Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

}}

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999

I must admit, article looks better now after the big overhaul. I'd like the following inserted into the final comment on the "nature trick" email.

"Before the incident, other research in which Mann was a contributing author had found similar results with or without the tree ring records. [41]"

The point here is that this statement should not give the false impression that Mann's Hockey Stick graph was independently validated by other researches. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're bringing in the hockey stick controversy which wasn't quoted in references used at the time that was put together – as this shows, the graph was validated by other researchers. That's a source which should be reflected in our article. No objection to clarifying that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author, but we must be clear that the scientific consensus supports a form of Mann's thesis.

This article gives a useful overview, concluding with the IPCC 2001[6] "claim that 'it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium'. Most researchers, including Briffa, now believe that statement was correct." It describes how other emails show that the dispute at that time was between Mann and the CRU research by Briffa. Interestingly, the detailed IPCC Chapter 2 report[7] shows the downturn in the tree ring reconstruction in its graph. The Jones email was about the graph for a WMO Statement,[8] which I've not checked out. McIntyre, who was on the scene later, brought in the IPCC 2007 report. Our section would be better retitled, perhaps "Tree ring proxy reconstructions", and there's getting on to be enough material for it to be a standalone article with a brief summary in the main CRU hacking incident article, summary style. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears there are no objections to my edit referenced above (that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author).Sirwells (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the above edit, just so you all know. (article page is unlocked now). Please discuss it here first, if you are thinking of reverting it.Sirwells (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My feeling remains that the change gives undue weight to the minority views, as several sources have stated that the overall picture rests on multiple lines of evidence so the tree rings have limited significance. Still to revise. . dave souza, talk 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to rename it to "Climategate scandal"

I just read the FAQ and the reason cited was basically that we can't use either "Climategate" or "scandal" let alone "Climategate scanal" because it implies wrongdoing. I mean, here's what it says right now verbatim:

Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles.

Well, if this is the case, then we need to rename Lewinsky scandal to Oval Office fellatio incident, List of corporate scandals to List of corporate incidents, Watergate scandal to Watergate office complex incident, Bofors scandal to Bofors corruption incident, Enron scandal to Enron bankruptcy incident, Mark Foley scandal to Mark Foley instant messenger incident, Political scandals of the United States to Political incidents of the United States, and quite a few others that I'm not going to bother mentioning.

This standard of not using "-gate" or "scandal" doesn't apply anywhere but here.

So one of the following will take place:

1. Consensus will change as a result of my compelling argument against the previous consensus,
2. All articles that have the terms "-gate" or "scandal" in them will be renamed to a euphemism of what the article is about, or
3. There will be a massive de facto concession that there's a double standard here.

Thanks. Macai (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha beautifully argued. I'm in.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "compelling argument" is nothing of the sort, and this has been discussed to death already. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pulling the "discussed to death card" is confused. Stuff happens. Rehashing a discussion is warranted after new information arises, new people show up, etc.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no new information and this is not the first time Macai has been involved with this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO goes with option number three. Macai (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:WTA makes it clear that "scandal" and "gate" are to be avoided except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources. This is not an historical case, it's a current event. As for other article titles which may not comply with WTA, the other stuff exists argument is invalid - if one or two articles don't comply, that doesn't mean that this one shouldn't as well. Plenty of articles do comply. Compare Killian documents controversy ("Rathergate") or Dismissal of US attorneys controversy ("Attorneygate"). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we consider this a motion for the counterproposal, "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy"?--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a way of telling Macai that his proposal is unacceptable, since it's irredeemably POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Prove that it's POV to say that a scandal is a scandal. Macai (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris is not the one going around in circles. You are. Wikispan (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I am going in circles; around Chris. The fact that he resorted to ad hominem attacks in place of an actual argument placed him in the objective wrong in this discussion. Sorry if that bothers you. Macai (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Chris. It's a current event. That means it's going on now. As in, more emails are coming out, and CRU is continually being hacked or leaked or whatever? Is that correct? Because if it's over, it happen an historical event. Period.

Also, notice how I didn't make the argument that we should necessarily change this article based on the fact that others don't comply with a mandate; see option #2.

