently to this article's shame than its attempt to pretend nothing unusual is happening. I then discovered the tag had already been removed. Awesome! This is breathtaking in its audacity. Why not really take this bad boy all the way and start lobbying the rest of the Internet and all the other language Wikipedia versions to also switch to this most excellent title? As a matter of fact, what prevents you from simply forcing this into the other WP versions as you have here? Seriously, this gives Wikipedia such a black eye. This might arguably be the most contentious POV article title of any note in all of the millions of articles here at WP. There is absolutely no meaningful consensus that this article title is anything but a grotesque distortion of the truth. To say it is merely POV is to dignify the title. WP started out very well and still has some good meat on its bones, but its takeover by the Ministry of Truth is disturbing, to say the least. Round one definitely goes to the tenacious cabal rewriting history here. I said elsewhere that it might take many months or longer for this to correct itself. I guess that might even have been optimistic. However, I am still (perhaps naively) quite certain that this will eventually correct. This article has no merit on its own. What interest it garners is only by virtue of its association to Climategate -- the thing it is improperly attempting to conceal. I expect it may remain here forever, but eventually only as an example of what *NOT* to do. The sane and sensible wanted the Climategate redirect to be replaced by an actual article whose title is its subject (Climategate). The reason things went quiet with respect to those who would oppose such a change is because they became discouraged by the relentless harassment of a clearly POV driven group of editors who simply would not allow the truth to be uttered about Climategate here at WP. Whether tagged as disputed or not, everyone here knows for certain that it is most definitely in dispute. This article is, by its very nature, a shameful stain on WP. DeepNorth (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose - For reasons mentioned by the various editors above. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose - There is clearly a PoV problem with this article. If nothing else (and there is plenty) then the title itself is a significant PoV. I cannot understand why wiki would label the incident a "hacking" incident, essentially on the say so of the alleged victim. Thepm (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Weak Oppose Just reading this section, it seems clear that there are still editors who feel there are POV issues. I would like to see more action towards identifying those and working to correct them, but I can't justify removing the tag at this time. Arkon (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Support The title expresses no point of view at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Don't forget the rest of the tag. It in full reads "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed." Bolded by me. Arkon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Weak Oppose Per Arkon. Additionally, the many comments made by Scjessey are certainly not civil and they certainly do not improve the situation. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Please forgive my attempt at levity, but that may be the first "Per Arkon" on Wikipedia in the 5 years I've been registered. It's like a Steam Achievement! Arkon (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Support SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 03:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Because the investigation is ongoing, many people have taken a wait and see attitude. In fact, those trying to make this change are the same ones that have insisted that we wait and see. So, as soon as the "other" editors decide to accept their suggestion, there is this bad faith attempt to make changes and to force them through before anyone can even respond. Q Science (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose There are many things wrong with the article's title. First of all, it is unclear if it even was a hacking, which is a very real violation of WP:BLP. Second of all, the most notable thing about Climategate (which redirects to "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident") is not the fact that the emails were stolen, but what the emails say. If some of these emails did not demonstrate at least less-than-savory intentions on the part of the people writing them (mostly Phil Jones), then nobody would care. If you doubt this assessment, I propose we find an example of someone stealing viagra spam or an email conversation about a local Chinese buffet from the official email box of the FBI's director, Robert S. Mueller III. It might get some footnote in a mainstream paper, but nowhere near the attention that Climategate received. Suggesting that I'm wrong on this one is tendentious at best, and indicative that the one suggesting it is not here to write an encyclopedia, but to write a public relations piece on behalf of the CRU. Then there's the fact that people have actually managed to remove discussion of the emails themselves from the article, and forked it over to Climatic Research Unit documents. Oh, and then there's the fact that "Climatic Research Unit documents" isn't even in the "See Also" section. Jeez. Not only is the subject matter and title tendentious, one-sided, and POV, but the entire article is. No. This "badge of shame" should remain on there until such shame is no longer merited. Macai (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Do we include in See Also links which are in the body of the article? Also, enough bad faith assumptions? Hipocrite (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Support. We could all do with a break from the endless bickering about the title. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The easiest way to put the title debate to rest is to choose a more neutral term, like "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". That title makes no assertions whatsoever. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) That would imply that the content of these emails carries any notability in any sense whatsoever. We can't have that, can we? No, we can't. Macai (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Heyitspeter last removed 'e-mail' from the current title.[25] I don't remember any discussion on Talk that time - the only discussion I saw was when people couldn't find the Talk archives after the move.[26] I don't know how we'd get on debating putting it back in. --Nigelj (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I opened a section at the talkpage prior, there was a discussion, then I made the change. I'm not going to take the time to find it myself just because you can't, but I do assure you it's there. Also, I think the average NPOV editor will find it very obvious that Macai was being sarcastic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose "Hacking" is still widely considered pejorative, and there appear to be a substantial number of editors who find it POV in esse. Collect (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Who cares? The term is supported by reliable sources, and they don't even use quotation marks. And what is this "pejorative" nonsense? "Hacking" describes illegal access of a system. "To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization" is exactly what occurred. There is no dispute about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Agreed. The only way there wasn't 'hacking' at CRU would be if the management had asked a member of staff to publish this zip file onto the internet. There'd still be hacking involved, though, as someone tried to hack it onto the RealClimate website server later, on 17 November. There is no question that it was a hacking incident. --Nigelj (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, the first clause is nonsense, unless you want to use an unusual definition of "hacking". If it was done by an insider who had legitimate access to the material, there wasn't hacking of the CRU system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC) That is incorrect. Look again at the definition above: "To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization". Any 'insider' who may have moved the file was not the legal owner of the data. The e-mail texts were probably legally the property of the employers of the scientists who wrote them (or maybe that of each of the scientists themselves, depending on their contracts with the university). So if any member of staff published them onto the internet, they did so without authorization either from their senior management, or without the permission of each and every email author if that's their legal setup for IP created at work. Either way, doing so without authorization is hacking. No question. And it's in the FAQ of the Russell enquiry website that it's hacking, and theft. --Nigelj (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Not to split hairs too finely, but there is a difference between accessing something without authorization and publishing something without authorization. Hacking deals with initial access to the information, not its subsequent dessemination. A staffer might have had authorization to access the information, but not publish it. Usually, one refers to the unauthorized release of information from one authorized to access it as a "leak," not a "hack". I personally think that it was hacked, but what I think doesn't matter. In any case, the title is, as Jimbo pointed out, a "silly" diversion from the actual content of the article. Moogwrench (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC) If it's just a "silly diversion", why did you make a big issue out of the removal of the tag? The inaccurate, non-neutral "Climategate" is handled by a redirect, so that should be an end to the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The redirect says WP thinks Climategate = "CRU hacking incident" which is neither accurate nor NPOV. JPatterson (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the text that I link to in my comments. Jimbo specifically said the following: I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something. (emphasis mine) Jimbo Wales Jimbo also said:[27] There was a case to be made at some point that Wikipedia could not and should not endorse the nickname, because it would be POV pushing to do so. However, that point has long since passed, and it is now overwhelmingly the name of the incident in all media. You can find examples of the use of the term by people in favor of the term and against the term. It is no longer POV pushing to call it that - the name was coined, and the name stuck. It is an abuse of the notion of NPOV to claim that no article can have a title that some people don't like, see for example Swiftboating for just one example of a political term that stuck.-- Jimbo Wales 130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Jimbo is saying 1) that Climategate is what the article should be called, and 2) that using instead the silly title "hacking incident" distracts from the real content of the article, and feeds into claims that Wikipedia is supressing something. The current name of the title is the "silly" diversion, not the debate. Moogwrench (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC) That is one very biased definition. Wikipedia provides a more correct one. To quote Computer programmers often use the words hacking and hacker to express admiration for the work of a skilled software developer, but may also use them in a negative sense to describe the production of inelegant kludges. Some frown upon using hacking as a synonym for security cracking -- in distinct contrast to the larger world, in which the word hacker is typically used to describe someone who "hacks into" a system by evading or disabling security measures. I disagree with the word "some", actually "most" computer hackers disagree with the use of the word "hacking" to include theft of data by "security cracking". And if the data was released by someone who actually had access to it, then expert computer knowledge was not necessary. I hope this helps to explain why I strongly object to using that word in the title. "Unauthorized release of documents" is descriptive, "hacking" is misleading at best and probably not true. Q Science (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC) But the key point here is that not a single reliable source, none whatsoever, says that it was a "leak" or anything like that. A preponderance of reliable sources say that a hacking took place and data was stolen. Arguing over the meaning of "hacking", which is obvious to anyone with a soupçon of a vocabulary, is a waste of time. Use of the word in the title is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC) It's interesting that certain parties seem to be doing their best to ignore the RealClimate hack, presumably because it doesn't fit their speculations about "leaks". Another form of denialism, I suppose. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose the article puts way to much emphasis on a non-notable part of the controversy. To wit: 1) The title 2) Emphasis on threats in the lead in an obvious attempt to demonize skeptics with guilt by association 3) The time line only deals with the hack 4) No mention of the the IoP evidence statement 5) Short shrift given to view of reputable scientists who see serious implications for the integrity of the science in the methods and processes revealed in the emails. JPatterson (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources are saying that it was a leak

