Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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

Template:Shell

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 My first mention of NPOV is just a historical reference to the fact that Jimbo Wales stipulates that NPOV is "non-negotiable".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 [6] 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 [7], hardly a Self published bookstacey-international.co.uk About ... Reviewed:[8]
• 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 [9], hardly a Self published book stacey-international.co.uk About and the book at their site [10]...

- "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 [11]

- "..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" [12]

- "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 "[13]

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:[14]

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?" [15].
2. Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen"[16],
3. as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen"[17],
4. The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""[18]
5. The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"[19]
6. Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist , "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"[20]
7. Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"[21]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.140.64 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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[22] and implemented less than 4 hours later[23]. 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.[24] 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.[25] 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:[26] 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".[27][28][29] [30][31][32] 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.[33] 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, [34] (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 [35] to give out (information) surreptitiously [36] unauthorized (especially deliberate) disclosure of confidential information [37] 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.[38] 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 [39] 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 [40].) 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 [41] 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

• [42] 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:[43] 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.[44] 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)

I undid this [45]. The edit comment suggests a misunderstanding of the situation William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jimbo suggested the current title is inappropriate, rather than specifically failing WP:NPOV. Is there a tag for that? Perhaps {{move}} ? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I boldly included a tag on the article pointing people to the discussion below. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 16 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)

It is of course a truism that, like a Rorschach, the interpretation of any historical event depends on the perspective of the person doing the interpreting. It takes a tremendous amount of hubris to claim the last word on what the ink blot "is". The more circumspect among us are satisfied to report the perspectives of reliable sources some of which, not surprisingly, characterize the events quite differently than do you. It is also true that those with vested interest in an outcome will try and use events as they unfold to their advantage. So what? That's just another part of the story that should be told. But no, we have chosen instead the least honest approach, a sleight of hand to distract the reader with the illusion that its about computer hacks and death threats. JPatterson (talk) 22:37, 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)

WP:NPOV is a policy; WP:AVOID is a guideline. When in conflict, we're supposed to follow the policy. I'm sure Jimbo is quite aware of the difference between policies and guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You and Dave would sound much more convincing if you had given Jimbo a snappy comeback instead of asking me and others to explain ourselves. I figure you don't have any valid arguments.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:49, 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)

But it's OK to use partisan or POV terms if they catch on and become common names. As I already pointed out, there's the Great Leap Forward. Here are a few more: Alfred the Great, Corrupt Bargain, Patriot_(American_Revolution), Glorious Revolution, Saturday Night Massacre, Mugwump, Scalawag, Trail of Tears, Bataan Death March, Intolerable Acts. We're supposed to use the world's terminology. We don't invent our own to right great wrongs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When it becomes a settled term and makes it into the history books, then we can adopt it. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that reliable sources be published in book format or that the source be specifically about history. Electronic sources such as Time magazine's web site are routinely found to be reliable on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Is there a single policy-based objection to using "Climategate" as this article's title? I keep asking for one, but so far, none has been provided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you took my metaphorical comment literally. I was referring to awaiting the judgment of history. If history decides this will be Climategate, then Climategate it will be, but until that point, we should avoid polemical politically charged terms pushed by one side. Were this Wikipedia 1824, I would not support calling the Corrupt Bargain by such a name, but it is 2010 and history has made its judgment. Until that happens in the case of this article here, I say avoid the polemics. Gamaliel (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, "let's use an imprecise metric ('judgment of history') with an indeterminate time frame ('until that point') before thinking of changing the article's title." Your suggestion is virtually without content, Gamaliel. -- Chadhoward (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a more precise way of determining what will happen in the future, please let us know. Gamaliel (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, Climategate is the term they've settled on. Until that changes, we should use it. Moogwrench (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That is to say, if we have only one article. I have been working on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Climategate. So, Dave, if you want to have an article just on the incident, then we can have another on the controversy, with the common name Climategate. I disagree with your earlier statement that it unclear if "Climategate" is the consensus common name. The majority sources use it, in quotation marks or not. It has a huge number of results in news service hits and in common usage per page count on search engines, which are indicated by Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names to be a good way of deciding which name is common. I think AQFK has provided an ample list of examples of article titles that are, on their face non-neutral, but common terms in common usage, and hence, appropriate titles. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we have to, in the words of WP:TITLE go with what is and has been used. Which is Climategate. I have made substantial revisions of the incubator article and would appreciate other people's input into it. I am trying to make it professional and neutral in its treatment of the subject, which is the controversy, not the incident. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that remains to be demonstrated. Given the substantial problems with "Climategate" as a name, the fact that the term is covered in the body of the article itself, the fact that the current title is adequate, concise, descriptive and neutral, the fact that this is a current (i.e. not historical) event about which investigations are still ongoing, the precedent of avoiding "-gate" names for obvious reasons, and the inherent bias in the name, the argument that we should use "climategate" because that is the commonly used word for it needs to be extremely compelling. Many impartial reliable sources manage to refer to the event without the loaded term. Most of the others do not endorse the name itself, using it in quotation marks, referring to "so-called Climategate", often omitting it in the body of the articles themselves, or otherwise making it clear that the term is a loaded term used predominantly by one side. It's unfortunate that Jimbo has been dragged into the issue without understanding the debate that has been taking place over the name, but the example he offers -- "Swiftboating" doesn't support the conclusion that this article should be renamed to "Climategate". It's a description of the term, making it perfectly clear that it is politically loaded and opposed by many. The actual issues the term describes -- "ad hominem" attacks and "smear campaigns" retain their neutral titles elsewhere. Many pejoratives and epithets show up with millions of hits on Google, and some of them are discussed here on Wikipedia, but when that occurs, the articles describe the terms, they don't use them. StuartH (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Adequate? I don't know what you mean... Concise? It is five words long... Descriptive? Not of the controversy... Neutral? POV for treating incident as primary subject when controversy is more notable (if we only have one article). Under Google News, we have 1065 hits for Climategate and 9 hits for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (I left off quotes to get more results than including them around "hacking incident" (3 hits). As far as Jimbo not "understanding" it, the atmosphere around here is so poisonous that an outsider's opinion on a policy matter is probably better, not worse, than someone who has been involved with the debate surrounding the name. It doesn't matter is WP editors oppose something personally. All we do is follow the sources. As I said before, AQFK provided a long list of titles that are loaded and non-neutral, but are acceptable because of their wide use. Those editors who argue that not enough time has passed for "Climategate" to become historical are essentially providing a crystal ball argument that the term usage might change in the future. As Wikipedia:Title#Common_names states, we just go with what "is and has been in use". Think about it. Moogwrench (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't, Gamaliel, and that's the point. We should do the best we can in the present and avoid putting off decisions because we hope or believe that things will become clearer "in the future". -- Chadhoward (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Let's not pretend that this is something I made up on the fly. Waiting is a well-established and widespread practice on Wikipedia. I can't count the number of times that people have said on talk pages something like "let's wait and see how things shake out" before making controversial changes or additions. The judgment of history isn't some "crystal ball argument", it's exactly how things are done around here. In 1824, naming an article Corrupt Bargain would be an outrageous violation of NPOV. Today, it's settled history. So counseling waiting before renaming an article after a loaded, one-sided talking point isn't some bizarre, outrageous suggestion, it's common Wikipedia practice. Gamaliel (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Well, we shouldn't wait to make the best possible choices because things may not become clearer in the future. And even if they do, it's no excuse to use a sub-optimal title in the present. There's nothing special about the status quo. Now, it may be that the current title is optimal. I'm open to that idea. But to differentiate that argument from "let's wait because I just don't like your proposal", it's useful to specify some metric that will let us know exactly when a change would be warranted. -- Chadhoward (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

(Outdent) WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. WP:NPOV cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV specifically requires that "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality", and states that on this issue, The main policy page is Wikipedia:Article titles. As I stated above, but you don't seem to have read that. . . dave souza, talk 15:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I read it, but it's based on a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, the Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_titles section has three paragraphs. The first one deals with the fact that articles must have a definitive title. The second one, which you and others frequently quote ("highest degree of neutrality"), deals most specifically with descriptive titles (read "especially true for descriptive titles"). Descriptive titles have to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality precisely because they are made up to describe something. The third and final paragraph deals with titles that have proper noun names (read "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned"). Non-neutral terms that are "proper noun names" "are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." Common, proper noun names do not have the same standard of neutrality, precisely because Wikipedians have not invented them, they come from common usage, not from our own POV. Do you understand the difference between descriptive made-up names and common names as far as neutrality goes? As far as WP:Article titles goes, common names are strongly favored over ones invented by Wikipedians. Moogwrench (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An NPOV article about "Climategate" would be one about the creation and dissemination of the phrase - per Swiftboating. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Climategating"[54] that I am aware of, but if there becomes one, we can certainly create an article for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 15 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)

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

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

Vandalism on talk page

Someone added a long stream of "dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick" towards the top of this talk page. But when I go into Edit, I don't see it. Can someone please remove the vandalism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it, in or out of edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone just fixed it. It must be a subpage, template or something, otherwise I'd see it in this talk page's history. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template vandalism - [55]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Real suggestion to solve the climategate problem.

Would all sides be amenable with replacing the hard-redirect Climategate with a disambig generally like User:Hipocrite/Climategate ([56]) edits to that page (which I just totally rewrote) still welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a useful idea, and overcomes the problem of "climategate" being used for a broad range of issues. By the analogy with Swiftboating which you pointed out above, it would also include the discussion of the origins of the phrase. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Might be something there, we'll see how it develops. I think there's room for expanding on where the term came from, why it is pejorative, who uses the term, etc., rather than leaving it as a short redirect. Renaming this article Climategate isn't going to happen, but with input from both sides I think an article on the phrase itself in the spirit of Swiftboating would be a useful article in its own right, and give the term the coverage some feel it warrants without compromising the neutrality of our coverage of the incident. StuartH (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is not a pejorative term in the sense that Swiftboating is. I would also question whether it is political jargon. We must be careful so as not frame the word from a specific point of view. A better solution would simply to have an article called "Climategate" (or CRU Controversy) that talks about the actual climategate controversy and leave this article to deal with the hacking incident that few care about, and even fewer are talking about. Arzel (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See, it's that kind of response that is not a real suggestion to solve the problem, rather an argumentitive point to win some internet dispute. Is there a middle ground you would consider adopting? Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Arzel is correct. 2 articles are the best solution. 1) There is a controversy, whether or not the controversy has merit, and 2)The news media outlets use "Climategate" as that controversy's name. Since those outlets are our RSs for the controversy, we have to follow them. Please see my comments on the "highest degree of neutrality" argument in WP:NPOV. Moogwrench (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See, it's that kind of response that is not a real suggestion to solve the problem, rather an argumentitive point to win some internet dispute. Is there a middle ground you would consider adopting? Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is not a very civil response. Twice. Arzel (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Look - I'm trying to find a solution that everyone would be happy with. Your response to my attempt was, yet again, to say that "CLIMATEGATE" is all you will accept. How do you expect people to respond to the constant stonewalling and give-inch-take-mileism by the skeptical side of this dispute? Do you honestly think that if you repeat the same thing enough you'll get a consensus of editors here to cave in? Why not try to find a new solution that would make everyone happier than they are right now? Try it, already. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, WP:NPOV is not negotiable and cannot be overruled by editors' consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any article which expresses a POV. You keep interjecting these platitudes which do nothing to advance discussion. No one will ever admit that they are intentionally violating NPOV, so please stop trying to get them to do so. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that the world, not Wikipedia editors, gets to decide what terminology we use? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're begging the question. I contend that the world has not defined "Climategate" as precise enough to write the parent article about. I contend that if we wrote "Climategate" as a disambiguation page, we would better encompass what the phrase meant. I contend that if we wrote "Climategate" as a disambiguation page, we would have no neutrality concerns. Please help write the disambiguation page, as opposed to pushing for a solution that is a "win" for what is increassingly becoming your partisan side in this dispute. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed be creating disambiguation pages to circumvent WP:NPOV issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the issue has come up before and the support for renaming this article "Climategate" is limited and carries with it an awful lot of baggage. Hipocrite's suggestion eliminates many of the concerns from both sides, addresses the ambiguity of the term, and is a step away from the battleground mentality found in many of these discussions. I think it has the potential to be a reasonable compromise if both sides contribute to it. Without a compromise or consensus to change things, the status quo will remain. StuartH (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I reject Arzel's proposal, but I find myself agreeing partly with his reasoning. I do not think "Climategate" is political jargon either; moreover, I think that the term cannot be broadly described as a pejorative, although it is certainly meant to be such by many of the people who use it. In this respect, it is similar to "liberal" (used by conservatives as a pejorative, but not broadly recognized as such). I recommend something more like this:

Climategate is a neologism used to label a controversy arising from the theft of Climatic Research Unit documents in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎.