Furthermore, your source is talking about the inclusion or exclusion of articles, not in the naming scheme of articles. Macai (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's the subject of current reporting, it is plainly a current event. You will not find it being referred to in "reputable historical sources" (such as academic books) because it's far too recent for that. As for "not in the naming scheme of articles", I can see you haven't read Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal properly. It says of "-gate" and "scandal": "They should not be used in article titles". Pretty clear, I'd say. You should also look at WP:NPOV#Article naming, which requires neutral article titles to be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Macai - love your work. Fully support. @ChrisO - I think that your argument was a fair one pre-christmas, but Climategate has become the standard term. Can you advise of any other terms that are used to label the event and the subsequent controversy? Thepm (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Macai's work appears to involve moronic Rush Limbaugh-influenced vandalism [9], you might want to rethink your praise for him. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO - I've admired your work here and elsewhere. I know you disagree with what I'm saying, but I really hate to see you posting this sort of message. Please go get a cup of tea and take a few deep breaths. Thepm (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO calling others work moronic is not they way we work on wikipedia. So please stop name calling other peoples work like this. Nsaa (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Your move. Macai (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you guys are not willing to read Wikipedia guidelines, why are you even here? Wikispan (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We have reached this "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." from Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming stage for Climategate scandal/Climategate controversy now . (Nearly) every source now uses som variant of this. Even

• 'climategate' scandal – The Guardian (How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies),
• "climategate" controversy – The Independent (Climategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics The "climategate" controversy) and
• "ClimateGate" affair –BBC ('Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means).

The second piece ChrisO is refereing to is a style guidline and should be "attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions". Nsaa (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful link to the statement that "Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs." A mainstream scientific point of view that should be incorporated into description of the "scandal" aspect of the article. . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Stop bringing it up and work on something that might actually get consensus. The arguments against Climategate as the name have been done to death - bringing it up again and again and again reeks of an unwillignness to work with others. Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again, "Climategate" is clearly a pov spin, a label being used by one side of the argument to obscure the case that there is a significant human caused contribution to global warming. . dave souza, talk 12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop bringing it up? If you care to read my links just given above from the Guardian and The Independent so will you see that even these publications has now (as of 2 February) start using Climategate in some way or another as an description on this scandal/controversy. It may be a pov spin in the start, but now it isn't anymore. Why else would Guardian/Independent now start using it? Nsaa (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

These are articles about the arguments being put by "skeptics", most obviously in the Guardian article. That's just a part of the incident. Note extensive use of inverted commas around "climategate". Framing in that way may be acceptable in some news media, but is inappropriate for an article title. . . dave souza, talk 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not forever. The fact that this issue has been raised in the past should not prevent us from raising it again. Especially now that it has become obvious that the usual lable applied to "the controversy following the unauthorised release of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit" is Climategate. The name Climategate appears to be the most commonly used name. Are there other names that are more widely used? The current title is clumsy and presumptive. It needs to change. Thepm (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal remains one-sided and not appropriately neutral for this article. Further proposals welcome, but effort would be better put into improving the article itself. . . dave souza, talk 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't anything to discuss here. Words like "scandal" and those ending in "-gate" are essentially prohibited on Wikipedia per WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. The fact that other articles make use of them is irrelevant, because in many cases they predate Wikipedia (and are thus "grandfathered in"), or are simply wrong and ought to be changed. I'm open to discussion on changing the title (and I've gone to extraordinary lengths to help reach an agreement on a new title in the past), but there is no way I would support any version that includes "Climategate" or "scandal". Furthermore, I think there is a clear majority of editors who will agree with me on this, particularly because investigations are still ongoing. Calls to get these non-neutral terms into the title will not be successful, so the efforts of those calling for them would be better spent on trying to work out a compromise that will satisfy everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to weigh in on the side of ChrisO and Scj. This said, I agree that "consensus is not forever". I think we should try to establish some test for when an article can be referred to as "gate" or "scandal". In my mind the test should be this - When a super majority (i.e. >66%) of randomly sampled news articles and RS covering the incident unequivically refer to the event by the term "gate" or "scandal", Wikipedia should do the same. I don't think "Climategate" has met that test yet (unlike events like Watergate, and the Mocia Lewinsky scandal probably do), though I acknowledge that that could change. NickCT (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with ChrisO, Scj and NickCT. We have a specific guideline which states that articles should not be named with the "-gate" suffix. See WP:AVOID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Dave you say "Climategate" is POV spin, but all the defenders of the Climategate scientists have pushed the "hacked" meme as a way to distract from the contents of the emails - the implication being that they were "victims" of a crime instead of whistleblowing (which is usually praised). If you are against POV titles then you should agree with ScienceApologist's proposed title of Climate Research Unit emails. Are you going to be consistent in this matter? Or are you going to insist that a crime was committed against these poor misunderstood scientists? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually think your above comment assists in creating a cooperative environment where editors with differeing perspectives work with eachother to improve the article? Why, or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the title and lead sentence need to be changed in light of the new evidence. The theory that CRU was hacked is unlikely at best, yet the title states this as a fact. Additionally, the idea that we can't use the word "scandal" to describe the even because it is current is marginal at best. The Foley Scandal was called a scandal from the beginning for example. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get things back on track. One side says "Climategate" is biased and the other side says the current title is biased. There has been a proposed middle ground and we should be working towards that which is what I was attempting to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"The theory that CRU was hacked is unlikely at best," ?!?? Really Arzel? Really? NickCT (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Security experts have stated that it was most likely an internal leak. The other option is that they left their server open - which is something they've accidentally done in the past. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No compelling counterargument