"But the key point here is that not a single reliable source, none whatsoever, says that it was a 'leak' or anything like that." Well, if this is a key point of an argument, lots of reliable sources are saying that it's a "leak".[28][29][30] [31][32][33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those sources are reliable. You can tell because they call it a "leak". Everybody knows that they were really hacked, not leaked, so any source that suggests they were leaked is unreliable by default. Macai (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Was that intended to be tongue in cheek? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that "leaked" is being used in the context of "not hacked", right? The New Scientist article references a prior one that calls the emails "hacked". The Columbia Journalism Review calls the emails "hacked" before using the word "leak". After your first two links supported this title, I saw no reason to waste my time further. Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What's particularly telling about the New Scientist article is that it references an earlier article of its own. This article refers to a "hack" but the newer article refers to a leak. Thepm (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you give both information. Say in the article that some sources (name a few) are calling it a leak and some (name a few of 'em) are characterizing it as a hack. Problem solved. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A fine solution, except that the title claims that it is a hack. I don't expect that the title "Climatic Research Unit hacking-leak incident" will garner much support :) Thepm (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a solution, because there's no reliable source, even in that list, that uses leak as "leak, not a hack." The hacked emails were leaked to the public. Hipocrite (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the question of the reliability of sources, mere word choice ("hack" versus "leak") is a weak sourcing for such a key question. Verifiability and sourcing relate to assertions of fact, and are not good for setting tone or making inferences. Headlines and introductory sentences in news articles are particularly weak, often added by editors rather than the journalists. If a headline reads something breezy like "science community hunkers down after climate leak boondoggle" would we use that to source that they've all holed up in a bunker? If we truly want to decide whether the article should describe it as a disclosure by insiders versus something dug up by outsiders we need sourcing -- at this point a preponderance of reliable sources -- that say so directly. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about how reliable and unreliable sources can be. Here's some questions that naturally follow from that: How are those sources treating the idea of a "hack"? Are they saying they know for sure it's a hack or are they assuming it? Where's the evidence that it was a hack rather than a leak or something else? If editors want to call it a hack, they have the WP:BURDEN of showing the sources that don't just assume a hack but conclude it's a hack (I suppose by discussing the reasons the sources think it's a hack). Bad sourcing is not an excuse to call it a hack, leak or anything else. Aren't there sources that say we don't know? I understand there's a criminial investigation, but does that investigation depend on it being a hack rather than a leak? Has it established that there was a hack rather than a leak? Sounds to me like this question should be decided on grounds of how strong the sourcing is. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming (and this assumption is counter-factual) that we can't find sources analyzing the hack, what would you call it then? Don't say "Climategate," as that's not a collegial response. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the value in a counterfactual assumption? I vaguely recall that there was some RS article out there that discussed this. IIRC, that article used something like the phrase "release of documents" which seems to cover all possible bases. That kind of article would be the best spot to look for useful wording, wouldn't it? Any news story that discusses the possibility of a leak vs. a hack is going to be confronted with what to call it. If sources establish that we really don't know either way, then (as long as those sources are very respectable and seem authoritative) it doesn't matter that a bunch of sources (which also may be very highly regarded in general) that are ignoring the possibilities are calling it a "hack", "leak" or "banana". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

←This is a ridiculous debate. Reliable sources overwhelmingly state that the servers were hacked, and part of their contents were leaked. It is important to understand that the meaning of "leaked" in this context is very specific, and has nothing to do with any of this "whistleblower" bullshit. Using the word "leak" (as with "release") is problematic because the meaning can be misconstrued (or misrepresented). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, be specific. List the sources. Q Science (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean, reliable sources asserting it was a "leak"? . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean reliable sources saying it was a "hack". Q Science (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, Hacked climate science emails | Environment | guardian.co.uk including the extensive Climate wars: The story of the hacked emails | Environment | guardian.co.uk special investigation. . .dave souza, talk 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, don't worry about the title right now. Consensus was not sufficient to get it renamed, so perhaps it can be readdressed at a later time. For right now, if any (reliable) sources are disputing that the data was hacked. List them here and we'll discuss getting the information in the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is this WP:RS saying that the hacker was an insider.[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Is this Graham the same as this guy? Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? That again? Didn't we discuss this already and decided that someone with no direct knowledge of the situation, wasn't an appropriate source? And isn't this superseded by actual, knowledgeable people? Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the date of the article: Nov. 20. Assuming a deadline the day before the expert had 2 days max. to "look at the data posted". Guettarda (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's this from the Guardian, [35] (see fifth paragraph after the italicized introduction) oddly, it's part of the series with a title that uses "hacker" -- but Fred Pearce, the reporter, seems to have paid more attention than his editors (not surprising). This was published Feb. 9, so it isn't some quick-deadline thing. It also seems to make the point that the distinction between "leak" and "hack" may be blurred. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Hipocrite and Scjessey have provided the most clear-headed thinking on this. The terms "hack" and "leak" are not mutually exclusive. In fact both are used in this article and in the sources it sights. But, we have to be judicious with the use of "leak", because some people will desperately clutch at any straw they can find and interpret that as meaning it was a "whistleblower." Apparently, some people are a little confused about what the word "leak" means. Here are some definitions in regards to the release of documents: To disclose without authorization or official sanction [36] to give out (information) surreptitiously [37] unauthorized (especially deliberate) disclosure of confidential information [38] The disclosure could have come from an insider or an outsider. If I understand correctly, at this point in the investigation, it is not known which. Any attempt to spin this article to imply either one would be inappropriate. Even an insider would still have to have "hacked" the CRU server to get the documents they didn't have access to. And any outsider still had to pass the documents (i.e."leak") to a third party or nobody would have known about it. --CurtisSwain (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then "release" would seem to be the neutral word, except when talking about the investigation into the possible hacking. I agree that there's a potential positive taint to the word "leak" (although I could imagine circumstances where we might be able to use it without implying that an insider was involved). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why my edit was reverted. It was reliably sourced and, since it was one sentence, was not undue. Someone needs to support the reversion with a policy. In the meantime, I'll add a sentence using the Guardian and Computerworld sources. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. NPOV statement which gives both theories as to how the emails and documents were released. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Curtis, when you reverted my edit, you suggested moving it to another section. Why didn't you just go ahead and do so? That would have been much more helpful than just reverting it. Please remember how a wiki is supposed to work- cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion of Cla68's specific edit should have its own discussion, which I've started just below. Please discuss that edit there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdent and break