Or something of that ilk, anyway. I imagine that the word "theft" might draw criticism, but that is something else that can be debated. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

[outdent] Should a second article be called "Climategate", probably, but I accept that you and others would never allow that to happen. CRU Controvery or some variation thereof that talks specifcially about the controversy would be fine. The points are that the word Climatgate should be directed to an article that talks about the controversy and Climategate is far easier to say and type than Climatic Research University Email and Data Controversy, so I will always refer to it as Climategate. Arzel (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a few moments and get your arms around what the ideal state of Wikipedia is for you, and what you are willing to compromise to get to, as your suggestions are becoming increasingly unclear. Please do so, and try to come to an agreement that all editors would accept. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing what is proper according to policy is the overriding concern, not what makes people happy. I personally am not that skeptical of AGW, and I see a lot of editors who likewise are not skeptical offer little more than a brief mention of NPOV or its "highest degree of neutrality" clause for descriptive names but no strong answer to the policy-based arguments that have been offered to support the common proper noun namn "Climategate" title/article. WP:Title states that while "titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Time after time, policies deprecate names invented by Wikipedians when a common usage proper noun name exists, even if it is non-neutral. Moogwrench (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize, you will accept nothing but this article being rewritten and moved to the title "Climategate," and you cannot ever be convinced that this stance you have taken is the not the only stance compatible with NPOV? Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually. I am working on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Climategate. If you have looked at it before with dismay, I would urge you to look at it again. You will find that I have deleted a lot of the unrelated junk regard AR4, the IPCC, CEI, etc., and tried to clean it up some. The current article can stay pretty much as it is, minus the controversy stuff. It should just focus on the police investigation of the hacking crime. 2 articles, as I said above, is the best idea, one for the controversy and one for the incident. Moogwrench (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That article is this article with almost nothing of relevence added to it - thus, you suggest keeping only a paragraph or two of this article as a daughter to your new parent article - climategate. In effect, you are moving this article to climategate, and then spinning out the police response into a new child article. The effect of your DOA article incubator is to move this article to Climategate. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, there has been a lot more coverage of the controversy than the incident. We have not identified the way in which the info was hacked, its perpetrators, criminal charges, etc. The controversy is not dependent on the way in which the information was revealed, because it is based on the content of the emails, etc. not the fact they were hacked. It only makes sense to have a separate article on the controversy if we insist on having an article whose subject is the incident, which, as Jimbo pointed out, we know very little, compared to the controversy, which is extensively documented in RSs. We have similar cause and effect articles even when more info is known, such as the relationship between Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and World War I. Moogwrench (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an argument to remove the word "hacking" from the title of this article, which I have supported in the past, and would support again in the future in the event that such a proposal is actually a proposal to rename the article, as opposed to a proposal to browbeat people who dissent from the proposal into submission on unrelated issues. If you'd like to propose moving this article to CRU (document/email release)incident, or whatever, and don't use broad agreement there to undermine dissent elsewhere, you'll have my support again, as you did before. If you'd like to create a daughter article to this article about reactions, you'll have my support. If you want to add reactions into this article, as long as you provide due weight to all reliably sourced views, you'll have my support. If you want to use this article to further the political goal of undermining solid science by renaming it to "climategate" or by amping up the language to 11 you will not have my support. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that the reason for naming an article on the controversy "climategate" is to undermine solid science? Do you think that was Jimbo's motive? Do you think that is my motivation? Do you really think that using that common name will somehow help achieve that goal? Remember, Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Moogwrench (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

(undent) Yes, No, Yes, Mu(It's not a "common name") but otherwise Yes, thanks for the reminder. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So why are you willing to assume good faith with Jimbo but not with me? Moogwrench (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The original article was a WP:Coatrack, not because of any ill intent or activism, but rather because the term "climategate" is used for a number of loosely related topics. Slimming that article down to the point where it's largely the same as this one (or, more accurately, largely the same as past versions of this one), isn't useful. What the incubator article points to is the need to consider the topic a dab. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea that "Climategate" is a catchall coatrack is not supported by the sources. It is a controversy which specifically deals with reaction and responses to the information revealed from the hack. Moogwrench (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea that "climategate" is totally unprecise, however, is quite supported by the sources. You alledge "Climategate" is what, exactly? Use one reasonably sized sentence. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't allege anything, the sources use Climategate in this way: Climategate is the controversy surrounding the content of information (emails, documents, etc.) released to the public from the CRU servers. I think that is a reasonable sized sentence. Moogwrench (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If climategate is a controversy, why does your proposed article purport to be the parent article as opposed to a daughter article? This article purports to discuss the entire incident - from the hacking, to what was released, to the responses to that release. Your proposed "Climategate" includes all of that, but yet purports to only be about the controversy surrounding the content. Thus, even though you purport that "Climategate" is a precise thing, your argument is belied by the article you support. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Does World War I purport to cover the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in its entirety? No. Climategate mentions the hacking incident because it is an immediate antecedent. It is natural to have a small summary of a related article if it is a cause or an effect of the subject of the article in question. If people want to have an article on just the hacking incident, okay. It will probably have a very small, perhaps 1-2 sentence summary of the post-incident controversy, because it is the consequent. They are related topics. Thus Climategate (the article addressing the controversy) has a bit about the antecedent, just like other articles that have cause and effect relationships. Moogwrench (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what Hip is asking is why you consider this to be the daughter, rather than the parent (and if not, well, I am). Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I dont think it really matters.
2. I consider them more sister articles, per WP:SPLIT (no need for a general overview article)
3. You can ask yourself which is more notable, the hack or the controversy, based on coverage and treatment

Moogwrench (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying your rationale. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that a properly formatted dab would leave out the 'can also refer to', and simply list all 3-4 meanings. Guettarda (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DABSTYLE, I think this article or the documents article are the "primary" topic, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose you're probably right, thought it seems like all three meanings are completely intermingled. Guettarda (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Boldy

Given that this is making very little reasonable headway amongst skeptics, and I think doing it should make them happier rather than sadder, I just went ahead and made the edit to Climategate. I will revert on reasonable request along with a justification that my DAB made things worse as opposed to only slightly better, or made no difference. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "climategate" is used to refer to the global warming controversy in general. I think also that you need to say that the term was created by global warming skeptics. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with the smallest possible bold edit - one that everyone agrees makes things better and is unarguably true. Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit says "Climategate is a neologism used to label the controversy arising from the Climatic Research Unit documents which were released during the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎." So we have an disamb which talks about the meaning of a word, but we don't have an article whose topic is the controversy whose name is that word. This doesn't make sense, and as AQFK says, it seems just to be an attempt at an endrun around WP:NPOV's declarations regarding proper noun article names. Moogwrench (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you reading the same thing I am reading, Scotty? Hipocrite's disamb refers to the controversy regarding the CRU documents, not the whole GW debate... Moogwrench (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly not. The version that I looked at said, "Climategate may also refer to:

• Criticism of the IPCC AR4
• Global warming controversy"

--ScottyBerg (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. I don't think we're supposed be using disambiguation pages to avoid legitimate WP:NPOV issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing alternative solutions, and a DAB page may be the ticket, but I think boldly creating it in the face of obvious opposition was tactically the wrong move—those on the fence may oppose it for the wrong reasons.--SPhilbrickT 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a disambiguation page solves the WP:NPOV dispute over the current article title. Also, I don't think any real confusion among reliable sources as to what Climategate refers to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, by "legitimate NPOV issues" you seem to mean a selective and partial reading of relevant policies. Policies have to be read as a whole, and considered with care to achieve a properly neutral title. Your evidence for how "the world has defined "Climategate" " appears to be lacking, something to be considered carefully. . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, that's pure nonsense. Like I said, if my analsys is wrong, the solution is simple. Just point out the flaw and we're done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your insulting statement about a reasonable interpretation of policy is irrelevant, I'm simply requesting you to state your evidence and sources in accordance with WP:TALK. If you don't have an evidence base, that's an obvious flaw. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me to provide a list of reliable sources which use the term "Climategate"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I had temporarily forgot why I left this article except to snipe, vote for the status quo and revert vandalism and sceptical nonsense. I remember now! Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a disambiguation page is such a bad idea. A very real scandal, Iraqgate, proven over time, was renamed to United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war and Iraqgate (disambiguation) appeared in its place. Wikispan (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Iraqgate to comment on that intelligently. It's possible that the term didn't catch on the way Climategate has. It's also possible that the editors there didn't understand our WP:NPOV policy. That's been a major issue here. I've seen several editors here repeatedly argue that partisan terms are in violation of WP:NPOV when clearly they're not.

In any case, alternative article titles are not supposed to be used as means of settling POV disputes between Wikipedia editors. We're supposed to use the most common name in English for this topic. So the question we should be asking ourselves is, "What is the most common name in English?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, we can use a common name, but have to consider issues such as whether the term is unambiguous and inclusive, or excessively partisan and not in such widespread use for the whole topic. On exactly what evidence do you base your assertion about it being the "most common name in English"? . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the concept of what Moogwrench is doing, albeit not the execution. The Climategate article I envision would have at most a short paragraph on the incident, with a link to the full article on the incident. It would not have a picture of the CRU. It would concentrate on the subsequent controversy, including aspects arising directly from material in the documents, as well as other items arising because of renewed interest in the subject (e.g. AR4 criticism). The current article would concentrate on the incident and direct aftermath such as the crime investigations as they unfold. If we had both articles, and the controversy one cannot be named Climategate (although it should be), then a DAB page leading reader to one or the other or both might then make sense.--SPhilbrickT 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No matter how awesome the article is, you still cannot have an article with the title "Climategate" for all the reasons that have been spelled out hundreds of times on this talk page. Since the neologism has been used to refer to more than one event, however, it is a legitimate title for a disambiguation page. Another thing to consider is that the term "Climategate" has all but vanished from the mainstream media, particularly in the last couple of months. It is already old news. Because the controversy was built upon misinterpretation and sensationalism, it has faded under proper scrutiny. The evidence for anthropogenic climate changed confirms that the science remains rock solid, despite the best efforts of the skeptics who promoted the controversy. The fall out has been little more than some finger wagging and rhetorical bluster from science-denying politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Has vanished? Try google and choose news for the last week. If you are this far out from reality you could try a wikibreak.91.153.115.15 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, all but vanished? This is a NY Times article from a week and a half ago. For goodness sake, coverage of the controversy has no bearing on whether or not it has true merit, or whether or not the overall science is good.