None of the arguments in this thread against changing it to "Climategate scandal" have addressed the fact that many other articles are referred to as "scandals". If no compelling argument is made within twenty four hours, consensus will be overridden as per WP:NPOV. Thank you. Macai (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sirwells supports option number 1 for the reasons Mr Macaii outlined in his inital post. The "this has aleady been argued to death" excuse does not hold water. (Sorry RC / AGW crowd, but you do not own wikipedia articles.)Sirwells (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:AVOID, "scandal" and "-gate" are words to avoid when naming articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you for option number two, then? Yes or no, please. Macai (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a false tricotomy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a false tricotomy at all. Either the "don't use -gate and scandal" rule applies, or it doesn't. Period. Macai (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The rule does apply. There are no article titles which violate WP:AVOID as far as I am aware. Of course, Wikipedia has lots of articles so there might be violations, but I am not aware of any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're in favor of option two, then? Here's a list of article names with "scandal" in them:

• Lewinsky scandal
• List of corporate scandals
• Watergate scandal
• Enron scandal
• Bofors scandal
• Mark Foley scandal
• Sponsorship scandal
• Teapot Dome scandal
• Political scandals of the United States
• Black Sox Scandal
• BALCO Scandal

And that's only going through the second page of a Google search for "site:wikipedia.org scandal". "Scandal" is found all over the place, including very recent events. (I wouldn't consider the Mark Foley scandal ancient history; it's not even been half a decade yet.) Macai (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, clearly I was wrong. I wasn't aware of most of those. (But some of those aren't violations such as the Teapot Dome scandal. According to WP:AVOID, it's OK if a history journal uses the term.) Anyway, if you want to make the case that those articles need to be changed, you need to bring this up to those talk pages. Mistakes made by editors in other articles can't be used to justify repeating those mistakes here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NP, bro. The case I'm trying to make, though, is that I think it's fair to call this a scandal, seeing as it is one, and that it's easily "historical". I mean, if Mark Foley is historical, why not this? I'm kind of under the impression that anything taking place in the past, but not ongoing, qualifies as "historical". Macai (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask QuestForKnowledge if he knows of any examples on wikipedia where WP:AVOID has caused an article about a widely known scandal or controversy to be renamed. Climate-gate is the only example I can think of. (of course wikipedia is a large place so there may be others, but I don't know of any.)Sirwells (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at but no, not that I know of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that perhaps WP:AVOID needs some work. I believe the intent is correct, we can't have conspiracy theorists running around calling everything a scandal. However, in the cases such as this, where nearly an entire population has labeled it xxx-gate, the appropriate name of the article should be xxx-gate. It seems to me you are using the "...except in historical cases..." bit as justification for other, somewhat olders scandals being excused from your WP:AVOID. This is splitting hairs and does not respect the intent of the rule. macai's arguement is a good one. If every other scandal is labeled simply for what it is, it's wrong to put never used but more "politically correct" label on climate-gate.Sirwells (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to follow them, that's all. We have a guideline that says not to use these words. That's good enough for me. I'm not here to think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me do the thinking for you then :D (that was a joke, I actually do respect your opinion). I think what we have here is a compelling case of WP:IAR.Sirwells (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems a little disruptive. Here's an argument: the vast majority of people who understand climate change don't think this is a scandal. Only one particular group (the denialists) think it is a scandal. Therefore the title should not include "scandal" any more than the Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories should be called "Proof that man never went to the moon". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From scandal:

"A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed."