Ok, above the Guardian was put forth as a reliable source for "leak", but someone said that the Guardian is NOT a reliable source. Later the Guardian was put forth as a reliable source for "hacked", and several editors agreed that it is a reliable source. In other words, it is reliable if you agree with what it says, otherwise, it is not reliable. Oh, and the Guardian also uses the forbidden term "Climategate", so we now have a reliable source for that. (Actually, 47 separate Guardian articles use "Climategate".) By the way, there are about 12 references to the Guardian in the main article, so I vote that it probably is a reliable source. Q Science (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it when editors argue that a large newspaper isn't a reliable source. They'll lose that argument at the Reliable Sources noticeboard everytime (Unless its from a newspaper blog, that's a little more complicated). If you have some information from the The Guardian that you want to put in the article, go ahead and put it in there. If someone removes it, they'll need to provide some kind of policy reason besides WP:RS. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep a list of the specific POV disputes with the article

Scjessey, you removed the list of specific issues editors have raised with the article.[39] Whether or not we agree with the specific items on the list, we should at least keep track of them. How else are we going to move towards removal of the POV tag? If you don't like the specific wording used in the list, I don't blame you. I didn't either. I just copied and pasted the list from HeyItsPeter's post with some slight toning down of the language. Just reword it in such a way that you feel is more neutral. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To say that addressing the POV issues w/ the title is something that we have "to do" suggests that it has to be changed (I realize that allot of editors feel this way, but I don't think it should be asserted as fact). Out of curiousity, can someone point me in the direction of the most recent poll/RfC on the title issue? NickCT (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm saying this wrong, but the to do list should include disputes that need to be resolved, not necessarily content that needs to be changed. That is to say, just because something is disputed, doesn't necessarily mean the dispute is legit. We may examine the item and reach a concensus that no action need be taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To do list

Please do not use the to do list to promote an agenda. It must use completely neutral language that is acceptable to absolutely everybody, or it will almost certainly become yet another battleground. This edit by AQFK is, of course, completely inappropriate because it listed items wholly unacceptable to many editors here. It should only list items that are universally acceptable, such as "improve references for section on _____". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it wasn't my list. If you don't like the wording, just change it. This is a collaborative effort. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the wording. You cannot use the list to push an agenda. To do lists are for noting ambiguous goals, housekeeping tasks, etc. Anything on the list must be universally acceptable to all editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pushing an agenda. Hell, it wasn't even my list. I'm just trying to keep a list of POV items that we need to address to get rid of the POV tag on article. Do you want to get rid of the tag or not? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:TODO:

What a to-do list is

• Place to help give the page clear direction
  • General goals for the page
  • New sections to be added
• A place to note facts which need to be found or checked for the article
• A place to note sections which need expansion or other alterations

What a to-do list is not

• Not a place for discussion (use the talk page for that)
• Not a place for experimental ideas (these should be discussed first to reach a consensus)
• Not a place to express a point of view

It doesn't matter who originally wrote the list. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Can I assume that since a list doesn't violate any of the above, you now withdraw your objection? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be deliberately antagonistic. Your edit to the "to do" list clearly added a list of things desired by only one group of editors ("skeptics"), framed in a manner which ignored the concerns of the other. That's POV-pushing. So no, I won't be withdrawing my objection. The neutrality of the "to do" list will be vigorously defended. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I used HeyItsPeters JPatterson's list because he was the only editor I saw who bothered creating a list (in now collapsed discussion). I can't put any of your POV concerns in the list because you don't have any. You said the article is already NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The "to do" list should not include a list of POV concerns from anyone. Only stuff we all agree to should be in the list, as indicated by the instructions. This shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Then how do you propose to resolve the POV dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's another matter entirely, and not related to the "to do" list (and not suitable for this thread). Besides, it's not me who is disputing anything so it's a waste of time asking me. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A todo list with POV disputes is not related to the POV dispute? Anyway, humor me. How do you propose to resolve the POV dispute? Let's hear some good ideas, not objectionist rejections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to humor you. I am not a clown. I am not disputing the article as it currently exists - if you dispute the current text, it is up to you to propose a solution. In the meantime, please stop trying to bait me. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did propose a methodology for a solution which you rejected. I'm asking if you have any counter-proposals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I've gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate skeptics, but in each case I have found an unwillingness to compromise. When an inch is offered, a mile is demanded. I've lost my desire to bend over backward for intransigent editors seeking to pretend climate change isn't real. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This has seemed like madness in the past: if anybody who likes can add any unsourced demand to the conditions of having a {POV} tag, then there is no hope of ever removing it. We go through these points over and over again, listing the sources that support the current text, and asking for the RSs that support the proposals. We get blogs and opinions from the right-wing press; we say that's not good enough; and just go around again. These people won't stop until the article is called 'The death of climate science' and the text says that all scientists are proven crooks and the whole thing was a communist conspiracy. It's easier to let them have the tag, and just keep countering the arguments, which is relatively easy based on WP policies. --Nigelj (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinagate

Chinagate has pointed here for a month, apparently supported by an article in The New American. Hardly a mainstream RS. Is the motive really to improve Wikipedia? When 100 nazi professors criticized the theory of relativity, Einstein mildly commented that if there was anything wrong with the theory, one professor would suffice. So if this is a real scandal, one "-gate" should probably suffice. AMR (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just one editor being silly. Now removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, most of the time when something points to an article, the article should give the reader an idea of why. This article doesn't mention China at all Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

Cla68 and AR seem to want to add in some speculation, and you can tell Cla's edit *must* be OK because he has said it is NPOV, so how could anyone object? But it is conttroversial, so AR reverted it back in without bothering to discuss the matter. Who could object to that? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that it does not seem useful to promote speculation. We should stick to reliably reported facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fail. We don't rip out the speculation that Allan Hills 84001 may contain evidence of ancient life on Mars, do we? If you want this content omitted from the article, please provide a valid reason. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's completely different. ALH84001 was the subject of a hypothesis put forward by experts directly involved with examining it, based on physical evidence that they found, photographed and documented. Graham's views on the CRU hack are mere personal opinion put forward by someone with no personal knowledge of the CRU's systems and no access to them, based on no reproducible evidence. You really didn't think that comparison through, did you? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. Can Graham's statement be verified? Yes. Was it published by a reliable source? Yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla68's edits fail on the merits. He wrote that Computer world in [40] can be summarized to say "the emails could have been hacked by an outside party, or leaked by an insider or climate change community member with access to the server." Computerworld explicitly does not say this. In fact, Computerworld is quite clear that it was a hacking, not a "leak," to wit, the only use of "insider" is "Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said." In fact, Computerworld cam be summarized to say "the emails could have been hacked by an outside party, an insider or cr someone familiar with the climate change debate." I haven't even looked at the other source. I'll do so now. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe the wording can be improved to better match the source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could. I don't see that the source adds any information - "Someone hacked the CRU. It could have been anyone, except they definently cared about climate change." Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While there's nothing wrong with discussing this addition, there is something wrong with edit-warring to insert it. After all, the information was in the article. It was removed after discussion. There was an attempt to reinsert it a couple months ago. There was no consensus for that change. Consensus can change. Let's have a discussion, let's establish a new consensus. But don't edit-war to get it in. What Cla and Arthur Rubin are doing is unacceptable, especially on an article like this that's under sanction. Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla and Arthur Rubin don't edit this article as frequently as the rest of us and are probably unaware that it used to be in the article. In fact, I didn't even know it used to be in the article until I accidentally stumbled upon when looking at old version of the article from back in November. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We discussed Mr Graham's quote at length in the past. He had not examined the servers or the IT security structure at CRU so he had no inside or specialist knowledge of this hack. He does not quote any survey of 'this type of incident[s]', so his round 80% figure does not seem to have any statistical basis. This is probably the first time that climate science-related emails have been hacked from a university system, so there probably aren't any others of 'this type of incident' with which to compare it. Errata Security does not seem to be a notable company, so we also have to wonder how many even remotely similar incidents in the academic world he is basing his speculation on. --Nigelj (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem with all the speculation about the hacking. Another bit of speculation came from the Daily Mail. alleging without any attributable evidence that the whole affair was a hacking by the Russian intelligence service intended to influence the Copenhagen talks. Evidence? None, just a bit of creative journalism intended to sell newspapers and raise the profile of a not-very-reputable newspaper on the not-very-reputable blogs.