The only thing that has been spelled out hundreds of times is a continual appeal to the NPOV clause regarding "highest degree of neutrality", which doesn't make sense considering that that argument only really applies to descriptive (ones Wikipedians make up) titles, not proper noun names (coined outside of Wikipedia and entered into common usage). Consider Saturday Night Massacre, for example, a term coined by political commentators, or many of the others AQFK suggested. Moogwrench (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not vanished. Here are quite notable recent references to the term from just the first page of google scholar hits.[57][58][59][60][61][62] Powerful evidence that the term climategate refers neutrally to a very real thing which everyone understands. The science is NOT the issue, it's a cultural, political event. It is not a usurpation of science. The tension may come from a misunderstanding of the difference between scientific fact and cultural or political debate. The forthcoming climategate article should explicitly note the distinction. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning was based on my reading of both search hits and news hits using Google Trends. To address the single-purpose anonymous IP's suggestion above, I am on something of a minor Wikibreak as it happens, but you can rest assured that inane comments like yours will virtually guarantee that break will come to a swift end. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sjessey: The reason why Climategate was rejected previously centered on two arguments that have since been found to be in error. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the term was rejected because it was (a) in violation of WP:NPOV, and (b) in conflict with advice about "-gate" constructs given in WP:WTA. These are not "in error", so I don't know what you are referring to. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, did you read the post just a couple levels up? It pretty clearly spells out that NPOV advises "highest degree of neutrality" for descriptive, not proper noun names. Also, Jimbo made the point that at one time a case could have been made that using Climategate was POV pushing, but since then, the term has gained common acceptance/usage, and so can no longer be consider so. Moogwrench (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop stating as fact ("found to be in error," ) that are merely the opinions of you and your fellow travelers. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Scjessesy: See first post in thread.

Hipocrite: If there's a flaw in my reasoning, just point it out. All this "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" without actually providing a counter-argument is not helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you create a POV fork it will be AfD'd, just like the last time someone created a POV fork. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, but it isn't a POV fork, we have 2 different topics: the hack and the controversy. Both are legitimate topics. Moogwrench (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No article has been written on the "controversy," that has had a neutral POV yet. There is a verifiable opinion that the controversy was manufactured by conservative activists. As long as all of the articles on the "controversy," state that a "controversy" exists, they remain non-neutral, as there is no "controversy," outside of the echo-chamber of conservative blogs and the partisan press. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So now you are saying that the New York Times is part of the "partisan press" for reporting the following in an article entitled 'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound: "The head of a British climate research unit under fire after thousands of stolen e-mails were made public last year said yesterday that he had "obviously written some very awful e-mails." Is Phil Jones POV himself for saying he wrote awful emails? It sounds like a pretty heavy COI to say that as long as an article states that a controversy exists, it is default POV. I guess Jimbo's statement/question to Dave Souza bears repeating: "I'm quite sure you wouldn't deny that this is, in fact, a scandal". Moogwrench (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The NYT in no way states Climategate is a "controversy." Jimbo, as usual, is wrong, speaking off the cuff, and without doing his homework. Writing awful emails isn't a controversy - I write awful emails. Infact, I just recently called a someone a "fucktard," in an awful email. My emails are private. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So to you, when the NY Times says "under fire", what do you consider that? Not controversy? I can get you plenty of RS citations which mention "controversy", if that's what you'd like. But I think it amounts to splitting hairs for the purpose of this discussion. Moogwrench (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

CBS News - "the recent controversy surrounding 'Climategate'"

Boston Globe - "controversy over hacked e-mails"

The Guardian"The "climategate" scandal involving the University of East Anglia"

USA Today - "Mann suddenly found himself in the middle of the "Climategate" scandal"

Just a few for you... Moogwrench (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is the subject of these academic papers from neutral, verifiable and reliable sources appearing in these peer-reviewed journals:[63][64][65][66][67]. The evidence of the existence of an event known as climategate is overwhelming. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be a few isolated examples, in Costella's and Trimble's case clearly showing an overblown and inaccurate reaction to the news of the hacked emails. Analysis needed. . dave souza, talk 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{EC}Analysis needed? I don't think we do analysis here. Those are respectable top notch international peer reviewed journals which explicitly and neutrally cover climategate. Your opinion that one is inaccurate or your sense that one is overblown require first a supporting reference and do nothing to remove any, let alone the remaining ref's offered. Please reconsider your resistance to the verififable, reliably sourced and peer reviewed citations referenced. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that the Martinsson study uses the word "Climategate" exactly once, and says nothing about it. Clearly, you didn't do anything but plug "Climategate" into a search engine and pretend that the results meant something. Did you actually read the results, or do you think people fall for that kind of dishonest tactic? Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Martinsson's paper roughly translates as "On the Intersection of Journalism and the Climate Condition Debate". It is a study of climategate in, "how the political forces worked and how the press covered the processes at work". It uses the English term climategate 9 times in total. I have no problem dropping it and using the others if you're more comfortable with that. Additional peer-reviewed papers are also available.99.142.1.101 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Were you counting the body of the text when you said it used it 9 times in total? Hint - you weren't. You were counting Noter 4, 3 title of an articles in a newspapers in the index, 3 urls in the index, and a link to a CEI website twice. You wonder why I depreciate what you write? Because you're constantly making stuff up out of whole cloth. Hipocrite (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No analysis needed. Still waiting for that snappy comeback to Jimbo.91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You certainly speak a lot of languages, herr googlersock. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He is probably an academic and did a search on a commercial academic search engine. That was a good call as google does not show all sources. So not only do have the mainstream press supporting our stance we also have academic journals commenting on climategate.91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please list your prior accounts and IP addresses. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No prior accounts. I have two IP's, the current one and one starting with 130.232.x.x Both are dynamic and might change but they strangle haven't changed for a couple of months. One is at work one is for home adsl. The user with IP 99.142.1.101 is not me if that's what you are asking?91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, do you agree that WP:NPOV means that we are supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources? So, for example, our article on Intelligent design is biased in favor of evolution? Or that our article on the Earth is biased against the Flat Earth theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, please read WP:NPOV with more care, your concept that articles are to be "biased" is inaccurate and inappropriate. . dave souza, talk 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I have read them carefully. Again, all this "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" without explaining why is not helping matters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"A consensus of the sources"

The key phrase in using a non-neutral proper name title is that the name follows:

"proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources."

The phrase "consensus of the sources," means that sources do not waiver in using the title. They do not put it in "scare quotes," or comment about where it came from. It means that every source of substantial import uses the title. I contend that given that very few sources use the title without "scare" quotes, and quite a few substantial sources avoid using "Climategate" with very few exceptions, there is no "consensus" of the sources. Since consensus is measured by figuring out if there are any dissenting voices of relevence, and we have constantly seen articles not use Climategate - in fact, in the most notable papers in their respective countries, there are clearly dissenting voices of relevence.

I would note that AQFK has been constantly misquoting this - stating that what was required was "the most common names in English." This is not policy - it's not even a guideline. It's just a series of words made up by an editor, and needs to be depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." (emphasis mine) --WP:NPOV#Article_titles A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do please read on to "are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources". . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, these sources are using "Climategate" and any search of the term shows that is used by more than 1000 current news articles, compared to "hacking incident" which garners 9 hits. Which enjoys a fuller consensus among news articles? Moogwrench (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus among sources to use a descriptive name. Please read the policy. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are not really quoting a lot, because I suppose the quotes don't back you up. The policy states: "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common".--WP:Article_titles#Common_names So yes, we do use things like search engines to determine what the most common name is. Moogwrench (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I get that you haven't been at wikipedia very long, so you don't have any basis to understand how things work here, and that's ok, I guess. Please don't wikilawyer by finding disparate parts of policy and try to make them say what they don't say. Find policy that adresses the exact dispute being had (Common Names that are non-neutral, the use of common vs. descriptive names) and use that. Doing otherwise is not favorably looked apon. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one who couldn't even bother to read WP:NPOV and see the text that another editor was quoting, and then have the audacity to say it wasn't in there. That would be you. So don't tell me about understanding how things work here when you don't even read the policies you are quoting. Moogwrench (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFK quotes text that's not there. Here's what he wrote - "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." It makes it clear that he's looking at the right part of the policy "Proper names which incorporate non-neutral terms," but then completly makes up the conclusion "most common names," which is just wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He was making reference to WP:Article_titles#Common_names: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article."(emphasis mine) Note the phrase "most common", which you say it "wrong". I hate having to post this stuff again, but if no one is willing to look a few lines down at the same stuff before they make a point about something just being "wrong", there is nothing I can do but repost. Moogwrench (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why was he starting out his quote with something from WP:NPOV ("Proper names which incorporate non-neutral terms") and ending it with something from WP:TITLE? Isn't that incredibly dishonest? Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, what's meant by "any search"? Google searches can easily mislead, detailed analysis of such searches is needed. Show your workings, as us skeptics often say. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I believe AQFK has compiled quite a list of sources previously, he may be able to provide this for you. Arkon (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I gave the terms and my attempt to maximize hits for hacking incident here. Moogwrench (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this just goes to show people don't actually read the policies they cite. Moogwrench (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, how about this one: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article."(emphasis mine) --WP:Article_titles#Common_names

Or this one: "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...[T]itles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."(emphasis mine)--Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes

Could you read the rest of the policy you cite - the part about proper names which are not neutral, which is what we're actually discussing here? Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Link to the specific section, or a paste of that section, please? I've personally been on that page quite a few times in my career, and just glanced at it again and must be missing your objection. Sorry! Arkon (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_titles. Read from "proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms" to the end, since that's what we're actually discussing. Also, consider reading Wikipedia:TITLE#Descriptive_titles which adresses exactly this. Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears to be a wonderful case of Wikipedia guidelines/policies arguing with themselves. Ugh. I wouldn't even begin to be able to argue when 'Descriptive' should be used over 'Common Usage' or vice versa. Good luck fellas. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, as I have argued many times, a different standard applies to descriptive names vs. common names. WP:Title indicates that "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Current usage/common names are better than those invented by Wikipedians." Moogwrench (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Alternative article titles should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article titles, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth). Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

Arkon: If there's a conflict, WP:NPOV supersedes Wikipedia:TITLE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the text I put in bold at the top makes it clear that "Climategate" is not acceptable, but that text is not operative because WP:NPOV overrides WP:TITLE? Answer yes or no, please. If no, please clarify. Hipocrite (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE are both policies. Climategate is not a descriptive title, and common names are preferred over descriptive ones invented by Wikipedians. Moogwrench (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: I said "If". I haven't compared the two to find out if there's a conflict. What I am saying is that WP:NPOV says that we're not supposed to invent names as a means of settling POV disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It also says we're not supposed to use common names which include non-neutral terms unless those are used by a "consensus of the sources" - though you've been misquoting "consensus of the sources" for quite some time at this point. Like the policy you keep quoting but aren't quoting accurately says - "If a genuine titling controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources." Since there's a genuine titling controversy (the Time article, and other articles discuss the "Climategate" manufactured controversy) it should be covered, but should not be the title of the article. We need to find a neutral title. I've been willing to compromise on the title since ages ago - it's only the inch given mile taken and the CLIMATEGATE ALONE WILL APPEASE ME croud, which you are part of, that is unwilling to find a neutral title. Hipocrite (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The titling controversy refers to one documented by RSs, not one that exists in Wikipedia. Moogwrench (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a controversy over "Climategate" in reliable sources. There was a whole section about it in the article untill it was removed. Hipocrite (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support a section in the "Climategate" article which refers to a titling controversy, assuming RSs could be found for the controversy over the name in the real world. Moogwrench (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Moogwrench, Yes, they are both policies. Common names are only preferred if they are demonstrably neutral or if they are used by a consensus of reliable sources, as discussed above. Thanks for linking to your search method above, do you realise that your search brings up innumerable unreliable sources such as blogs and readers' comments? Not to mention the amusing Climategate: Once Respected Nature Now Staffed By Moaning Ninnies, Men's News Daily - Christopher Monckton - ‎Mar 13, 2010. His unreliability as an author has been shown already, interesting to contemplate the academic credentials of Men's News Daily. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some hits on non-mainstream sources, but in terms of usage, it is one tool among several which shows the term's prevalence among news organizations. And to be fair of course, non-mainstream sources for "hacking incident" were also shown, few as they may have been. Search engines are specified under WP:Article_titles#Common_names as being one way to measure the commonality and usage, and Google News is among the first specifically mentioned by Wikipedia:Search_engine_test. Moogwrench (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Did you read that whole page - "search engines often will not: Be neutral." Could you please stop quoting pages you've never looked at before in the hopes they say what you hope they say? It's really getting tiresome. Hipocrite (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I said before, you were the one who insisted that a policy statement was just an editor's thoughts. Don't lecture me on not reading stuff, please. I sense a little projection going on there. Moogwrench (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources search engine