This is clearly a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations, and in the public eye, it certainly damages the reputation of an institution, individual, or creed. Just because people who, in your words, "understand climate change" don't find it to be a scandal doesn't make it a non-scandal. It'd be comparable to say that since "people who understand" that Lewinsky's blowjob was ultimately unimportant don't find the Lewinsky scandal to be a scandal, that we should therefore call it the Oval Office fellatio incident. Macai (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed? At what point do the constant calls to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with "-gate"/"scandal" terminology be called tendentious to the point of outright disruption? That POV-pushers keen to misrepresent reality have been allowed to continue like this for weeks and weeks without sanction is, frankly, outrageous. To this day, there are only allegations. Despite comments from the toothless ICO, no wrongdoing has been properly asserted and no criminal charges have been filed. In fact, the only suggestion of criminal activity has been directed toward whoever stole the data from the CRU servers. Some ethical questions have been raised, but nothing that could be described as scandalous. The notion that this incident has attracted the sort of attention that was afforded Watergate, or Lewinsky, or any of the other real scandals cited above is patently ridiculous. The constant insistence that this article be renamed to accommodate these non-neutral terms is highly disruptive, and serious consideration should be given to handing out topic bans. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that conspiracy to corrupt scientific process ("Kevin and I will keep them out somehow") is scandalous. All the reliable sources agree me on this one. This is an immutable reality that you're trying to white wash. People like you are the POV-pushers, not those of us who want to call a spade a spade.

Furthermore, you have expressed in this message desire to exclude anybody from the discussion that does not agree with you. This constitutes intent to white wash the climategate issue, and your message will be used as evidence for this claim. If anybody else agrees with this perspective, it constitute conspiracy to white wash the climategate issue.

In the meantime, your input will be disregarded by me and any with two brain cells to rub together until you come up with some valid points to make. Macai (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@scjessey - The lack of criminal charges being filed does not militate against the allegation of scandal. Neither Lewinsky nor Foley were subject to criminal indictment. Professional societies typically have ethical rules which they enforce with sanctions, outside the criminal justice system. Some of these qualify as scandals, especially with doctors and lawyers. I do not plump for the use of the word scandal in the title of the proposed article, but I do support its consideration on rational grounds. I do believe that Climategate needs to be in the title, and that it needs to address the allegations of scientific misconduct, rather than the release of the FOIA.zip file. Oiler99 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, as they say, that there's no there there. There isn't an actual scandal. There's no "-gate". The only evidence of wrongdoing is on the part of the hackers, whomever they may be. Everything else is just political spin, faux outrage, and imagined misdeeds. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The scandal exists in the perception of many, including many scientists, that scientific method has been perverted in the interests of goals thought to be righteous . This has been and is being debated. It may prove unfounded. And the elevated morality of the putative motives is not being questioned, but the behavior is. And that is what the scandal consists of. Oiler99 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No wrongdoing = no scandal. No matter how much the far right tries to spin it. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Neither Lewinsky nor Foley were guilty of wrongdoing. The scandal in Watergate consisted not in the "third-class burglary" but in the coverup and its ramifications. Scandal merely requires public discussion of socially-disapproved behavior which is either flaunted, or discovered and publicized, both implying lack of discretion. Compare Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron, Parnell, Emma Hamilton, and, perhaps unfortunately, the Piltdown Man. Theologically, "giving scandal" is considered sinful as it is liable to induce others to sin. We certainly do not want scientists in training to believe that they can manipulate data to their desired ends with impunity. Not to imply that that is necessarily what took place, but that is what the concerns, yet to be refuted, allege. And how did the far right get in here? Sokal was a Marxist and he took the Left to task for intellectual dishonesty. Oiler99 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Failure to produce compelling counterargument; name changed in compliance with NPOV

The name of the article has been changed to Climategate scandal in compliance with WP:NPOV. I know I did it quite a bit early, but the thread has been largely abandoned and similar arguments popped up elsewhere. No more discussion was going to take place here. Macai (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Bold Proposal