We've got all the time in the world to build a decent encyclopedia, so adding the latest bit of idiotic speculation from the latest unreliable source just isn't necessary. People who think Wikipedia is or should be an aggregation service for newspapers. newsreels, blogs and the like, should probably seek employment with Google News. People who argue that, no matter what the subject and what the context, newspapers can be considered reliable sources, probably won't succeed in convincing anybody in any particular case. --TS 17:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, cherry-picking which newspaper articles we consider reliable doesn't quite work. For this reason we look at a consensus of sources, among them newspapers. WP:V is pretty clear that newspapers are RSs: "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." (emphasis mine) Moogwrench (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to know why a short, simple sentence on an important aspect of the article topic is inappropriate. WilliamConnelly's edit summary mentioned "speculation" but I don't think that's quite the nature of the information added: It is just as speculative to say "hack" as to say "leak". What's responsible for Wikipedia is to point out what we don't know. Especially because "hack" is getting thrown around by sources who also, very evidently, don't really know. It's a matter of good editorial judgment to point out to readers important information on the subject that we still don't know. I think the word "speculation" should probably be taken out of the sentence, which should read 'The Guardian and Computerworld have stated that it is unknown whether or not the released documents were hacked by an outside party, or leaked by an insider or climate change community member with access to the server. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not true? Compterworld says no such thing - in fact, Computerworld is quite clear that it was a hack. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then if you leave out Computerworld, you've got: According to a report in The Guardian it is unknown whether or not the released documents were hacked by an outside party, or leaked by an insider or climate change community member with access to the server. What part of that is not true? Please don't tell me it's not relevant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Even better: According to a report in The Guardian it is unknown whether or not the released documents were made public through "a deliberate leak from within the system, a hack from outside or a chance find." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no comments about whether it's a "hack" which are "expert"; the police comment is that they're treating it as a data breach, not that they necessarily believe it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you're both streatching a great deal to include something that can be summarized to say "no one knows who instigated the hack, and how sophisticated the hacker was." Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about whether or not we know it's a hack, which is a different point from how sophisticated or who the person was who released the information. And the article states in the lead that it was a hack. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of articles state it was a hack in the lede. In fact, the sole article which you are using to dispute that it was a hack states that it was a hack in the lede, and multiple times in the body. With that, I take my leave from this thread. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The lead (the first paragraph not in italics) doesn't say that. (Is there more than one copy on the Web? Here's the one I'm looking at [41].) The word "hack" is in the headline slapped on by the editors. The second paragraph begins Who are the likely hackers, or liberators, of the emails [...] The actual journalism here reporting, writing, publication of same after review by editors, says we don't know. As Wikidemon said way up on the page, headlines and the rushed deadline-journalism of the day after are not the best sources. No news reporter has insisted it was a hack rather than a leak. Fred Pearce, environmental reporter for The Guardian insists we don't know. We don't know. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic janitorial comments between JWB and TS; I'm OK with deleting this -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've moved JohnWBarber's comments here because they are directly related to the comments by me and Dr. Connolley about our reasons for removing that content, for which purpose Dr. Connolley created this discussion section. --TS 17:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, thank you. I'm going to remove part of them because they seem confusing. My mistake for not checking down further on the page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No problem. Thanks for making the effort to keep discussions together. --TS 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the most up-to-date reliable and informed source on the matter is the FAQ page of the website recently set up to publish the results of the Muir Russell independent review. They use the word hack 8 times and leak twice, as in the following sentence, "The incident saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online." It's notable too that the review is called the 'The independent climate change email review', yet Heyitspeter removed the word email from the title of this article too, to satisfy some need at the time. --Nigelj (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been covered before. It's a WP:SPS, not a third-party reliable source and the hacking/leak isn't part of the investigation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The independent review isn't reliable, but random conservative bloggers are? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with somebody else. I've never cited random conservative bloggers or any blogger for that matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The source I've cited is The Guardian and I consider it more reliable than a group set up by the University of East Anglia, which emphasized "hack" and "stolen" in its initial PR statements back in November, just after the release. They didn't know then whether the stuff was leaked or hacked and there is no indication they know it now ("stolen" could also be consistent with "leak"). Look: The Guardian story says we don't know and no one asserts that we do. Except Wikipedia: From the very first sentence: thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the hacking of a server. I thought the objection here was to Wikipedia publishing speculation. That the documents were hacked is speculation. Widespread maybe, but just speculation. Let's remove it from the lead and add the sentence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, except Computerworld, which was previously asserted reliable on the hacking issue. I mean, Computerworld is quite clear it was a hack - it analyizes the hack in detail, and says the hacker was quite possibly a UEA insider. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no: Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said. I believe that's classic speculation from someone far from the scene. He was commenting on whether it was an insider or outsider. I doubt very much if Graham meant to make a distinction between "hacker" and "leaker" and if he'd been asked, Well, if it's an insider 80 percent of the time, couldn't it be a leak from someone authorized to look at those documents? then how could he possibly respond other than by saying, I really don't know. Graham's statement is speculation. As WMC and TS and others have said, we don't want speculation. And it's in the lead. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I was confusing you with someone else. I apologize. However, the independent review is a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is by no means reliable on this point. We have no way of knowing how careful they were on this point in the statement they put up on the web -- put up at the start of their inquiry, written by someone probably in the PR office of the University of East Anglia. The UEA's response from the very beginning was to loudly concentrate on the idea that the information was stolen -- not a bad idea when your university is in some PR trouble. For all we know, the same PR person who wrote those news releases wrote what's on the "Independent Review"'s web page. It would make sense. Are they even looking into whether or not it was a hack or leak? Isn't that the realm of the police investigation? We have The Guardian reporter considering the matter and knowledgable about the facts, reviewing it months afterwards without some obvious deadline pressure. It's the most reliable thing we've seen on this point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I try to read what you say, I get hung up on you saying "We have no way of knowing how careful they were on this point in the statement they put up on the web -- put up at the start of their inquiry, written by someone probably in the PR office of the University of East Anglia." Please don't make things up out of whole cloth. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't stretch what I said into "making things up". Reliable sources are defined at WP:RS as Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both. An ad hoc group set up by a university with PR problems, however independent, can not be trusted by us to act like a reliable source in this situation. The fact that it is possible that the University's PR department wrote up the statement on that Web page (based on my personal experience with these things, which I know doesn't really count here, I'm 95 percent sure that it did), indicates how unreliable these kinds of ad hoc groups are. They do not have to have a reliable publication process on things like whether or not they know the information was hacked or leaked. Not at the start of the inquiry. The Guardian is set up to be careful about facts in everything it publishes, not an ad hoc group with a web site. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with John. That "hack" is in their statement of purpose, which is almost certainly defined by UEA, even if the exact wording is not UEA's. It's not reliable, except as to the scope of the investigation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I would trust what they say formally at the conclusion of the investigation unless there were good reasons brought up to doubt them. They always seem to go over those final statements with a fine-toothed comb. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, you've just defended speculation by indulging in further speculation--nakedly and without even bothering to apologise. Just stop. We cannot build an encyclopedia by giving free rein to our imagination. We build it on verifiable facts only. Speculation cannot be used to trump verifiable facts. --TS 19:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Look, I'm not in favor of removing 'hack' from the article because there are other third-party, reliable sources which use this term. But let me clarify what I meant.

I don't think this web site counts as a reliable source for how the e-mails were accessed for the following 2 reasons:

1. It's not really independent. Yes, I know they claim to be independent, but anyone can claim to be independent. That doesn't make it true. The fact is that the panel was organized by an involved member in the dispute.
2. How the e-mails were accessed is outside the scope of their investigation. The review's goals are very specific. It is only going to investigate claims of scientific misconduct, not how the e-mails were accessed. This isn't even something they're going to look at.