If it helps, I created a reliable sources search engine. It does a much better job of filtering through the non-reliable sources than Google News search does. Google News picks up blogs, opinion pieces and even Prison Planet. My search engine filters through most of that junk.

http://www.google.com/ cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en

If it helps, we can use this tool to determine what the most common name in English is. I use this entensively when editing Wikipedia and found it to be incredibly helpful. For some reason, Wikipedia blocks Google search engines so I included a space between http://www.google.com/ and cse. Just delete the blank space and copy and paste the URL in your browser. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! This is really useful!130.232.214.10 (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be broken, because I keep getting Faux News and the Murdoch Street Journal in the returned results, yet reliable sources like The Nation and Huffington Post appear to be missing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is routinely found to be reliable on the WP:RSN. Unfortunately, I don't know how to omit the opinion pieces from the WSJ without omitting the news articles. Is the HP reliable? I can add that one if it's not already in the search engine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think your custom search is just fine, and quite useful. Bookmarked. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately, Hans doesn't think it's trustworthy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

List of reliable sources which use the term "Climategate"

• Newsweek The Truth About ‘Climategate’
• FOX News Britain's Weather Office Proposes Climate-Gate Do-Over
• Politico Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation
• The Telegraph Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
• The American Thinker Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline
• US News & World Report Penn State Panel Clears ‘Climategate’ Prof of Three Claims
• The Times Climate e-mails were hijacked 'to sabotage summit'
• Reason (magazine) The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate
• The Guardian How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies
• Science News 'Climate-gate': Beyond the embarrassment
• BBC News Climate e-mail hack 'will impact on Copenhagen summit'
• Christian Science Monitor Will clash of science and politics undermine Copenhagen summit?
• Columbia Journalism Review Hacked E-mails and “Journalistic Tribalism”
• The Sydney Morning Herald 'Climate-gate' forces weather data review
• Channel 4 News Phil Jones responds to Climategate emails
• NPR Exploring Fallout Of Climate E-Mails
• The Independent Climate change conspiracies: Stolen emails used to ridicule global warming
• The Financial Times University rebuts ‘climategate’ accusations
• Discovery News Climate Myths and Questions, Part III
• Times of India UN to review its top climate panel IPCC

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a few more. Most major news agencies have been using the term.

• New York Times 'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound
• CBS News "the recent controversy surrounding 'Climategate'"
• The Guardian "The "climategate" scandal involving the University of East Anglia"
• USA Today "Mann suddenly found himself in the middle of the "Climategate" scandal"
• BBC 'Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised
• FactCheck.org “Climategate” - Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
• ABC News 'Climategate': Scientists, Politicians War Over Hacked E-Mails

This is all about whether or not we as a group want to follow the sources, nothing more, nothing less. Moogwrench (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And the sources that don't use the name? After all, it's a consensus of sources. So an analysis of this sort is meaningless unless it includes a fairly exhaustive sample of how this name is used. You can't present only one side and say "see, proof". You need to demonstrate "a consensus of sources". Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And just to be clear, when you're saying "a list of reliable sources which use the term", do you mean "a list of reliable sources which use the term exclusively", "a list of reliable sources which use the term predominantly" or "a list of reliable sources which have used the term at some point in time"? Guettarda (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And please distinguish "used in scare quotes" from "used", because, of course, as we have discussed many times, those are very different things. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, with all due respect, those kind of different tiers and prongs and penumbras just aren't a part of Wikipedia policy. Policy is concerned with whether or not the term is generally being used. It isn't going to say, well, 79% of the Fox News stories use the term but only 54% of the Guardian stories do. There is no other common name for this controversy that is so widely used. If you can suggest one, we can test it. Quotes issue likewise--many neologisms have quotes around them when a word is newly coined or used in a novel way. Excluding a common term just because people put quotes around it is not policy based. Moogwrench (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Policy is concerned with whether or not the term is generally being used" - actually, in a case like this it's concerned with whether there's consensus, but setting that aside, my questions are equally applicable to "generally being used". So again - are you using these examples to determine that these sources generally use the term? You have offered single instances of usage. Which are, of course, irrelevant, if you're claiming generality of use. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you put forward an alternative metric that would establish/disconfirm generality of use? -- Chadhoward (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A little policy reader

For everybody's convenience, below I have listed the policy paragraphs that appear to be relevant. I believe by reading everything in its proper context we can easily find out what the policies actually tell us to do in this case. Hans Adler 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

WP:TITLE

This page describes Wikipedia's policy on choosing article titles. It is supplemented and explained by guidelines linked to this policy (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.

Common names
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. [...] When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best.

Descriptive titles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave. For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Another example is that the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

---

WP:NPOV

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Article titles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.

---

Policy analysis

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

• First of all: This is not a typical case. (The typical case would be something like "Vienna", where the policy tells us that we don't use "Wien".) In a sense it is both the common name ("most common English-language name of the subject of the article") and a descriptive title (Note that the policy section about descriptive titles specifically has "Attorneygate" as an example. There is no doubt that the title describes the debate as something like Watergate, only related to climate.)
• "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." – So we must find out if we are in the normal case. Does any of the exceptions apply?
• "When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best." – This is what we will have to do if an exception applies, so that we can't just use the common name.
• (A) "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." – The title "Climategate" is descriptive and does pass judgement. => An exception applies.
• (B) "For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy." => This is almost exactly very similar to our situation, so the exception definitely applies.
• (C) "See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology."
  • "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." (From Wikipedia:Words to avoid.) − This is clear: Titles do not use -gate unless they are historical. => An exception applies.
• (D) "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." – The title "Climategate" does not do that. => An exception applies.
• "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." – This suggests to use the common name, i.e. "Climategate". However, it is evident that it does not try to overrule the exceptions above, which all apply. Otherwise "Attorneygate" would be a legitimate title and most of the exceptions would make no sense at all. Moreover, the title "Climategate" is used by a majority of the sources, but not by a consensus of the sources: Some sources don't use it at all, some only use it in inverted commas, and some even say why it is problematic/wrong. At the moment some sources treat "Climategate" as a name, and others treat it as a mere description.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans, thank you for input. A couple comments:

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

A Google News archive search returns 100 hits for "Attorneygate" OR "Attorney-gate"[68] and a Google News search returns 75,245 958 hits for "Climategate" OR "Climate-gate"[69] although I'm not certain this is a fair comparison. I think my reliable sources search engine is a better tool for comparison. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans, I am sorry, I think we will have to disagree on this. The wikilawyering accusation is just another way of saying, I don't agree with your interpretation, so why don't you just say that instead. Jimbo shares my point of view ([70], [71], & [72]), and while someone might argue about his grasp of policy (I don't), I don't think many doubt his vision of the spirit of Wikipedian policies, first and foremost NPOV, which he has always harped on, especially in regards to BLPs. So please don't just throw out the notion that I am violating the spirit or underlying principles of Wikipedia. Moogwrench (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Flow diagram" for checking a title

I thought once all of the relevant policies are provided for convenient reference the cherry-picking stops. Perhaps I was too optimistic. Our articles normally use a common name (name used by the majority of sources) as a title. Exceptions happen when the title is inaccurate or expresses a POV. In the present case, the common name appears to be "Climategate". (Whether it is accurate depends on one's POV, so we only need to check whether it is ruled out because it expresses a POV.) The procedure for checking this, as implied by the policies, is as follows:

1. Is the name descriptive? (e.g. "Attorneygate", "Jack the Ripper", "Attila the Hun")

   No: There is no POV problem.

   Yes: Continue with the next item.

2. Is the name non-neutral? (e.g. "-gate", "ripper")

   No: There is no POV problem.

   Yes: Continue with the next item.

3. Is the name used by a consensus of the reliable sources?

   No: The title is non-neutral to the point that it creates a POV problem and we can't use it.

   Yes: The title is non-neutral but can be used anyway. There is no POV problem.

I would appreciate it if editors who disagree with my analysis in the section above could indicate whether they believe (a) that this "flow diagram" is flawed, or (b) that "Climategate" is an acceptable title according to the diagram. Hans Adler 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's flawed because it's based on the assumption that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be biased. WP:NPOV is about editorial bias. That is, we are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. Our article on Intelligent design is heavily biased in favor of evolution. That's exactly that way it's supposed to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to me. I think it would make sense if you could point out a specific point where the "flow diagram" is wrong. Perhaps number 3? Then how would you deal with the relevant paragraph from WP:NPOV in such a flow diagram?

Or are you just unhappy with the words I am using? If you can find better wording, e.g. instead of "There is a POV problem" or "There is a POV problem, but", then I will be more than happy to incorporate the improvement. Hans Adler 12:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is a case with special considerations that are not part of the above diagram: We have a clear hierarchy of reliability, with a consensus of the most reliable sources being contradicted by a significant minority of reliable sources of lesser quality. If you think something similar applies here we can open that can of worms, of course, but you should present a plausible argument that this is the case. Hans Adler 12:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, it's a "you misunderstand policy" argument. If you want me to point out a specific point where the "flow diagram" is wrong, it's here: "Does the name express a POV?". This question is completely irrelevant. It's perfectly acceptable that articles express a POV. In fact, WP:NPOV demands it. Until the light bulb goes on that WP:NPOV means we as Wikipedia editors remain editorially neutral, I'm not sure I can explain it to you, but I've often heard it said that WP:NPOV is itself a POV. Does that help? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, it's just about language. In ordinary wiki speak "POV" has several related meanings, and it's hard to use it consistently in one of the ways as you are demanding. I tried to fix the language above. Thank you for your input, the wording is closer to the original text now. Does this address all your concerns? Hans Adler 12:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not just about language, it's about a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV really means. Do you agree that WP:NPOV means that we repeat the bias of reliable sources? If you can't agree to this, then this discussion is going nowhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV#Bias. You seem to be claiming the opposite. If 60% of reliable sources are biased one way and 40% are biased the other way it is not our job to write an article with the bias of the 60%, pretending the 40% don't exist. We balance things out to get an unbiased article.

In the title such balancing is almost impossible. How we deal with this problem is described in the policies, and the flow diagram above is a simplified version of that description. You can't argue these details of the policies away with a bit of general hand-waving. Any attempt to interpret policy in such a way that the passages dealing with the problem at hand (how to title an article in the presence of a political conflict) would not be applied under any circumstances, and the opposite of what they say results in the specific case, any such interpretation attempt is obviously defective. Hans Adler 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding what I'm saying. If 60% of reliable sources are biased one way and 40% are biased the other way, then we write the article a 60%-40% mix (roughly speaking). So, if reliable sources are biased in favor of the term Climategate, then we're supposed to repeat that bias and use that term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm So if reliable sources are 70% biased in favour of "Climategate", we choose a title that uses the term 70% of the time? Excellent idea. Just think through the necessary changes in the MediaWiki software and submit a feature request. Hans Adler 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Article titles are a little different because we can only pick one. Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say 100% of all reliable sources use the term "Climategate". What should this article be titled? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV

WP:NPOV does not mean a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view.(emphasis Wikipedia) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The other side might win

After making useful points, some commenters frequently add something like, "plus, we can't do that because it would give points to the skeptics." An edit may give solace to a group one dislikes or disagrees with -- that is not a valid reason for or against any edit.