I informally proposed this a few times, but I'm wondering what sort of a response this will garner. I'd like to take the existing email section - including the code and whatever else was removed from the UEA/CRU server - and chop it back to the brief summary put together by Hipocrite, with a wikilink to a brand-new separate email article. Here's my rationale:
1. The overall readability of the article will be improved.
2. As more and more emails become public, it will become necessary to evaluate each one.
3. With a separate article, it will be possible to selectively wikilink to it from Global warming or Scientific misconduct or from any other article without the need to drag along the debate on how the documents came into the public sphere or why. Nightmote (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I need to noodle on this, but I should note that I would have moved my summary live this morning if the article wasn't locked. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed other article on 'more and more' of the emails will be spectacularly dull. According to this recent analysis, the emails were heavily filtered for maximum Copenhagen impact, "But many are completely innocuous, or indeed show the climate researchers in a good light, holding rigorous internal debates". No interest there for sceptics, I think. Let's just get Hipocrite's e-mail rewrite in asap, and leave it at that. --Nigelj (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, Nigel, is unrealistic. The files removed from the server are significant. The emails section was restored because it was observed that curiosity about the emails and their content was one of the reasons readers came to this article. My point is that the lengthy analysis in this article makes the article a little harder to read, and more contentious. A separate article will allow those with a more in-depth interest the opportunity to read selected emails and analysis, allow other articles to wikilink, and keep *this* article focused on what is known to be true rather than on what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time. Nightmote (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that whether one is a skeptic or not is of no consequence regarding the value of the article. I'm quite certain that both skeptics and believers will be only too happy to parse every bit of those emails to bits-n-bytes. Nightmote (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CrapGhetto sounds like an interesting essay :). I'm (locally) warming to the idea. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support this idea, see summary style. Each article would have to fully meet neutral point of view standards, and the concise summary in this main article would outline the overall conclusions without going into all the "he said, she said" sort of build up. The sub-article could start as the full section incorporating the most recently added info but restoring any significant deletions, with an overview summarising the main background. It could expand from there. . .dave souza, talk 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by "keep *this* article focused on what is known to be true rather than on what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time" (NM above). Presumably the other (e-mail) article is not going to be the one for "what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time" either? Best to keep all articles based on what has happened, and does exist, isn't it? Just a worry, please clarify if poss --Nigelj (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. If we (as editors) are willing to acknowledge that there are varying honestly-held, reliably-sourced opinions on the significance of the content of the emails and codes, then it is reasonable to split the article. This article can deal primarily with the facts surrounding the theft and the consequences to the various involved individuals. The (theoretical) email article can focus on the more-difficult-to-define nature of the files that were stolen, their significance (if any), their impact on the AGW hypothesis (if any), and their impact on governmental policy (if any). As it stands, we have too many possible conflicts: the data were stolen/the data were leaked/the emails mean nothing/the emails are significant/AGW is fact/AGW is fiction. If we split this, the article becomes more readable to the casual reader, the opportunity to more closely examine the emails and their significance still exists, and we make consensus more likely. I really see it as win-win-win. Nightmote (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually - I'd like to retract and restate. The email and code article should (in theory) be limited to a description of the files and their content, with explanations (as necessary) for any computer code. *If* the files are significant, they will have impacts on the IPCC, the AGW hypothesis, and various international treaties. As impacts are identified, the files article would be updated, and the appropriate article wikilinked. Make more sense? Nightmote (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• As proposed, the useful info is now split into a Climatic Research Unit documents article, with a see also link in this article. That can accommodate expansion as sources develop, with a concise summary in this article being updated. . . dave souza, talk 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fluffy kittens

I have been advised that there are many contributors to this page who are insisting that the other parties, those whose viewpoint is opposed to theirs, like or dislike fluffy kittens according to their stance or viewpoint relating to World Cuteness Liability. I would give notice from the posting of this section that any editor claiming another contributor has a pov relating to fluffy kittens unsustained by application of WP policy will be blocked for 12 hours. Just try it... That is all!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh here we go again.... Do you have a reliable source proving that fluffy kittens as so-called "cute"? Sirwells (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

im afraid the inability to either prove or disprove the cuteness of fluffy kittens lies at the heart of Godels incompleteness theorem, rendering any effort in this universe devoid of substance. still, they ARE cute...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If a fluffy kitten is completely enclosed in an opaque box, the cuteness coefficient of the kitten is inherently unknowable until the box is opened.--SPhilbrickT 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only is the fluffy kitten's cuteness unknown, it is not determined until someone opens the box. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for New Title

For the title of the new article, may I suggest ? It can be referred to as "The Article Not to be Known as Climategate"Oiler99 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article title is already as laughable as your suggestion, so I second it. - Gunnanmon (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

or how about ${\overline {\mbox{Climategate}}}$? JPatterson (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we rename the article to reflect a more accurate description to it current editors: "A Huge waste of time"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scandal, but it is Climategate

I don't see how we can avoid calling it Climategate any longer. That's what it's known by everywhere else in the world and continuing to ignore this is POV in and of itself. I don't see how you can seriously argue that it's in any way POV to use the word Climategate. I notice that the latest issue of Scientific American calls it climategate, a recent report by the National Weather Service calls it Climategate (and funnily enough refers the reader to this page!). Even Penn State refers to it as Climategate when they need to be clear what it is they're talking about [10]. I don't actually thin the term Climategate is positive or negative any more. It's just the name that's applied.