Another very important point to consider is that when their investigation is complete, third-party, reliable sources (New York Times, BBC News, etc.) will cover their conclusions. When that happens, we can simply cite those articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just saw this [42] from a place called "IT-Networks/Online News Service". I don't know how reliable they are, but they appear to be doing a combination of interesting reporting and combining it with a bit of the Guardian coverage, although they don't seem to link to individual Guardian stories, so it's a bit difficult to figure out. (It's dated Feb 6, but I can find no Guardian story that they refer to -- maybe it's from that 12-part Guardian series, but that's all dated Feb. 9 -- I find this totally confusing). Anyway, they do assert that a hacker was involved and they say the hacker was from the Eastern U.S. or Canada and didn't seem to be an expert in climate science. If this is a reliable source, it's contrary to what the Guardian said in that story I've been referring to. Are they reliable? Does the fact that the bottom of the Web page refers to "Wordpress" mean this is some kind of a really fancy blog? I have no idea. Worth reviewing. This seems to indicate a hack, not a leak:

Digital forensic analysis shows that the zipped archive of emails and documents was not produced on a single date. Instead it was created by copying the files over a number of weeks, with bursts on 30 September 2009, 10 October and 16 November. On the last date a folder of computer analysis code by Osborn was added to the package. The digital forensics on the files indicate that they were created on a computer set at some times four hours behind GMT, and at others five hours behind – plants the hacker on the eastern seaboard of Canada or the US.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Back to WMC's removal of my edit...as far as I can tell, his only reasoning is that "I don't like it." He didn't detail exactly what was wrong with it. Hipocrite stated that the edit misrepresented what computerworld said. That is easily fixable by readding the quote from the cybersecurity exper that was removed previously. Unless someone can come up with a valid reason not to include it, I'll be readding the material soon. Cla68 (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that given you have already misrepresented sources, you should not be re-adding anything. Your single-sourced edit misrepresents the bulk of what the Guardian (and most other sources, including the first one you referenced) says about it being a hacking to instead cherry-pick one sentence from one article. Not good - certainly, not NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We add what the RSs are saying. If you think they are saying something different than what I'm saying then you need to say so and add such information yourself. So, what are the sources, including Computerworld and The Guardian, saying Hipocrite? Cla68 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the entire corpus of information as opposed to googling to find one source for a fact that you'd like to add. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you didn't answer my question. If the sources are saying that the documents got out through either a hack or possibly an internal whistleblower, then that should be said in the article. What reasons do you have for not including this information in the article? Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in Speculation

If we remove this instance of "speculation," we better also make sure every instance of hack has the word "allegedly" pressed right up along side it, and change the title as well. The double standard would be a bit much.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

About the POV tag (yes, again)

The {{POV-title}} tag results in the text "...title and/or subject matter ...". Is it one, the other, or both? Obviously the title is subject to, umm, controversy, and people are rather exhausted discussing that just at the moment. Are there concerns with POV within the text? Can they be resolved separately from the title? If it's just the title, then I'm inclined to subst: the template and change the wording. Or maybe I should make two "badges of shame", one for the title, one for the subject matter, and let you guys work on them one at a time? Franamax (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The name is fine, the content is fine. All reliable sources (that is, sources that actually have information about the circumstances) are calling it a hacking. If there are specific problems with the content they can be raised. I am not currently aware of any serious point-of-view problems with the article, but there are people who think it's a seriously unbalanced article if it isn't flailing its arms in the air and yelling "Danger! Will Robinson!" for reasons they don't seem able to explain adequately. --TS 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on which editors you ask. For me, all my content POV issues have been resolved and the article title is the only POV issue remaining. Other editors, however, are disputing both the POV of the article title and the article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the title goes, there are two basic issues, both of which may apply to any given editor. 1) Some editors feel that there is inadequate support among the sources, especially recent ones, for the definite assertion of a hacking, and so feel that the title is a bit of a misnomer, and 2) Some editors feel that the title reflects a POV that places the hacking incident (about which little is known) in importance above what was revealed in the documents/emails and the related controversy which ensued after the hacking incident (extensively documented in the press). Of these, I personally think #2 is a more tenable position. Moogwrench (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There has never been any attempt, that I know of, not to discuss in this article the precursors and the consequences of the incident in the title. The article says that a lot of heat (but not much light) has been generated in the press and elsewhere ("newspapers, government organizations and private individuals"). It used to say that many felt that the timing (just before COP15) was not a coincidence, but I see this has been expunged at the moment, although refs are still there. The reality is that as far as any specific accusations made against the living people who wrote those emails go, very little can be said, encyclopedically or legally, until after the formal reviews start to return their reports. I think a lot of the present problem is just people's impatience with waiting for these, and the feeling that in the meantime, "we've got to do something". Well we haven't. There'll be plenty to report on once we have access to the facts. There's no need to start speculating now, and having to back-track later. Therefore there's no need for a POV tag that says "not enough speculation here". --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking about the POV tag gets confused by some into asking for their POV, I think. As I said above, some "won't stop until the article is called 'The death of climate science' and the text says that all scientists are proven crooks", so we're going to have to frame the question more carefully. Like, 'Please suggest well-sourced text that, if added to the article, would in your opinion warrant the removal of the tag. If you haven't got any, then we'll remove it anyway.' --Nigelj (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While there are some minor issues left, most of the larger issues have been addressed. If we could find a way to address the hacking/leaking issue, I'd support removing the tag. I have no problem with leaving a reference to hacking in the article, but given that it is inference, not yet proven, and there are reliable sources with an alternative view, I don't understand the objection to noting the existence of the alternative view. It isn't a fringe view, which would not deserve mention.--SPhilbrickT 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, regarding Item #1 of my previous post, and your reponse, it is funny that you say that those who oppose the current title are the ones arguing that "we have do something." It is the supporters of the current title, who wish to make the affirmative determination that it was a hack in the title, not its detractors, who would most likely embrace something with a more ambiguous title like "data release".

As I said, I personally have issue more with Item #2 in my previous post. This hack would have practically zero notability were it not for content of the emails and the controversy it provoked. In the same way that World War I is not named Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, it does not make sense for the small, initiatory event of the controversy (the hack) to take precendence over the much larger controversy itself in the naming of the article. Hence the title of this article ought to have the controversy as its subject, not the hack. As to wording, well... the most common name for the controversy has been declared verboten by several editors, even though quite a few of us, Jimbo included, feel that we should follow its usage by the majority of RSs. Moogwrench (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to refocus here, I want to change the tag wording to say that the article title is disputed and get rid of the "and/or subject matter" part. If the tag is going to be there, and it's probably best to just leave that aside for now, I want it to accurately specify the dispute. Is the subject matter disputed? If so, what specific disputes need to be resolved? Franamax (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It you actually want to change the template/tag's wording, why not open up an RFC on the subject at the template's talk page? This tag is widely used so I have no idea what kind of a response you would get. Moogwrench (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many disputes. The title is obviously OR and not supported by reliable sources. The first sentence of the intro declares, without any evidence, that the documents were "hacked", which is only one of several speculative possibilities. The "Climategate" redirect points here instead of to Climatic Research Unit documents. Q Science (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both are disputed by different groups of editors here. I tried creating a list of disputes yesterday but even that was disputed.

In any case, I'm not sure if removing the tag is a good idea until the article has achieved some level of stability. This is an ongoing event and the article is being changed multiple times a day. While I might personally think the article content has finally achieved neutrality, this is a delicate balance that can easily be shattered with the next biased edit. In fact, we just had a mini-edit war earlier today which has not been resolved yet (there's a temporary cease-fire while editors discuss it on the talk page). The safest course of action is probably to do nothing. Otherwise, we'll get in the unenviable situation of editors fighting over the tag every time there's a perceived biased edit to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So to sum up so far:

• No, I'm not going to open an RFC about the template, I am going to change the wording on this specific page. I might do it by adding an optional parameter to the template, maybe it's already there. Convince me otherwise.
• Q Science: to riff on TS's Lost in Space metaphor, "oh the pain, the pain of it all" You would have to have watched Dr. Smith to get that. :) - can the title be left aside please?

