Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 29

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". 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. 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, (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 to give out (information) surreptitiously unauthorized (especially deliberate) disclosure of confidential information 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)

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)

Climategate
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 WTA 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). As a side note, I have also documented how NPOV 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 Article_titles 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  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, hardly a Self published bookstacey-international.co.uk About ... Reviewed:
 * 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, hardly a Self published book stacey-international.co.uk About and the book at their site ...
 * - "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


 * - "..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"
 * - "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 "
 * 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: Jimbo also said: 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.

By any measure, except here, the term climategate is the norm.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Time magazine news article, "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?".
 * 2) Mother Jones also uses the term, "ClimateGate Overshadows Climate Change At Copenhagen",
 * 3) as does Politico, "Climategate distracts at Copenhagen",
 * 4) The Nation magazine, "What You Need to Know About "Climategate""
 * 5) The LA Times has editorialized on it, "'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue"
 * 6) Discover magazine had this take on a Washington Post columnist, "Michael Gerson Attempts Thoughtfulness on “ClimateGate,” Then Gives it Up"
 * 7) Even FactCheck.Org titles their article using the accepted convention, "“Climategate”"
 * 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)

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 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 .) 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)


 * 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:
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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.-- SPhilbrick  T  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)
 * 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:
 * as per WP:UNDUE
 * as per NPOV
 * Also some diffs from other sections
 * 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.-- SPhilbrick  T  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: 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)

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 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. 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 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.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I assume, then, that the most appropriate course of action would be to
 * Ready Article Incubator/Climate Gate/ and mainline it ASAP.
 * Excise or minimize portions of this article which deal with aftermath/controversy
 * 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 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.-- SPhilbrick  T  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, Africagate, Seagate. Maybe we can save time and just write one called pseudogate 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 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: 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.-- SPhilbrick  T  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 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 Article_titles 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 Title 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 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 NPOV 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" 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)

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 - . 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 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 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)


 * I dont think it really matters.
 * I consider them more sister articles, per WP:SPLIT (no need for a general overview article)
 * 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)

"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 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 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: "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


 * 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) --Article_titles


 * 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)
 * NPOV. 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 TITLE 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 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 as being one way to measure the commonality and usage, and Google News is among the first specifically mentioned by 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)

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. 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. 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  ? — 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)

Boldy

 * This discussion budded off 

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.-- SPhilbrick  T  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)
 * 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.-- SPhilbrick  T  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. 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:. 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)