I've asked before and have not received an answer. If it is not commonly known as Climategate, what is it known as? What other name is commonly applied to the incident that occurred last November that resulted in the unauthorised release of around 1000 emails and a similar number of documents? Certainly it's not known as "Climatic Research Unit Hacking Incident". The only time I've seen that phrase away from wikipedia is when someone is poking fun at wikipedia's perceived bias.

Now, as for the word scandal, I think it is inappropriate. Whether or not the incident resulted in a scandal is highly contentious. It certainly resulted in a controversy, so I would suggest Climategate Controversy as an appropriate name, but I would be just as amenable to Climategate Incident. I would not support Climategate Scandal and I do not support the current title.Thepm (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hear him!!Oiler99 (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No you won't hear? Or no you are unwilling to answer my questions? Thepm (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How many times does this have to be said? "Climategate" can only refer to the controversy that followed the incident being described by this article. At best, you could argue that "Climategate" could be used as a section heading....hmmmmm.... compromise proposal forming in the misty part of my brain - will think on this... -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Update to this train of thought: I considered whether or not we might be able to give "Climategate" a dedicated section, since the controversial aspect of the incident is real, and it would give the increasingly-notable term a little more exposure. However, I realized that this really falls foul of WP:CRITS. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it really "increasingly notable"? I get the impression that for the most part this tempest in a teapot had pretty much blown over, and is only back in the public consciousness because of the release of the Penn State report. Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say "increasingly notable"? The phrase 'Climategate' has been used fairly consistently since before xmas. I'd say that discussion of the incident is greater over the last few days (ie since the Mann Report was released) but the use of the word Climategate to refer to "the unauthorised release of emails from the CRU and the subsequent controversy surrrounding that unauthorised release" has been pretty consistent. Probably because it is so much shorter :) Thepm (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say "increasingly notable"? I didn't. Simon did. I disagreed with his assessment. Guettarda (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well! I'm glad we got that settled. Thepm (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I used the phrase "increasingly notable" because it seemed there had been an apparent increase (in my opinion) of the use of the non-neutral term in the British media. I have done no specific analysis to back up this "hunch" though. Either way, the point is moot. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'"Climategate" can only refer to the controversy that followed the incident being described by this article. At best, you could argue that "Climategate" could be used as a section heading' — Scjessey.

It's the other way around — the leak/hack should be covered in a section of the article on 'Climategate', explaining the origin of the controversy. By itself, the fact that a university computer system was insufficiently secure is in no way noteworthy. What's interesting is what was revealed.

—WWoods (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WWoods hit this on the head. This entire article is, and always has been, backwards. And it all starts with the name. The primary things covered by reliable sources are the contents of the documents and the ensuing controversy. The hacking is background, not the reason this whole thing is notable. This is why, at the very least, the article should be Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. However, any attempt to rename is inevitably forked into proposals to call it Climategate (which people always oppose, choosing the style guideline WP:WTA over the policy WP:V) meaning that consensus is never reached. Oren0 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The name should now be "Climategate scandal", as per NPOV

As has been firmly established here, there is no argument in compliance with WP:NPOV that allows for this article to not be named "Climategate scandal". After having changed the article, it was quickly deleted. Macai (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work for me. WP:NPOV#Article naming includes "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." While proper names for events which incorporate non-neutral terms such as Tea Pot Dome scandal are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources, the section refers to Main policy page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions which, under Descriptive titles, notes that "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.... See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology." Even if a title is legitimate, that doesn't mean that it's neutral or that we have to use it.