But, the original question by you was (paraphrased) 'Does the POV tag apply to the title, the text, or both?' How does leaving it aside answer that question? Q Science (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did phrase the opening with rhetorical wording. I then tried to make clear that I was pursuing the non-title bit of it only here, but I should probably not use such elliptical language (things like saying I use elliptical language). :) Franamax (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Q Science: "hacked" seems to be supported by current RS which describe it thus.

But many RS say "leaked" or not known. To select one term over another is OR and NOT supported by any RS. Q Science (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the discussions is that "preponderance of sources" prefers "hacked" before, or in the absence of, other terms. I'm not making my own decision here, I'm reading what others have to say. If this is a concern for you, please open a new thread then. Franamax (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Lots of reliable sources are saying that it was a leak (above) where I specifically asked for any RS that said "Hacked". The only RS provided also used "Leaked" a lot, clearly indicating that selecting one term over the other is simply OR. Q Science (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Q Science: Article titles don't have much choice over which redirects point to them, if you're worried about where Climategate redirects, can you take that up elsewhere? I can try to help you find the right spot.

Others have requested that the redirect be discussed here and only here. Therefore, it is a part of the POV discussion. Q Science (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no it's not part of this discussion. Start another thread below if you wish or point me to these "others" and I can converse with them directly on where this should be handled. I intended this thread only to find out what issues may remain within the article, so as to refine the POV tag that heads this article. Let's work out the redirect separately. Franamax (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• AQFK: I did see that todo list and my preference would have been that it get addressed and/or shot down one-by-one rather than removed. Can you do it again with a neutral description of the various disputes, and diff's to point uninvolvers to where these disputes can be reviewed?
• AQFK: I have a special button for mini-edit wars. I'm quite determined not to use it. Perceived bias in edits can be (and better be) well discussed on the talk page before tag-fighting ensues. What I'm trying to do is tease out individual issues of POV in the article itself, which of these are outstanding? I'll try to handle fighting over the tag, the rest of you need to be figuring out a consensus on the content.

That either clarifies things or leaves them with my preferred approach of vague comments and threats. :) Franamax (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the tag to reflect concerns about the POV of the article as well. There is an unresolved dispute concerning WP:UNDUE in the section at the top of this page. That's enough. However, the timeline is also disputed as per WP:UNDUE, for it does not include any information about the uncertain status of the hacking allegations despite the protests of editors in the above section. I also have NPOV concerns about the rest of the response section, which containes numerous POV forks. So, Franamax, would you mind adjusting the tag to reflect these concerns by including "subject matter" under the tag?--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that in a bulleted list with pointers to discussion and backing diffs, so that the actual editors here can discuss the issues. "Vague sense of unease" isn't really cutting it for me here. I've identified the wording of the title as a bone of contention and that is not on the current table. If we can pin down and resolve at least one of the issues with the article itself, that will be progress, no? Franamax (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vague sense of unease? Franamax, did you read any of my comment? It's horribly frustrating to hear this kind of disregard from an administrator. In any case, what follows is a bulleted version of my earlier statement. The requested tag would read, "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed," so here are sections containing said subject matter disputes specifically:

• #Inclusion_of_FoIA_material as per WP:UNDUE
• #Lots_of_reliable_sources_are_saying_that_it_was_a_leak as per NPOV#Impartial_tone

Also some diffs from other sections

• [43] as per WP:POVFORK
• A list of concerns according to AQFK.

It seems to me that this article unambiguously qualifies for such a tag ipso facto.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As per my own concerns about WP:POVFORK. It seems to me that a lot of the article consists of statements about how strong climate science is. These constitute a WP:POVFORK, as the strength of the climate science has nothing to do with the hacking incident. If there is a reason to include these statements (e.g., someone is addressing a point brought up by a senator, or what have you), we can include them. As is, though, not so much. --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HeyitsPeter. I'll take your "horribly frustrating" comment as a general one not aimed at me particularly. I'll tell you what's horribly frustrating, 28 archived talk pages for an article that has existed for four months. Identifying and resolving specific issues is the only way I can see out of this. I've read through the first link you provided and I'm not reading consensus as being with your viewpoint. Other than yourself disagreeing with the outcome, and Lord knows I've done lots of that, is there a specific policy point you wish to raise? Can you formulate your dissatisfaction with a specific RFC question? Franamax (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're looking for consensus 'that there is a dispute'?

Specific issues sound good to me. I've stated many. As per an explication of my own WP:POVFORK concerns, I think the following text should be removed:

"On November 23, a spokesman for the Met Office, a UK agency which works with the CRU in providing global-temperature information, said there was no need for an inquiry. "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."

And that this edit should stick (removed here).--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your summing up missed an important point (or perhaps not important to some, but since it was my only point, one more time)—yes, there is RS support for "hacked". There is also RS support for the view that we don't know for sure that they are hacked. The normal course of events is a "some sources say X, while others say Y". I don't see any good reason not to do that in this case. That would solve my only substantive problem with the content POV. Not so easy to fix the title, but that's going to take some time, so if you make the minor fix to the content, I'd be happy with restricting the POV template to the title, and would even support removing it altogether, as I think the only passage of time will clarify the title.--SPhilbrickT 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Franamax, where should we create this list? A subpage? This talkpage? Someplace else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say have another shot at the /todo page, it's not a target for mainstream viewing. Restate the issues, but make them a neutral statement about whatever dispute may be currently outstanding, specifically not encompassing your own view of how things should turn out. I'll support the content so long as it can lead to productive discussion and consensus and is not loaded one way or the other. Shouldn't we be trying to break the problem down into little bits, then solving each bit? Whether or not the result suits anyone's desired outcome, I don't see another way to proceed. Mountains are climbed by single steps. Franamax (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are really hard to find given huge talk page archives. (There are 28 archives in only 4 months this article has existed.) Will a link to an archived discussion suffice? For example:[44] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine for a link, it would just need a neutral statement beside it to outline the core of the dispute in like, ten words or less. I think it's being discussed just above too, so you may end up with multiple links - which would actually be a good thing eventually, instead of "to do", why not have an index to the mini-disputes within the mega-disputes? And hint, I likely would not close that discussion with a result you would like, but I only read it once. Franamax (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You post your question on the 12th and a few hours later, Hipocrite changes the tag? Specific issues were raised about the subject matter neutrality which were collapsed above because consensus was not reached. I've restored the tag to include content, the neutrality of which is disputed. JPatterson (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Past discussions of potential time line issues?

JPatterson said one of the POV disputes is that "The time line only deals with the hack". I can't find any discussions about this in the talk page archives. Can anyone find any? Or is this a new item that JPatterson just brought up this week? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I came up with my list independent of past discussions based on my objections to the current article. The list is in the now collapsed section above. (I am not sure what is motivating the penchant for collapsing discussions on this page but I don't appreciate it). JPatterson (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Franamax is asking for diffs. If anyone wants to help me find some, I've posted what I have so far on my talk page.[45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of what?? The question was what specific content neutrality issues remain. I've listed those that are of concern to me. There was no chance to discuss them because shortly after I posted them, Hipocrite collapsed the thread with the comment "Obviously not happening now". Of course that didn't stop him from editing the tag anyway a few hours later. JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of past discussions about the specific items on your list. Or links to archived discussions will suffice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rethinking Climategate

I have to confess that Jimbo's arguments have caused me to rethink my position against using Climategate as an article title. I think part of the problem is that there is a lot of misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean that articles should be neutral (laymen's definition). It means the editors should be neutral. That is to say, we are supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources. If the world adopts a partisan term, it's against WP:NPOV to not use it. That might sound strange to some but that's exactly what WP:NPOV requires. We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter bias of reliable sources. In the past, I've cited WP:AVOID as the reason for my rejection of Climategate as a title. However, WP:AVOID is only a guideline. WP:NPOV is a policy. When guidelines conflict with policies, policies always win. So, the question becomes, has the world adopted Climategate as the most common name for this article's topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the word "hacking," what POV is expressed by the title? Using "climategate" expresses the POV that this was a major scandal. That pov is disputed - there are reliable sources expressing both. When reliable sources are on both sides of the issue, we explain the controversy. If you'd like an article about "Climategate" the phrase, I'm happy to help you work on that - in fact, there's a draft discussing the controversy, as opposed to taking sides, in my user space, at User:Hipocrite/Climategate which you and others are welcome to edit, with the caveat that in my userspace, everyone but me is on 0rr, but you can fork my content wherever you want. Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a scandal. Time will tell how bad (major) it will get. Jimbo said [46] the following on 11th March. "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."