In addition, to help illustrate why these statements are misdirected and not useful for article collaboration, I'll say something I shouldn't have to say: I am not a skeptic; I believe temperatures have risen and may continue to rise, which carries risks; I have no reason to doubt much of the science I've read; etc. Hopefully that gives a clue about how senseless it is to infer that anyone who proposes, say, a change to this article's title is "on the other team" and is acting on base motives. -- Chadhoward (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to infer that some of them are? What should be done about those? Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Infer what you like for personal purposes, but your inference shouldn't push you to be for or against any particular edit. -- Chadhoward (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you would find those numbers to be smaller than you think. I personally think the earth is warming. However, it is also clear that some (see UN) are using the warming as a political wedge and some activists are likely overstating both the warming, the effects of the warming, and man's contribution (hence Climategate). The Climategate controversy is largely about this, and not so much a rejection of the science that the earth is warming. Some, however, have such a hair trigger that they assume than any disagreement implies that they are dealing with a science skeptic. Arzel (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's actually the other way around. The activists claim that the warming is being underestimated by the IPCC, and that the conclusions are actually highly conservative. Obviously, everybody needs to meet in the middle, but the use of the term "skeptic" here is absurd. All good scientists are supposed to be skeptical. "Denier" is an appropriate term given the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, what you write isn't true - no one has written anything like that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noted several instances, although prefer not to mention them specifically. Just trying to keep the mood light :) -- Chadhoward (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you do notice things like that, please drop a note to the involved editors. Privately, quietly, but let them know they're slipping into too much of a battleground mentality. Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a skeptic, and the sort of "sides" Chadhoward describes are indeed a bad idea. What everyone must accept is that neutrality requires us to show the majority view in climate science as well as the minority view shown proportionately, and must show the majority expert view of such minority views. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -- Chadhoward (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Right Dave, but this article isn't about climate science. It is about the controversy over some emails some people sent. Nobody should treat this as a proxy battle over the truth of AGW. But Hipocrite above says that the only reason one could possibility want Climategate to be the title is to undermine science, and that he thinks that this is my motivation... Moogwrench (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a working scientist I find the more important aspect of the controversy to be the questions raised about peer-review in general. At the University I work this has been the main topic of discussion not that AGW might be flawed. It's common knowledge that peer-review is not perfect but some of the allegations have been quite disturbing. So for me it's not about THE science (climate science) but the process of publishing of scientific results in general.91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the key, climategate is not about the science. It's a political and cultural event about process, the article should not (nor will it) become a coatrack for denialists. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, are you worried that an edit that makes some climate scientists look bad fails to show the majority view in climate science? I hope you'll agree that that falls into the "we can't make that edit because the other side will win a point" category. -- Chadhoward (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My only concern in that regard is that we accurately and proportionately reflect reliable sources – if a consensus of mainstream scientific views makes some climate scientists look bad, we show that. If there is context, we show that. If a notable minority view makes scientists look bad, we show that is a minority view in expert opinion, and describe the mainstream views of that minority view. The same applies to all – if significant sources make those attacking the scientists look bad, we show that as well. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, although I think it's possible for political events to make scientists look bad too. -- Chadhoward (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, many people here seem to think that we are supposed to be evaluating the scientific merits of AGW here. This article is about what everyday people think about this, not scientists. It isn't a science article, it is an article on a social controversy. Moogwrench (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a very silly argument. Encyclopedia articles are not about what "everyday people think". Public perception on the climate issue has been targeted by special interests for decades, and the public simply does not know what to think as a result. Intentionally confusing people and then appealing to their opinion is disingenuous. For more information on this topic, see Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (2010); Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (2009); and Climate Change Science and Policy (2009). Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I too see that as something to avoid, Moogwrench. -- Chadhoward (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another silly argument. Encyclopedias don't avoid the primary topic of an article. They address it directly. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The scientific merit of AGW is not the primary topic of this article. -- Chadhoward (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think this point is the one that has caused some much ruckus on these pages. It is absolutely correct, this article is -not- about the science of GW. Arkon (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, why are anti-science bloggers and their accompanying swarms of flying monkeys proclaiming that the controversy disproves climate change science? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Metrics for analysing use of "Climategate"

While it is my opinion that WP:AVOID, WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE rule out "climategate" regardless of its use elsewhere, one of the issues surrounding the term is which metric is used to determine the popularity or prevalence of the term. To apply the policy, we need to determine whether or not "climategate is" the "most common English-language name of the subject", "used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources" or "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources".

Some editors have used Google searches for this purpose, but that includes sources that would clearly not be considered reliable, fails to address the context in which the term appears and gives only a raw number, without determining how many sources manage to address the issue without the use of the clearly loaded term.

Perhaps this should give us some guidance:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

There are 49 such sources at the moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&oldid=350170598):

Title	Link	Date	Comment
"Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists" - The Guardian	[73]	2009-11-24	Does not appear
"Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post.	[74]	2009-11-21	Does not appear
"Scotland Yard call in to probe climate data leak from UEA in Norwich". Norwich Evening News	[75]	2009-12-01	So called 'climategate'
"Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.	[76]	2009-11-20	Does not appear
"The CRU hack: Context". RealClimate.	[77]	2009-11-23	Does not appear (possibly biased source)
"“A miracle just happened”". Climate Audit.	[78]	2009-11-23	Does not appear (possibly biased source)
"Climate email hackers had access for more than a month". The Guardian.	[79]	2009-11-27	Does not appear
"The CRU hack". RealClimate.	[80]	2009-11-20	Does not appear (possibly biased source)
"Emalis that rocked climate change campaign leaked from Siberian 'closed city' university built by KGB". Daily Mail.	[81]	2009-12-06	Appears in title and body, the latter without quotation marks.
"Climategate controversy has echoes of Watergate, UN says". The Times.	[82]	2009-12-06	“This is not ‘climategate’, it’s ‘hackergate’. Let’s not forget the word ‘gate’ refers to a place where data was stolen by people who were paid to do so. So the media should direct its investigations into that.”, quoting source.
"Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times.	[83]	2009-11-21	Does not appear
"Extremism fears surround Norwich email theft". Norwich Evening News.	[84]	2010-01-11	Does not appear
"Police extremist unit helps climate change e-mail probe". BBC News.	[85]	2010-01-11	Does not appear
"Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer", Reuters	[86]	2009-11-23	Already dubbed "Climategate"
"Penn State scientist at center of a storm". The Philadelphia Inquirer.	[87]	2009-12-08	The disturbance, now known as climategate
"Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data". The Times.	[88]	2010-01-28	Does not appear
"Climate Emails Stoke Debate:Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming". Wall Street Journal.	[89]	2009-11-23	Does not appear
"Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims". The Daily Telegraph.	[90]	2009-11-24	Does not appear
"Chair for climate e-mail review", BBC News	[91]	2009-12-03	"..those who are using 'climategate' as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making." (Quoting source)
"Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws'", BBC News	[92]	2010-01-28	Does not appear
Comment is free". The Guardian.	[93]	2009-12-11	Does not appear
"Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails"	[94]	2009-11-23	Does not appear
"Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show"	[95]	2009-11-23	Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate"
"Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away", The Guardian	[96]	2009-11-25	Does not appear
"Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims", The Grauniad	[97]	2009-11-24	Does not appear
"CRU Update 1 December". University of East Anglia – Communications Office.	[98]	2009-12-01	Does not appear (possibly biased source)
"Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily". The Daily Telegraph.	[99]	2009-12-01	Does not appear
"Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data", The Times	[100]	2009-12-05	Does not appear
"Met Office to publish climate change data amid fraud claims", The Guardian	[101]	2009-12-05	...the claims, dubbed Climategate...
"Release of global-average temperature data", Met Office press release	[102]	2009-12-05	Does not appear, but does not directly refer to incident either
"UK Met Office to publish climate record", CNN	[103]	2009-12-06	Does not appear
"Science and Technology Committee Announcement: The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia".	[104]	2010-01-22	Does not appear
"House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Session 2009-10: Uncorrected oral evidence, 1 March 2010, "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia," HC 387-i. Uploaded on 3 March 2010". UK Parliament website.	[105]	2010-03-06.	"You just need to follow the media reporting on Climategate.", Transcript
"Science and Technology - Memoranda". House of Commons.	[106]	2010-02-27	Does not appear (TOC, though)
"'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound", NYTimes.com	[107]	2010-03-02	See title for only appearance.
"Climategate scientist questioned in Parliament", New Scientist	[108]	2010-03-02	See title for only appearance.
"Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry", The Guardian	[109]	2010-03-02	...the email affair, dubbed "climategate"...
"Energy consultant 'influenced climate evidence'", Times Online	[110]	2010-03-05	Does not appear
"Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission", The Guardian	[111]	2010-03-04	...the email affair, dubbed "climategate"...
"University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules", The Guardian	[112]	2010-01-27	Does not appear
"University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims", The Guardian	[113]	2010-02-25	Does not appear
"UEA rejects 'Climategate' accusations". Norfolk News	[114]	2010-02-26	...investigations into the “Climategate” affair...
"University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’", The Times	[115]	2010-02-27	Does not appear
"UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row". BBC.	[116]	2009-12-04.	Critics ... have dubbed the issue "ClimateGate".
"No cover-up inquiry, climate chief". The Age.	[117]	2009-12-10	Does not appear
"Climatologist Leaves Post in Inquiry Over E-Mail Leaks". New York Times.	[118]	2009-12-01	Does not appear
"University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information", Penn State University	[119]	2009-12-06	Does not appear (possibly biased source)
"Penn St. prof. welcomes climate change scrutiny". Associated Press.	[120]	2009-12-06	Does not appear
"RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"	[121]	2010-02-03	Does not appear (possibly biased source)

I've attemped to show whether or not the term appears, the context if it does, any other relevant information (pointing out that RealClimate, UEA, CRU and Penn State University may be biased), etc.

I believe this is a reliable metric, and that it shows the term is not "used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources", in fact it is a clear minority of sources using the term, some sources explicitly reject the term, while others distance themselves from it by making it clear that others refer to it as "Climategate". The phrase has caught on in some circles, but it is clearly a loaded and politically biased term. Most reliable sources manage to avoid it, and we should follow those reliable sources.

Please note that while I have made a good faith attempt to analyse the references, if there are errors here I apologise and I invite other users to contribute further to the analysis. I've included dates for the articles as well, in case those are deemed relevant (e.g. sources from very early in the development of the story may have appeared before the term was coined). I initially started this section on my talk page in case it cluttered up the conversation here, but I thought it deserved a wider audience. If this is overkill for the talk page, let me know. StuartH (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, because it is important for applying the NPOV policy: If a source only talks about "Climategate" in inverted commas or in the form "so-called Climategate", then it is not using the term but mentioning it. This is something we can't measure with Google searches. (For a non-neutral title to be usable, it must be used by a consensus of reliable sources.) Hans Adler 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that just because a source is biased does not mean it's unreliable. All sources have a bias. The only thing that matters is its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another flaw in your analysis is that it uses primary sources rather than independent, third-party sources. If you want to open this up to primary sources, there are over 5 million in favor of "Climategate".[122] although I think we should stick to independent, third-party sources. But I'm open to discussing whether primary sources should be included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Copngratulations on comprehensively documenting the media's propensity for slapping "gate" onto the end of any remotely political issue. Not that it changes anything, of course. I do think it's a scandal that they do this in an attempt to pretend that every trivial dispute is as earth-shattering as Watergate. This crisis should be called Gategate. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good analysis, thanks for putting the effort into it. Any demonstration of usage needs to look at usage, rather than cherry-picking. Is it too much to hope that people will follow your example? Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the November and possibly December sources should be ignored because that is simply too close to the event. I also feel that CRU and RealClimate should be ignored since they are both trying to spin the event as "nothing to see here". Newspapers are interesting because they typically use the term in some articles, but not others. Perhaps the list should be organized to make that a little more obvious. The fact that the term appears only in the title simply means that it is so well known that it does not need to be defined in the article. Q Science (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to agree about November sources, but Google trends [123] suggests that the term was already well established by December. As for including/excluding certain sources, or the significance of quotation marks, where the term appears (e.g. Titles), etc., I'm not sure what the best solution is. I just think that if we are to change the name to "Climategate" because that is used by a "significant majority of reliable English language sources", it needs to be demonstrated that it actually is used by "significant majority of reliable English language sources" (and I still maintain that there are still policy violations even if it is demonstrated). To do this, we need some form of quantitative measure of its use amongst reliable English sources, whether it be this one or another. If you feel you can organise the list a bit better or improve the methodology, go right ahead. It was admittedly a quick and dirty test, but I was actually expecting the term to be far more common. On the face of it, it doesn't look like "Climategate" has the support amongst reliable sources to justify a change against other policies and guidelines, and with the baggage the loaded term carries with it. StuartH (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the current title

There's interesting discussion, above, about "Climategate" and while my views are well-known on that title (it is the obvious correct title based on policy, and the POV pushing in attempts to avoid it is quite clear). However, this particular note is not about that at all, and I am not conceding in any way that 'Climategate' should not be the title, since it should be.