WP:NPOV#Neutral point of view requires that we should not endorse any particular point of view, WP:NPOV#A simple formulation that we "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:NPOV#Impartial tone requires that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The framing of this as a -gate social or political scandal clearly presents it in the terms of the anti-action on AGW side of the debate, undermining the scientific majority view on what is essentially a scientific topic with political aspects. We should give due weight to the majority scientific view which can be taken as a necessary assumption in this article. dave souza, talk 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The current article title is fine, as has been discussed here ad nauseum. It is NPOV now, Climategate is a stupid media neologism that has no meaning, and the word "scandal" is inaccurate. Drop the politics. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is not fine - it says a crime was committed (hacking), which is something the defenders of the climategate scientists keep on throwing out there to distract from the emails (making the current title inherently POV). ScienceApologist suggested a perfectly NPOV alternative title and we should work towards it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article title probably should be "Climategate", because I'm seeing that term used in just about every article on the subject that I've read lately. Would someone please start a content RfC here on that? I think there are enough people watching this page that the RfC should get fairly good participation. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring WP:WTA: "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." Climategate is not going to be used in this article's title, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)This is not a WP policy, so stop yourself. And if you read on the top of the page it states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." WP:WTA (my bolding). I.e. the 'Climategate' term is established way beyond what should be required to have it as an article name. This is what this debate/controversy/scandal is known as by every secondary source reporting on it. So as of one of our cornerstones (See the second of our Wikipedia:Five_pillars which states "That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.". This is not done in the present title (hacking, heres one article that says something else leak), but will be fulfilled iff we use the 'Climategate' (with '). So yes we should have a broad WP:RfC on this aspect know. Nsaa (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since "Climategate" is a redirect to the existing article title the necessity of having it as a title is moot, the phrase will take the searcher to the correct place. As that aspect is resolved, then it is necessary to consider the neutrality of the proposed title. Per references to policy noted above, "...gate" and "scandal" are not good titles since they infer an opinion (and the references in the media are likely journalistic shorthand; every week there is a new "...gate" and a "scandal" every day - it sells newspapers). The question of whether the current title is npov also is one I think that bears consideration, from the points raised here. What was ScientistApologists suggested alternative? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is dreadful. Scandal is inappropriate. End of. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "scandal" is inappropriate. Your argument against Climategate however, while it is no less cogent than any of the other arguments against the word that have appeared here, is irrelevant. Whether or not it is 'dreadful' is beside the point. The fact is that pretty much all of the rest of the world refers to the incident as 'Climategate'. By not using that name here, we are expressing a point of view. Thepm (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose rename, per KB, LHVU, CO, SA etc... Also reasoning is highly spurious, as changing the name as proposed would introduce bias. As the redirect exists, it is also moot. Verbal chat 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• How do you create bias by changing the name to something everyone is already calling it? By your logic, it is already biased. Arzel (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• So you would fix what you see as bias by introducing worse bias? Explain how that makes sense? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prepare to a RfC

I've just created a subpage Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Climategate_usage to just collect usage and definition by (secondary) sources of the term Climategate. Please only add what considered WP:RS (i.e. blogs is not relevant in this discussion except for blogs on newspapers under full editorial control by the newspaper per WP:RS and WP:V). Please add more and different sources both in time and in coverage. Nsaa (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. "Climategate" is a POV term which WP:WTA explicitly deprecates. It is not going to be used in the article title, period. Please move on and find something more constructive to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You seems not to have read this right above. We uses what the secondary sources uses, not something POV like "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" (hacking is not NPOV as shown in the edit I just gave you ... Nsaa (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious, I'll put you on notice: if you pursue this further I will ask for probation enforcement against you and a general injunction against proposals to include "Climategate" in the article title. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious" strikes me as unhelpful. The words after the colon stands on their own, without the characterization at the start of the sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think I have seen such a blatent display of WP:OWN in my time here. Why not just rewrite the article to your personal preferences and be done with anyone elses thoughts. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you tone it down a bit? This really isn't necessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with adhering to established guidelines on Wikipedia content; namely, that we do not use the cliched "-gate" to name an article. Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Rathergate are all redirects, not the titles of their respective articles. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar. The only "blatant" stuff here is Arzel's misunderstanding of WP:OWN and mock outrage. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you simply address the issue at hand, without making characterizations of another editor? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And coincidentally I'm sure, all those scandals are something democrats would like "damage control" on :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that comment helpful? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out that Tarc's scandals were all unfavorable to democrats and it is shocking, just shocking, that wikipedia wouldn't name them by their well-known names. :)TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Attorneygate. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the term "Attorneygate", but I was aware of the incident. However, I do remember Travelgate, Rathergate and Whitewatergate being thrown around, although one I heard the most was Travelgate and Whitewatergate was usually just referred to as Whitewater. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