So per Jimbo and "the world at large" 'Climategate' it should be. The main CRU page should contain some basic info on the hacking incident and contain a link to 'Climategate'. (aka IP 130.232.x.x)91.153.115.15 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was saying with 2009 Honduran coup d'etat situation. Many editors, including me initially, I must admit, didn't like the title because they felt it was POV against the Micheletti government. But, and here is the crucial thing, just like with Climategate, the majority of the RSs were using that term to describe what had happened. Look, it is not up to us to decide that the majority of the RSs have got it wrong or are using the "right" term (In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense --WP:TITLE). In short, we must follow a consensus of the RSs, regardless over whether or not we personally think they are wrong in their use of a particular term or what they report. Moogwrench (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, I am so sorry. I have to admit that your post was so long, I didn't bother reading it. But it looks like our analyses are similar. I note that Dave Souza provides a counter-argument, but its flaw is that it's using a guideline to overrule policy which is clearly wrong. Here's a link to the thread.[47] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So Jimbo Wales disagrees with others here. Of course he's free to do so, but I don't see what that changes. The term is still a fairly clear violation of WP:AVOID, is a pejorative phrase which implies a strong partisan POV, is widely enclosed in quotation marks in the wider media (implying that it is a loaded term applied by "skeptics"), is ambiguous (e.g. is it just the CRU hack, or a wider dumping ground for the Global warming conspiracy theory?), and is still included in the article for those searching for it. At the very most, the article should be about the term itself as per Hipocrite's suggestion, but calling the incident itself "Climategate" sacrifices neutrality. There's a clear precedent with other "-gate" articles, even those which receive widespread use -- such articles receive a far less loaded title. StuartH (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that it's perfectly acceptable for an article's title to be biased (layman's definition). Proper names which incorporate non-neutral terms (such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Jack the Ripper, etc.) are legitimate article titles if those are the most common names in English. I think the WP:AVOID argument is now dead because WP:NPOV takes precedence over it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new title and lead (very rough around the edges).

The Climategate scandal concerns allegations of misconduct by climate scientists.

The scandal began in November 2009 when it was discovered that thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The UEA has announced that an independent review of the allegations will be carried out by Sir Muir Russell and that the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, would stand aside from his post during the review.91.153.115.15 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I saw this subject discussed on the Jimbo Wales page. I have zero interest or knowledge of this entire area, but I thought the title discussion was interesting. My feeling, as a totally disinterested person (and Wikipedia newcomer) is that neither "Climategate" nor the current title will fit the bill. "Climategate" is the term critics use, and seems to be used by the Times and other newspapers and media people in scare quotes. The "hacking incident" title, I agree, just won't work either. "Hacking" is prejudicial, and the "-gate" suffice is prejudicial too. Both take sides. Why not "Global warming email interception"? That way, Wikipedia isn't taking sides, by judging either the contents of the email or the manner in which the emails were obtained. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestions is too generic. The title should be more descriptive. A possibility would be to substitute 'incident' with 'interception' in the current title.91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone tried "Climactic Research Unit data breach controversy"? The word "breach" just came to me. I don't know if it has legal significance, but to me a breach can either involve intrusion or a leak. (I don't know that "interception" is necessarily accurate). Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

EVERYTHING has been tried! Well almost... Breach sounds pretty good but per Jimbo[48] I'm rooting for Climategate or Climategate controversy/scandal.91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think most people know what the Climactic Research unit is. However, most people know that it's got something to do with "global warming" and with "emails." Howt about "Global warming emails controversy"? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions to consider

• What is "climategate"
• What is this article about?

So what is "climategate"? Well, it keeps changing...

• The "final nail in the coffin", as Inhofe et al. called it? Not even close.
• A scandal that shows data manipulation and an attempt to "hide the decline"? Nope. All of that has a pretty innocent explanation
• Evidence of scientific improprieties? The Penn State review found nothing, other reviews are ongoing, but unlikely to find anything either
• Evidence of improper manipulation of peer review? There was a bit of noise about that early on, but really, saying "if that's peer review, we need to change peer review" is pretty ho-hum. Maybe the Russell commission will find something, but that really doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
• Failure to fill an FOI request? That's a "-gate" scandal? Again, who knows what the Russell commission will find, but seriously - if every time someone failed to fill an FOI request we made up a name for it, we'd have run out of names years ago.
• Glaciers in the Himalayas? Wait, no, that's an entirely different "scandal" - the scandal of reversing digits. "Dyslexia-gate"? "Dysnumeria-gate"?
• Record snowfalls in Washington DC, which is proof positive that Al Gore is fat, or something of the sort?

And what's this article about?

• The data theft & hack of the RC server...not a controversy, just a crime
• The contents of the docs...mostly spun off into a daughter article, and upon examination there's no "there" there, just spin.
• Responses calling for investigations, and where the investigations have gotten to...bit of controversy in there, but it is the reaction to the incident.

This article, the product of carefully crafted debate, isn't about "climategate". Problem is, it's impossible to write an article about "climategate" without engaging in major OR. The supposed "scandal" keeps changing, and it really has never gelled into something more substantial that Rush Limbaugh's "I know it's a hoax because liberals are behind it".

The current title is a description of the contents of the article, which is in keeping with the way it was describes by reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your post goes to the heart of why this article is not NPOV. It is not for WP (i.e. WP editors) to say "what Climategate is". That's for the outside world to decide. Despite the fact that the controversy has been on going for four months, many editors here have trouble even admitting that a scandal exists, because they are of the opinion that the allegations have no basis in fact. But again, that's not our call to make. A scandal is defined by the impact it has, regardless of whether the consequences are merited or not. A reader of this article would not be able to understand how and why the email revelations have proved so embarrassing, have shaken public confidence in the integrity of climate science and killed the chances of meaningful mitigation in the US and elsewhere and thus falls far short of encyclopedic quality.

I also dispute the notion that this article is "the product of carefully crafted debate". More like carefully orchestrated gatekeeping by these who've decided they server a higher calling. You're right about one thing though - this article not being about "Climategate". So why does Climategate redirect here and why did you oppose my suggestion that it be redirected to the article about the document contents? JPatterson (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Guettarda, you say that there is a "bit of controversy in there, but it is the reaction to the incident". Besides being an understatement, it is not precisely true. They are not reacting to the incident, they are reacting to the product of the incident, the emails and documents. People reacting to the incident would be complaining about lax computer security and hackers, not the behavior of climate scientists and what they have written. If you want to know what Climategate is, all the RSs basically treat it as the controversy surrounding those emails and documents. The hacking is incidental, and thus does not deserve to carry the title for the larger controversy. Easy. Moogwrench (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

JPatterson hits the nail on the head in his first paragraph. This article doesn't address why the general public, many pundits, and many policymakers have materially changed their views on climate science issues in recent months. While some of those reactions may be misguided, pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, it is not our job to wrote the what we think people should be thinking, it is our job to write what reliable sources tell us has happened. It is becoming clear to me that we need two articles. One called something like CRU document incident (or whatever) that is roughly this article, pared back a fair amount to include only the incident, plus a separate article called Climategate, that discusses the broader issues such as the changing public perceptions (rightly or wrongly). Each should have a see also pointing to the other, but a fair amount of the debate arises because we are trying to write two different articles in the same space. I won't pretend separating into two articles will lead to sweetness and light, but it would be a good step forward.--SPhilbrickT 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I assume, then, that the most appropriate course of action would be to