Having said that, I think it may be wise to explore other alternatives. The problems with the current title are pretty obvious.

1. There is a scandal here, and I don't think anyone - even those who are the guilty parties in the scandal - is denying that. We have seen at least one quote from one of the participants in the emails saying that he sent "pretty awful" emails. Therefore, the word 'scandal' seems to be a neutral descriptor.

2. The scandal is not primarily centered on this as a "hacking incident". The current title is highly POV because it suggests to the reader that the scandal is that the emails were released. At the current time, to my knowledge, no one has been identified or pursued as the leaker, and there has been no actual proof that this is a "hacking incident" at all. It seems equally likely, again to my knowledge, that this was the act of a whistleblower, i.e. someone in a position to see these emails found them discomforting and released them to the press.

To put this in the context of NPOV, and to help people think about it, imagine if we had an article (do we? we might!) about some famous incident of a leak of documents embarrassing to the tobacco industry at their worst. Would we call it "Tobacco Research Labs hacking incident"? Or would we call it "The Camel Papers". (I am making up the example to illustrate the point, however I suspect we can find an example.)

My point here is to illustrate that calling it a "hacking incident" misses the point of why it is newsworthy entirely. Not just "misses" the point but actively misleads the reader.

3. Based on these points, what objections could there to be moving the article to a more accurate and yet completely neutral title. "Climatic Research Unit email scandal" is a simple and obvious first pass at it. Other titles could be proposed after a review of other historical incidents that have some reasonable similarity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The funny thing is here that the people who are most keen on using the term "climategate" seem to have forgotten that in the prototypical Watergate incident the people doing the breaking and entering were very much the bad guys, breaking the law for sinister and venal ends - very much as they are here, in fact! Email scandal is fine, it was indeed a scandalous action. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Addendum: Jeffrey Wigand is an example of what I have in mind. He was a whistleblower who came forward with unsavory information about a tobacco company. We don't seem to have an article about the incident, though we could. Just imagine what that article should be called. Certainly not the "Brown & Williamson breach of employee confidentiality incident". Further research into our best practices is likely worthwhile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Scandal is problematic. I've supported before, and will support again, removing the word "hacking" from the title, as long as it's not replaced with "leak." Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Further, as I'm sure you're aware, your belief that this is a whistleblower is unverified and unverifiable. We don't include unverifed information in articles. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing that the title use the word 'leak'. We don't know that it is a leak. We do know that it is a scandal, and we do know that the scandal is not primarily about how the documents came to light, but the content of the documents.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is also completely contradicted by the key sources with direct knowledge of the issue - the university, the police and the independent inquiry, all of which have spoken unequivocally of a hack (Scotland Yard's specialist computer crime unit has been involved). Additionally, it ignores the undisputed fact that RealClimate was hacked to upload the stolen files. I'm frankly dismayed to see Jimbo latching on to a completely speculative hypothesis that has been promoted by political activists with no direct knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances. This is very poor form all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did not latch on to a speculative hypothesis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"It seems equally likely, again to my knowledge, that this was the act of a whistleblower, i.e. someone in a position to see these emails found them discomforting and released them to the press." Your words, Jimbo. "It seems" is speculative pretty much by definition, is it not? -- ChrisO (talk)

I am objection to "latch on" - that point is not particularly relevant at all to the substance of my argument. I personally think it is not just "equally likely" but "almost certainly" a leak from inside - time will tell if I'm right, but this is not relevant in any way to the current discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But you need to realise that it's speculation. And given the weight people give to your opinions, you need to make it clear that this is a purely speculative opinion. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Jimbo, Chris is right. "Equally likely"? Sorry, there's nothing to substantiate that. Given the weight some people put on your every word, you need to get your facts straight before you weigh in. Guettarda (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I and others pointed out earlier, we have no expert sources calling it either a "hack" or a "leak", and no reliable sources calling it a hack other than quoting UEA, CRU, or ClimateGate. The police refer to it as a "data breach". (That being said, objectively, ClimateGate was hacked. But we don't have reliable sources for that, either.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that "we have no expert sources" is completely wrong. The only sources with direct knowledge of the matter at this point are the police, the UEA, the CRU and the independent inquiry. All of them have said unequivocally that the CRU was hacked. There are no other "expert sources" because no other sources have direct knowledge of the matter. Every other source that has opined on the issue has done so purely speculatively on the basis of personal opinion. I might add that this "leak" claim originated with anti-science activists; it's interesting that few if any have sought to actually justify the hack. And as I've pointed out above, it completely ignores the undisputed fact that RealClimate was also hacked at the same tiem to upload the stolen files. Anti-science activists have preferred to ignore this because it can't be reconciled with the "leak" speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

False, and falsified, before. UEA and CRU would call it a hack even if it were proved otherwise. The police said "data breach", which is a fairly neutral term, at least in US English. And the independent inquiry called it a hack, but went on to say they weren't investigating whether it was a hack. So, no expert sources is clear. (And ClimateGate wasn't hacked at the time; it was hacked later.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And, in any event, this is all completely irrelevant to the main issue. The point I'm making is that the controversy/scandal here is not in HOW the data was released, but the CONTENT of the data, which was spectacularly damaging. So titling the article as if this controversy is about a "hacking incident" is wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spectacularly damaging" to what? What reliable source says that? Please don't argue based on unverifiable information. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Again Jimbo, given your position in the community you need to start getting your facts straight. Please. Stop for a moment, get your facts straight. That's all I ask. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• To Guy: Interesting point. But it's not always the people breaking in who are the bad guys, even if there was a breakin here.
• (ec) In response to Jimbo Wales: It's not just the E-mail; it's the raw data files (not previously released, although they probably should have been) and analysis programs (in which some real climate scientists, even some of the ones sending questionable E-mails, have found potentially serious flaws.) I'd have to suggest "Climatic Research Unit document scandal". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think 'document' sounds fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• To Hipocrite: "scandal" is not problematic. But if you insist on a falsely neutral term, "breach" sounds good. And it's unverified that there was a whistleblower or a breakin, although it's likely there was one or the other. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit Incident or Climatic Research Unit Controversy would be fine, I think. Scandal is problematic, because it assumes the existance of a scandal. Controversy is fine, as there's certainly a controversy, but scandal implies something scandalous, which, in this case, is not supported by reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to assume the existence of a scandal! That's 100% verifiable. There is no question that there is a scandal here, and there is no question that the scandal is centered on the content of the emails. There are different views on the scandal (as there usually is). But there is no question that there is a scandal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The definition of scandal. [124] "A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both."

The definition of controversy. [125] "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion."

Per these definitions I find scandal a better fit as the reputation of the CRU has been damaged by the 'widely publicized allegations'. A simple 'Climategate' will do. A descriptive and per definition correct title is 'The Climatic Research Unit Scandal'.130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel a particularly strong attachment to the current title, and think there are likely better options there to be found. "Climategate", for the reasons outlined by myself and many others is certainly not one of those better options, and appears to go against Wikipedia policy. If we are to adopt a proper noun for the incident, that proper noun would need to be "used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources" and as demonstrated above, "Climategate" isn't. It also appears to violate the "Descriptive titles" section of WP:TITLE, which makes it clear that the most common name isn't used by default anyway.

The fact that it is a current event in which investigations are ongoing puts it in a difficult context. Not an intractable context, but we do need to be careful with loaded or partisan terms. I note that you referred to Swiftboating when another user raised the issue. But it's quite clear that the article is on the term "Swiftboating", and when the suggestion was made to similarly make "Climategate" either an article about the term or a disambiguation page about the multiple definitions used for the term such suggestions were rejected. The term is significant enough to be mentioned in the article, but it is certainly not the right title for it. StuartH (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have previously supported Climatic Research Unit e-mail and document controversy, which I believe is a better title than what we have at the moment. Hans Adler has done an admirable job of setting out why "Climategate" is totally unacceptable. We should be aiming to find an acceptable descriptive title, not a POV nickname, and not a title that prejudges the case. We must not lose sight of the fact that the investigations into the case are still ongoing and no wrongdoing of any sort has yet been confirmed - indeed, the only investigation to have concluded so far (into Michael E. Mann) has exonerated him. Anti-science activists have sought to frame this issue as a scandal from the outset in order to convict the individuals involved in the court of public opinion and discredit them and climate science as a whole. The terminology for this affair has been a key strand in that effort. Clive Stafford Smith recently wrote (in a different context): "The botched Watergate burglary was of minor significance; the White House conspiracy to keep it secret drove Nixon from office. It turned the word "gate" into a suffix for every political evil." [126] Living persons are being accused by partisan bloggers and columnists of all kinds of frauds and misdeeds, which is strongly disputed and in some respects already disproven by scientists and neutral commentators. NPOV and BLP dictates that we must be careful not to fall into the trap of endorsing a partisan framing of the issue that endorses one side's viewpoint from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) There's an aspect of how to "slice 'n' dice" the story here. We already have too much for one article, and so have this article on the incident and another on the (more notable of the) documents themselves. At the moment this is considered the parent article and so covers the precursors, the reactions to, and the consequences of the incident, as far as they are notable and verifiable. I think there could be room for a separate article on the term Climategate, including its first usages, its relationship with other similar terms, who uses it etc. We used to have a section on that here, but I see it didn't suit somebody as it's now gone. There are two potential articles that I don't feel we should have, although some people seem to clamour for them: (1) CRU scientists proved to be lying crooks - this one would break every WP:BLP policy, as it would be based on unsupportable lynch-mob sources including far-right blogs etc. (2) Climate science proved false - this one would be counter to the verifiable facts, as reported by every science-based RS, and would be based on anti-science denialist sources. The danger is that there are people here who desperately want to write one or both of these tracts, and would love to be able to do so under the title Climategate, as that fully sums up the sentiment: That these emails put the final nail into the coffin of climate science, by proving that it was entirely based on lies and malpractice. Much more reportable information will be known on these two issues when the investigations and reviews, currently in progress, begin to report. If their results justify such articles, of course we will write them; but not yet - just about everything that is not already covered in the two current articles is still mere speculation, and wishful thinking by some, at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As for "scandal", while you can fit this to the definition of the word "scandal", you can also fit it to the definition of the word "smear". Calling it one and not the other would require some seriously good sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense, and you should know it. There's a scandal, which we're discussing. There may be a smear, which doesn't seem to be discussed in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read the emails, there doesn't seem to be a smear. The emails objectively speaking are, as even one of the participants has acknowledged, "pretty awful".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're reading primary sources (hacked emails), applying your own understanding of what they mean and using that to justify the title of an article? Would it be appropriate to do the same to other articles - ones that you didn't feel so strongly about? Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense? Let's see - according to the OED there are 7 meanings of scandal

1. Religious use..."scandal of the cross" and things like that

   pretty safe to assume we're not talking about it here

2. Damage to reputation; rumour or general comment injurious to reputation.

   Not the meaning we're talking about (based on the examples of usage & obsolete usage, it's closer to "slander")

3. A grossly discreditable circumstance, event, or condition of things/A person whose conduct is that

   Grossly discreditable? Nope.

4. Offence to moral feeling or sense of decency.

   Not what we're talking about

5. The utterance of disgraceful imputations; defamatory talk

   Nope

6. Law. Any injurious report published concerning another which may be the foundation of legal action or An irrelevancy or indecency introduced into a pleading to the derogation of the dignity of the court

   Not what we're talking about here

7. Combination like scandal-bearer, scandal-monger, etc.

OK, you're right. I can't fit this to the definition of the word "scandal". No way, no how. "Smear", on the other hand, still fits... Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual event fits #2, although we can disagree as to who is doing it to whom. Even a suggestion that E-mails should be deleted in response to an FOIA act fits #3. #4 fits, although it's not what we're talking about, due to GW bias. #6 fits (FOIA comments). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning #2 is "damage" in the sense of slander. So "smear" would be equivalent. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling that comment "grossly discreditable circumstance" is ridiculous hyperbole, as is calling it "moral feeling or sense of decency". Seriously - a lot of nasty shit gets said in departmental politics. And, safe behind the shield of privacy, people talk big, people are full of false bravado. As long as there was no follow-up action (and no one has suggested that there was any) this is not so far outside of the norms of private behaviour that there's anything that could be called "grossly discreditable". Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the difference between saying "I want to kick his ass" in private, and actually doing it. You've got to admit that these are very different things. Guettarda (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From The Real Holes in Climate Science - Quirin Schiermeier, Nature, 463, 284–287, 2010

A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that challenges the scientific consensus of climate change.

There's a summary from as good a source as anyone could hope for. That isn't a "scandal". We are supposed to deal with the real world of verifiable facts from reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the contents of the emails can engender scandal without undermining any science. -- Chadhoward (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A compromise proposal

I'd like to resurrect the compromise proposal that ChrisO and GoRight were working on. I've copied and pasted their proposal below and I added my signature.

We the undersigned would like to propose the following name change for the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article:

Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy

This proposal has come about as a result of good-faith discussions by editors who have expressed differing opinions on the subject but have nonetheless come together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Our reasons are as follows:

1. The constant renaming proposals are unproductive and ultimately a drain on people's time.
2. It is clear that few if any people want the current name.
3. Coming to an amicable compromise is in the best interests of the project, overall.

We believe that this proposal has the following benefits:

1. It avoids the use of "Climategate", which is strongly opposed by many editors, is deprecated by current policies and is inconsistent with Wikipedia's usual approach to such issues.
2. The redirect from Climategate will still be in place for users searching for that name.
3. It avoids the use of "stolen", "hack" or "data" to which editors objected on various grounds.
4. It follows a well established project convention in the naming of X-gate type articles: namely the X-gate is a redirect to an article which is descriptively named after its subject matter (e.g. Rathergate ? Killian documents controversy, Attorneygate ? Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy, Whitewatergate ? Whitewater controversy etc).
5. It is a middle ground proposal that requires everyone to give a little and noone walks away with everything they wanted (i.e. it really is a compromise).
6. The inclusion of "email" is obviously needed as this is probably the single most noted and discussed aspect of the whole affair.
7. The inclusion of "documents" is still broad enough to cover other materials (even code) which were released and it is well aligned with the FOI request aspects of the affair.
8. It does not depend on the outcome of ongoing investigations, and will remain valid whatever the investigations conclude.
9. And probably most importantly, "controversy" does not bias the article on one direction or another, thereby meeting NPOV requirements.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not happy with "controversy" versus "scandal" but can live with it as a significant improvement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• As AQFK says, I supported this proposal originally (I co-wrote with GoRight the list of benefits above) and I am happy to continue to support it now. As point 5 indicates, however, it does require editors on both sides to be willing to compromise. That means those advocating "Climategate" need to accept that there is not going to be a consensus in favour of their preferred name, and those advocating the current title need to accept - based on the last time this proposal came up - that there is already a large majority in favour of moving to an alternative title. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Why not make it "Global warming email and document controversy"? Most people have never heard of the Climactic Research Unit. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For the simple reason that that name would widen the scope enormously. This controversy relates specifically to the e-mails hacked from the CRU. It does not involve "global warming emails and documents" generally. It's like the difference between "Whitewater controversy" (specifically relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation) and "Land development controversy" (which could relate to anything within that very large topic area). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was just thinking that since this controversy involves global warming, then maybe it should say that. But I see your point. On "scandal vs. controversy" I'm definitely for "controversy." I just think that saying it's a "scandal" takes sides. I can't speak to the policy with any authority, and I've noted that Wiki policies tend to be contradictory and subjective anyway. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely that "scandal" takes sides and prejudges the matter to the detriment of the living individuals involved. That's why I've endorsed "controversy", which I think we can all agree does exist, but oppose "scandal", which is POV, prejudicial and hotly disputed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, look at the definitions of "scandal" from the OED (just above this section). "Scandal" doesn't begin to fit. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I voted against the last page move but I am starting to understand the position that "hacking incident" does not reflect the fact that most of the media and public attention has focused on the contents of the emails/documents rather than the hack itself. There's not going to be a solution which satisfies everyone, but there clearly needs to be an attempt to compromise. Between "controversy" and "scandal", I'm leaning very heavily towards "controversy", it feels like there may be a better fit than "email and document" for the rest of it, but if no better fit is found I would vote for the above title. StuartH (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

These names proposed so far seem, at least marginally, acceptable. The current name is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• No strong feelings either way, although it would require something of a re-write, since the weight of the article would need to be changed to match the title. How do you propose we re-write the article to reflect the change in title? Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a rewrite. I think we only have to change 3 words:

"The Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy came to light 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."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I think we should aim for as light a change as possible, and that would seem to meet the objective. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, this isn't any sort of compromise. The proposed name shifts the focus entirely on to the largely faux controversy, and it would require a fundamental rewrite of the article. I'd rather see the "controversy" aspect forked so that proper weight can be given to the role the skeptical echo chamber played in hyping this incident beyond all imagination, When you peel back the layers of bullshit it has generated, the core that remains is virtually nonexistent. I think Jimbo's preference for "scandal" is absolutely shocking when one considers Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the case. While there's obviously a dispute about whether this affair is a "scandal" (which I fully agree is hype that originated with anti-science activists), you can't really deny that there is a controversy. The question of whether there is anything to the controversy is secondary - it exists separately from the verifiable facts (regrettably). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sjessey: If reliable sources adopt a term, that means it is neutral. In any case, the proposal above doesn't use this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. Reliable sources referred to Michael Jackson as "Wacko Jacko" for years, but nobody in their right mind would call that neutral. The use of a term by reliable sources does not automatically make it neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheap tabloids and gossip rags might have used that term, but here in the US, virtually all reliable sources used the term, "Michael Jackson". Actually it does, and that's point no one seems to be getting. WP:NPOV means we present view points roughly in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I can see absolutely nothing wrong with the proposed title and support it. The present title is inaccurate (concentrates on the part that should get the most attention but does not), non-neutral and a bit of a POV problem. ("A bit" because I am measuring it by the same standards as evolution, whose concentration on the actual scientific facts is not a POV problem.) I have explained above why "Climategate" is non-neutral to the point that it's simply not acceptable per WP:NPOV. This proposal has none of these problems. Hans Adler 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You completely missed the crux of my argument that WP:NPOV requires us to be editorially neutral. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be biased. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be biased? Where would we find that instruction? Probably in WP:NPOV#Bias. Let's see what it says:

"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."

I am looking forward to reading WP:NPOV after you have rewritten it according to your philosophy. Hans Adler 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You still don't 'get it'. Yes, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be biased. Do you agree or disagree that our Earth should be biased against Flat Earth theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• A potential problem here though is while debate goes on here about compromising on an article title, what is IMO a clear WP:POVFORK is wending its way up through the works; Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Climategate. I'm curious as to what the impact will be to this one once someone tries to take that thing live. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It will be merged to this article and redirected. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A POV fork being prepared in the main space? Amazing. Have we ever had an MfD on an incubator article? Hans Adler 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing what an uninvolved administrator would say regarding taking it live. Furthermore, if the concern is regarding content forking, we can keep the current title to this article, excise the controversy parts, and you have an effective split. If the concern is regarding a POV fork, then pointing out specific language/parts that one finds POV would be helpful. I purposefully took most of the controversy stuff from the article and eliminated unrelated AR4/IPCC stuff from the incubator article to get it into line with a neutral point of view. If the issue is solely with the title, as I imagine it will be, then I would suggest a community-wide RFC regarding the name. Our insular debate has failed to reach consensus regarding whether or not "Climategate" violates Wikipedia policies, as differing interpretations of the policy exist. Moogwrench (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "Climatic Research Unit email scandal" or "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" is a big improvement. -- Chadhoward (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I supported "Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy" before and would do so again. Wikispan (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is titled correctly. Just read it and see it deals only with the hacking incident. It links to an article that divulges some of the contents of the emails. We are not likely to see an article titled "Climategate" at Wikipedia because the ideology of the controlling editors makes them deflect focus from the scandal to the hacking. For some reason Jimbo Wales has allowed them free rein to distort the noble written goals of Wikipedia and deny facts they find unpleasant or unuseful. Of course there's a scandal! Google turns up 3 1/2 million hits on "climategate scandal." What's scary in this Orwellian scenario is that we don't have a totalitarian government's Minitrue dropping history down the memory hole, but goodthinkful citizens who have lapped up the PC worldview. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. This has nothing to do with ideology (it's rather hypocritical of you to complain about ideological bias when you're the one ranting about "PC worldviews") but with basic issues of neutrality, descriptiveness and fairness. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Wikispan: I've not explicitly !voted for it before, but Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy is a workable title, avoiding the argument over the precise definition of "hacking" and the non-neutral pov of "climategate" which in my reading of policies is not acceptable. Climatic Research Unit email controversy would actually be preferable as a widely used term, the "documents" are essentially a side issue which has gained little attention: the claim about computer code has been shown to have no merit by testimony from Bob Harris and the UEA submitted to the Select Committee. The term "scandal" introduces another can of worms and is not necessary. . . dave souza, talk 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate: Peer -Reviewed Academic Journals & Academic Study/Comment

This section is intended to introduce and discuss climategate as viewed and studied by academia. Climategate is the subject of academic papers, comment and discussion from neutral, verifiable and reliable sources appearing in these peer-reviewed journals and other notable academic venues:

1. Copenhagen, Climate gate and the Americans,[127] Wochenbericht, Claudia Kemfert.
2. A harsh climate[[128]], Genome Biology, Gregory Petsko and signed as President[129], American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
3. If the Science Is Solid, Why Stoop?,[130] Academic Questions, Stanley W. Trimble
4. A random walk on water[131], Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions (Referenced response) D. Koutsoyiannis
5. Visual strategies to integrate ethos across the “is/ought” divide in the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Summary for Policy Makers,[132] Poroi, Lynda Walsh
6. On the Intersection of Journalism and the Climate Condition Debate[[133]], Timbro, Roland Poirier Martinsson
7. The Copenhagen Conference - A Post-Mortem[134], (working paper) Daniel Bodansky, (Note the links that follow are to support expertise, not to additional climategate related papers)[135][136] [137][138][139]
8. Constructive communication,[140] Nature Reports, Olive Heffernan
9. ‘Low carbon diet’: Reducing the complexities of climate change to human scale,[141] (under review) Brigitte Nerlich

It's a very real cultural and political event discussed, recorded, studied and found everywhere but here.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this an excellent new contribution. May I ask what search engine you use? I am only familiar with searching chemistry and engineering related topics. Maybe I can help out.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Then please suggest ways of incorporating this information into the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is a separate article titled climategate which would discuss, as the papers cited above do, the political and cultural events that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU emails coming so close to Copenhagen and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it would not be: a review of climate science. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this would fit nicely into the Climategate article in the incubator.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not going to happen, no matter how many single-purpose accounts show up in full-blown warrior mode to advocate for it. Attorneygate and Travelgate both function quite well as redirects to their respective article titles that satisfy WP:NPOV while covering both the incident and the aftermath. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, besides being a WP:ALLORNOTHING argument to cite Attorneygate and Travelgate, I was able to find quite a few counter-examples of non-redirects, with tons more available at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix: Bandargate scandal, Betsygate, Bingogate, Coingate scandal, Corngate, Debategate, etc., etc. Moogwrench (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out, as minor scandals don't usually get as much traffic and eyes on them as the more well-known ones that I cited do. Per naming policy, I will work on fixing those shortly. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that you will get community consensus on the changes you make, instead of just going on a one-man crusade, correct? Going around to enforce one's personal interpretation of the policies on a series of articles without any outside input seems a tad disruptive... Moogwrench (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Truest me; what it "seems like" to you is not a concern of mine. Consensus will not be not sought out to bring articles in line with current policy. I mean, seriously, Betsygate ? We write articles about notable events, that doesn't mean we use the drive-by media's tabloid headlines. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, please don't do that - I will consider it disappointing and disruptive if you go around changing longstanding articles on unrelated topics in order to push your agenda on this article. There is no policy against naming things something-gate - it will depend on the circumstances. Please relax.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? You of all people shouldn't need pointers on Wikipedia policy, but perhaps an WP:AGF refresher would be good all-around here. I assumed that most of the articles noted in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix were just redirects, as the most common and well-known ones are. It seems that some of the minor incidents are not, and what I expressed here is a bit of surprise, since that sort of thing is not in line with current article naming policy. My position does not need more "support" by going and making any name changes; it already is supported. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You were the one that brought up other -gate titles to try to prove your point. I think we agree that Climategate is far more notable and commonly used than Betsygate. That said, changing article titles in an attempt to support your interpretation of a policy seems a bit disruptive. Moogwrench (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is already amply proven by the ones I cited, and by the policy that they rely on; it needs no further support. Changing these minor scandals to be in line with naming policy is just something that simply should be done. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, how would you incorporate that material in a daughter article? Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, nothing to say about #1 (I can read some German, but only with difficulty, and without a cold, so that's out for the time being), and I don't have access to #2, although the abstract ("We should not be distracted by the debate about whether or not global warming is caused by humans; whatever the answer is, we urgently need to retard or reverse the trend.") sounds like someone calling this a distraction. Similarly, I'm not in a position to make much of #6 - no point in trying to work my way through Swedish, Not promising. #4 is a response, that gives passing mention to the issue in the context of geoengineering. It also references this article. Not something terribly useful.