1. Ready Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Climate Gate/ and mainline it ASAP.
2. Excise or minimize portions of this article which deal with aftermath/controversy
3. Have only ONE move request and no other related RfC (very important to avoid confusion over where to !vote and form consensus) to move this article to something like Climatic Research Unit data release

Moogwrench (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. Don't waste your time. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to try again to rename the article Climategate, then just start another RfC asking that question. Otherwise, I don't think it's that big of a deal since the intro mentions that this name is the commonly used name for this topic. Cla68 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is the whole point. We had multiple RfCs AND a move request for the previous proposed name change, a whole bunch of people got confused as to when and where to place there comments for consensus building, and so my recommendation is to limit is to just one discussion. Moogwrench (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's up to the community to decide that, ChrisO. Again, if there are to be two articles, one should be on the controversy, and the other can be on the incident. But if there is to be only one, then it should have the controversy as a subject, not the incident, a less notable topic on which comparatively little ink has been used. Moogwrench (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The hacking itself is such a insignificant event it could as well be covered by a few sentences on the CRU page. The controversy/scandal is the article.130.232.214.10 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The community has already decided it. There have been something like 8 or 9 name change proposals, including several for the POV nickname "Climategate". It is more than a little irritating to have people like you turning up every couple of weeks, apparently unaware of all the previous discussions, wasting everyone's time with yet another version of the same proposal that - like all the others - is doomed to failure. The facts have not changed, the policy has not changed and the POV nickname "Climategate" is as unacceptable now as it has always been. Why don't you use your time more productively to work on this article rather than obsessing about the title? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I consider Jimbo's comments as pretty much pressing the reset button on the 'consensus'. I haven't just "turned up" I have been here since early December. If you are agitated is suggest a wikibreak.130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, the incubator article makes my point quite well; it's a classic example of a Wikipedia:Coatrack that ties together loosely associated attacks. Which is, of course, what "climategate" is...the "mud du jour". Guettarda (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true, and there are two observations worth making about this: 1) being a coatrack, a POV fork and just generally crappily written - it comes across as being more suited to Conservapedia than Wikipedia - if it ever gets outside the incubator it will be AfD'd instantly; and 2) the vagueness of the POV nickname "Climategate" is one of the main reasons why such POV nicknames are deprecated - they are not descriptive names. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" at least tells you what the topic is about. "Climategate" means absolutely nothing unless you already know what "Climategate" means. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues with that article. That said, I, and whoever else wishes to join me, will be working on it, trying to make it presentable as an article on the socio-political phenomenon of the controversy. Moogwrench (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is not for WP (i.e. WP editors) to say "what Climategate is". That's for the outside world to decide." - Ahh, but that's the point. There haven't decided. It's a term that means "whatever I can spin to make the science look bad". And since it's a "throw enough mud and see what sticks", "climategate" means "mud du jour". Guettarda (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, consensus can change. As one of the editors who has consistently rejected the 'Climategate' name, I am now inclined to admit that I was wrong. If there's a flaw in my understanding of the rules, then explain the flaw. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained the flaw numerous times in all the previous failed attempts to use this POV nickname; I have no intention of rehashing that discussion again. You know what I think of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. There is nothing wrong with a POV (laymen's definition) article title. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quest, I've also consistently rejected the climategate name, but I'm not now saying I was wrong, I'm saying I was right. At the time. But the world has changed. When we were opposing it, the term was still used by a relatively small number of RS, but over time, it has gained currency. When some incident occurs, someone, somewhere tries to attach -gate to it. Almost always, it fades into obscurity. Not this time. Of equal importance, I'm not suggesting that the article about the release of documents be called climategate. Let that article have this name or something similar. The Climategate article should be a separate article, noting its roots in this incident, but covering the myriad of subsequent activities that have flowed as a consequence of people digging into the emails, and taking a new, hard look at AR4.--SPhilbrickT 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Do explain how POV titles are acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV and the layman's definition of neutrality are two different things. WP:NPOV means that we as editors remain neutral in what the world decides. If the world uses a POV term, then we are not supposed to dispute the world's decision. We don't get to decide if the world is right or wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "the world" makes decisions the way you seem to be describing. Anyway, that said, it has not been my experience that we go with a name that's popular if it's an offensive or partisan term. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to allow the likes of Delingpole et al to determine the titles of Wikipedia's climate change articles, we're going to have to create lots of new ones: Climategate, Pachaurigate, Glaciergate, Amazongate,[49] Africagate,[50] Seagate.[51] Maybe we can save time and just write one called pseudogate[52] that covers all of them? --Nigelj (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's blog isn't a reliable source. Please don't put forth obviously invalid arguments. If there's a flaw in this new analysis, the remedy is simple. Just point out the flaw. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean other than all the flaws that have been pointed out in exhaustive detail in all the previous discussions, including those in which you participated but appear now to have forgotten about? Somehow I don't think it took much effort to make you change your mind on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean exactly what I said. I've re-read through the previous discussions and cross-referenced them with the appropriate policies and I am strongly leaning towards admitting I was wrong. The counter-argument provided by Dave S is flawed because it uses Wikipedia guidelines to overrule Wikipedia policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My arguments are based on policies; specifically, WP:NPOV which requires that "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." It does allow non-neutral common names as "legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources", but the consensus in this case is questionable, in that neutral sources use the term only in quote marks to refer to specific aspects of the subject. As NPOV states, the main policy page is Wikipedia:Article titles which says that titles should be "as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously", and as discussed above there is a range of views as to what "climategate" means or identifies. While articles are "normally titled using the most common English-language name", the descriptive titles section of the policy specifically describes as an unsuitable example the use of a politically loaded -gate title and shows a preference for a more neutrally worded title. Interesting to note how Krosnick as an academic refers to the emails, "which were hacked from a server", and the "controversy, called "climategate" by global warming skeptics". This article discusses the hacking and the emails, rather than promoting the manufactured controversy. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo gave YOU this reply: [53] the following on 11th March. "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." So per Jimbo and "the world at large" 'Climategate' it should be. The main CRU page should contain some basic info on the hacking incident and contain a link to 'Climategate'.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and Dave has at least as good a handle as Jimbo on policy, and a far better idea of what's going on here. So your "per Jimbo" is balanced by a "per Dave". As for "and the world at large"...you can't simply cancel Dave's argument by fiat. He's done a pretty good job of undercutting the "world at large" argument. Feel counter it with facts. Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No he has not. Fact.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's comments do not, I'm afraid, come across to me as particularly well-informed about the circumstances of this particular case and he seems to be entirely unaware of the long-standing convention that we do not use -gate nicknames for article titles. Matters have certainly not been helped by the way the usual suspects have misrepresented things on his talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Chris, can we stick to discussing the article? Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 13:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, that's what I've been saying all along - this is a distraction from the business of improving the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFN, the flaw in your argument comes where you said (after my previous comment above, but above it) "we are not supposed to dispute the world's decision". You are saying that the CRU hack did bring down climate science in a way analogous to the way the Watergate burglary brought down the Nixon government, and so an analogous name is now appropriate, describing another fatal act that led to the downfall of a corrupt regime. I don't need to go further with the analogy to show how unlikely it is that this argument will succeed among intelligent and informed editors. --Nigelj (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, that's like saying that we can't call our article Great Leap Forward because the title implies that Chairman Mao's modernization program was successful. As we all know, nearly 30 million died but we still use "Great Leap Forward" as the article title because that's the common name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As we all know, that title is ironic. What we don't know yet is just how ironic the partisan "climategate" term is, or just what the real scandal is. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "climategate" is partisan, and I was surprised that Jimbo took such a strong position on it. I was curious about the role of Jimbo in running Wikipedia, which is what drew me to this discussion in the first place. However, as I said, I feel that the current title is partisan too. I disagree with the sentiment some have expressed that this is a secondary issue. On the contrary, I think it is a central concern for any article, wherever published. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 14 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)

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)