As for the Trimble article - #3 - is a jeremiad, which is difficult to use, at the best of times. It comes from a journal published by the National Association of Scholars (do have a look at the group's article). The journal's "Aims and scope" starts with the comment " American higher education has been profoundly compromised in the past three decades. Standards have been eroded, the curriculum has been debased, and research has been trivialized or distorted by ideology." It is clearly an ideological publication. It's "instructions for authors" say nothing about peer review. And it has a link asking its readers to encourage ISI to index it. Not very promising for a journal with a pedigree going back to 1987.

The Walsh article, #5, certainly makes for interesting reading, but it's about the AR4, not this issue. The Bodansky working paper (#7) raises this issue simply to dismisse it as a "kerfuffle" of no importance to the science: half a sentence of dismissal. Heffernan (#8) mentions this issue in passing in the contexts of attacks on the IPCC. Similarly, the Nerlich et al. paper only mentions the issue in passing. I don't see anything we can use here. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, ditto on the Kemfert article (#1) - it's a one-page opinion piece, that dedicates less than a paragraph to this issue. Guettarda (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that while some of these are peer-reviewed journals, none of the pieces appear to be peer-reviewed articles except the Walsh article on rhetoric (#5). Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Full text of the Petsko article (#1) is available here. Worth reading, not sure it's useful here. Guettarda (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's intervention and the pro-climate change editors lobby

I found Jimbo's recent intervention judicious, timely and appropriate. I also notice how the coordinated pack who fervently defend the scientism-religion of climate change immediately rose to strike him down. What a formidable show. What tremendous resources have not been allocated to hold the fort by attempting to spin this scandal to the tune of "this is no big thing - climate change science is as solid as ever". I notice how ChrisD still pretends to sobriety and judicious rationality whilst at the same time projects the image of the scientific community on the one hand being attacked by anti-scientific groups on the other. I just did a "ctrl-shift j" (What links here) for the article post-normal science, and I was surprised to see that none of the climate change articles link to this pivotally important subject. It's time that the integrity of the the science being conducted in this arena should be better exposed in related Wikipedia articles. __meco (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe we need to link to that article, provide some reliable sources that make the link and work the material into the article. It is, after all, a wiki. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Good luck with that. Post normal science sounds like something that might appeal to the folks behind the wedge strategy. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Except whereas the "wedgies" confront and oppose mainstream science, proponents of post-normal science insidiously introduce their concept so as to be perceived as business as usual. In fact, the argument is that climate change science can be conducted by post-normal rules and still be accepted as pure science. That is a fraud, obviously, but it has not yet been addressed in the articles we have related to climate science despite the criticism being voiced against this commingling. __meco (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources, and suggest how you think they should be worked into this article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meco, do you have any evidence that the conclusions behind climate change have changed as a result of this incident? I've reviewed the sources, and from what I can tell, they have not. Is climate change occurring Meco, and is there evidence showing it may have anthropogenic causes? Are either of these two things seriously in doubt, Meco? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. So then, what is this dispute about? Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Easy to find

WP:TITLE#COMMONNAME says that we should use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article. Is it possible to access Wikipedia server logs to determine what search terms our readers are using to access this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as Climategate redirect here, it's irrelevant. It may be worth considering if it's turned into a dab. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. WP:Article titles says that the name of an article should serve the readers, not the editor's interests. So citing what the readers search for is relevant. Moogwrench (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Moogwrench, where did the title "Climategate" come from? Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources I've read, it was coined by a poster at the anti-science blog Watt's Up With That. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is irrelevant. A long as the redirect is up, if a reader searches for "climategate", he directly arrives at this article, even if we call it Buxtehude. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How about just answering the question instead of using this thread as another forum to argue? We have a lot of smart, knowledgeable people following this article including Jimbo Wales and many admins. Certainly, somebody already knows the answer to this question. If I had asked this on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, I would have gotten an answer immediately, not a debate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, You seem to be misreading the policy. The version I'm looking at states "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name", not "Articles are normally "should be" titled using the most common English-language name". The examples it gives are neutral, unlike -gate titles which are specifically deprecated in the Descriptive titles section. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Climategate: 5854x in January, 5486x in February
• Climatic Research Unit hacking incident 24214x in Jan., 24928 in Feb. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear confirmation that Wikipedia practice and community consensus do not prohibit "-gate"

A few editors have stated that Wikipedia prohibits "-gate". This is not true, neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term.

1. Pinotgate
2. Tunagate
3. Toallagate
4. Squidgygate
5. Spygate
6. Shawinigate
7. Bandargate scandal
8. Betsygate
9. Bingogate
10. Coingate scandal
11. Corngate
12. Debategate .

Climategate stands likely second only to Watergate for public awareness, and with the enormous weight of evidence as to it's notability and widespread neutral use it seems only the hardest partisans deny its reality. There are over 1600 possible hits at Wikipedia, this is just a sample of articles I found that use the term.99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see I have a bit of work to do bringing those articles in line. Incidentally, Watergate is not an example of a -gate snow clone. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please don't do that. I will view it as clearly disruptive if you start pushing your agenda in unrelated and long standing articles in order to get your way here. You are making up policy that doesn't exist. Please don't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of these also refer to events where serious misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This is not the case for the CRU emails. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and in any event"Other articles use the name Whatever-gate" is not an argument that this one should. That this one should is clear from policy. But we are much better off working on the compromise than having POV pushing in unrelated matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Case in point for why -gate article names are often bunk: "Pinotgate", which I've just renamed, is a nickname coined in an article published nine days ago in the San Francisco Chronicle. [142] It appears to have no wider currency beyond a couple of fleeting mentions in non-English sources.[143] It's exceedingly unlikely that someone would search for such an obscure term. The article was created only 6 days ago by an editor who was well aware of the "Climategate" controversy; this appears distinctly iffy to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)What ChrisO said above, and what I noted in an earlier section above, is fully supported by Wikipedia:NAME#Descriptive titles. Please stop having a proverbial chilling effect on conversations here by labeling good-faith editors as disruptive. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of renaming the other articles, Pinotgate was created by a participants of this talk page so POV pushing could potentially exist in both directions. Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a distinctly odour of rodent about that one. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Pinotgate is not ok. This is also irrelevant to the main discussion here. ChrisO, please do not insult others in your edit summaries. I remind you of WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what insult? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole WP:AVOID argument is bogus anyway. There's a conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:AVOID. WP:NPOV says "Climategate" is a legitimate article title. WP:AVOID says it's not. When policies and guidelines conflict, we're supposed to follow policy. When all the dust settles, I suspect that we're probably going to have to change WP:NPOV and/or WP:AVOID so that they're in sync. 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Chris stop running around changing article names which have had those names for ages just so you can get your way here, that is being disruptive. mark nutley (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The position against a "climategate" article title is already solidly grounded, fixing these articles that have thus far escaped scrutiny is neither disruptive nor done to support/strengthen any argument made here. Please retire this already-tired line of attack. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IP 99.142.1.101, who is likely to be banned shortly, has identified a number of articles which may have titling problems. I'm simply reviewing them to see which are acceptable per WP:AVOID and which are not. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@A Quest for Knowledge, your argument is bogus, focussing on the part ot NPOV that permits non-neutral names when used by a consensus of sources, and ignoring the requirements 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. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." The more reliable sources use the term specifically to describe partisan use of the term in promoting an attack on mainstream science, and not to cover the wider aspects of the issue covered in this article. Use of "climategate" would frame the article and discourage multiple viewpoints, to the detriment of the requirements of NPOV policy of giving due weight to the overwhelming majority expert opinion on the subject of climatology. The scandal or controversy of the widespread misrepresentation of the emails and other documents does need improved coverage in this article, use of a slanted title would not help to give the majority view due weight. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Rubbish Tarc, policy says if it is historical then gate can be used, Toallagate was in 2001 so now it`s history right? So why rename it to Mexican government expenses controversy apart from a desperate try at getting his own way here? mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also rewritten the article to improve the sourcing and make it more informative. Certainly the new title is much more informative. "Toallagate" is still there as a redirect and is mentioned in the article, but "Mexican presidential expenses controversy" is far more informative than a -gate nickname that isn't even in English. Here's another case in point, which neatly illustrates the unoriginality of snow clones. "Spygate" was being used solely to refer to a 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy which I'd certainly never heard of. On my side of the Atlantic, it's been used almost exclusively to refer to the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. It's also been used as a synonym for the Plame affair and a 2005 South African controversy. The only rational solution, which is what I've done, is to make the snow clone a disambiguation page and retitle the former "Spygate" page as the much more informative 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy, parallel with 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. This is good housekeeping, nothing more. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC then I killed my message and had to rewrite.) I also have to agree that Spygate pointing to 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy was clearly inappropriate. Ask people outside the US about spygate and I suspect they're far more likely to think of the Formula 1 controversy then the US NFL one (particularly if they're F1 fans obviously). I personally had never heard of the US NFL controversy before. The fact the situation existed for so long is more of a sign of systemic bias then anything else and in fact from what I can tell Spygate originally pointed to [144] the F1 article (which was created first & was a major scandal involving a $100 million fine amongst other things) and the NFL article was originally created as Spygate incident (American football)). For whatever reason, the creator of the article later copy & paste moved the article to spygate (later fixed by an admin) but there doesn't appear to have been any real discussion about this and as I've mentioned it's highly questionable if the US NFL thing can be considered the primary topic for spygate. This doesn't preclude it being called Spygate (NFL) or whatever obviously. Nil Einne (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the root problem is the unimaginativeness and tacky sensationalism of journalists... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

These are certainly improvements to said articles. The WP:ABF implications being thrown around are, in my view, quite unwarranted. I don't see this issue edging any closer to a resolution (the "documents controversy" rename almost looked promising until battleground positions were resumed), but it has raised concerns and highlighted issues with both current policy (which appears to be inconsistent at the moment) and many of the above -gate articles. These issues and concerns will need to be addressed in due course. StuartH (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another case in point: I'm currently going over Bandargate scandal, which appears to have been written by a partisan. I just deleted a lot of BLP-violating unsourced allegations ([145]) and am working on rewriting the article, which I'll move to Al Bandar report. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, anyone can quote a policy out of context and use it to draw an erroneous conclusion, but when you look at WP:NPOV in its entirety, you'll see that it's about editorial bias. There may be a valid argument against "Climategate" as the title, but this ain't it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)