While that interpretation is possible (though, of course, it requires the assumption that Wikipedia is a tool of Democratic activism), it's also possible (and perhaps more plausible) that the right wingers are better at spinning things into "-gate scandals". After all, there's this issue, which is decidedly not a scandal about climate, but has been quite effectively spun into one. Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Watergate scandal includes both "-gate" and scandal - so much for your theory. Hell, wikipedia won't even call Hugo Chavez a dictator despite being called that in nearly every source imaginable. There are obviously problems regarding left-wing bias in wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Watergate was named after the Watergate complex in Washington D.C. - go and read -gate. It is not an example of a "-gate" name, since the snow clone "-gate" suffix was only coined after Watergate to claim similarities with that affair. The article title uses "scandal" because it meets the criteria set out in WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal: "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal)." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts with regards to the original suggestions: (i) examples of usage can't be used to demonstrate usage; it's meaningless unless you provide a comprehensive analysis of usage, and (ii) if it's in quotes, you can't really cite it as an example of usage; that's quite explicitly non-usage. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore, examples of usage outside Wikipedia are not strictly relevant, since Wikipedia operates under neutrality standards that don't apply to often partisan media outlets. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course - I meant my comment to be on the use of examples to make a case. This issue of whether such a name would be in keeping with policy and the naming convention is entirely another matter. The latter is an appropriate discussion to have, but before we have a discussion, we need to be clear that the underlying "facts" used to support the arguments actually are facts. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• If most of the mainstream sources are using the term "Climategate" to refer to this incident, then there's nothing wrong with using that title for the article. As someone said above, we use what the secondary sources are reporting. The current title doesn't work, as it isn't being used by many of the sources, at least the ones that I have seen. Any ideas on an alternate title? If not, it appears that "Climategate" is beginning to reach consensus support here on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that there is a consensus for "Climategate" is both untrue and irrelevant. That term violates WP:NPOV#Article naming's requirement for article names with the "highest degree of neutrality" and "-gate" names are explicitly deprecated by WP:NC#Descriptive titles. We do not use "-gate" names for articles. This article will not be called "Climategate" and NPOV cannot be overridden by any supposed consensus (which in this case doesn't exist anyway). This has been discussed many times before. Now please desist. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO - I don't think it's helpful to keep declaring that it's been discussed before so it shouldn't be discussed again. Sometimes consensus changes. If you don't agree that it should be called Climategate (or some derivation thereof) then just say why.Thepm (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion remains that the title should be either Climategate Incident or Climategate Controversy simply on the basis that this is what everyone else calls it. I would not support calling it Climategate Scandal. Thepm (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus may change but the policy has not, and WP:NPOV in particular cannot be overridden by a supposed non-existent consensus. Since policy deprecates the use of "-gate" names, a "-gate" name is not going to be used in this article title. It's as simple as that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate incident" appears to be a neutral title supported by the RS, so that title gets my vote. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not remotely neutral and names of this type are explicitly deprecated by WP:NC#Descriptive titles and WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal, so no. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What? "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases..." Uhm? This is a historical case, since it happened in this thing we call the past. "Climategate scandal" stands. Macai (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an ongoing current event. Or had you overlooked the constant news reporting about it? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bush administration is still mentioned in the mainstream media as well. The Bush administration must therefore be an ongoing current event. "Climategate scandal" stands. Macai (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of this flaring up every three days and causing so much bad blood that it prevents progress on improving the rest of the article. How about we all accept that any title which has -gate or "hack" is never going to gain widespread acceptance and move on to trying to find one that can. Someone posted a reference to what the Wall Street Journal called the incident prior to Climategate catching on. It struck me at the time as being something everyone could probably live with (no -gate, -no hack), but now I can't find it. Does anyone remember?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs)

Prepare whatever you want. This will never happen. Hipocrite (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to check Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand tomorrow (if they're available) to see how much "Climategate" and other terms are used as titles for this event, then add the references I find (if any) to the sub-page that NSaa created and we can go from there. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead and waste your time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I found 287 references to "Climategate" in NewsStand. I'll start posting the refs to the sub-page. It will take awhile. Then I'll check Infotrac. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do please have a look for reputable historical sources rather than just concentrating on news outlets, and when tabulating them take care to show when the term is used in "inverted commas" to indicate it's a partisan label. A breakdown into partisan sources would also be interesting, but not alter the basic point that it's a pov label. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if some of us feel that it is a partisan label or not, we just report what the sources are saying. If you'll look at the list of sources that I just added, I think it's clear that "Climategate" is currently the title that the majority of the media and world public is using to describe this subject. I think we're ready to start the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the media call it. Policy specifically deprecates -gate article names, and NPOV prohibits the use of POV article names in general. No RFC is going to override NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are only two things that will prevent this article from being renamed as "Climategate": 1) if the RfC doesn't establish consensus for the change, or 2) if Wikipedia's administration intervenes and contravenes our content dispute resolution process. I don't think that #2 will happen. I don't know about #1 but believe that an RfC is appropriate because we are currently in a dispute over the article title. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Who made charges that...

In this unlabeled revert, Heyitspeter states "It wasn't (just?) skeptics. This misrepresents the sources," when reverting who made charges that the e-mails showed bad things. Here are the sources, with quotes from each, bolds mine:

• Guardian 20 Nov: "Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind."
• NYTimes 20 Nov: "Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change."
• Moore 24 Nov: "said Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor who has reinvented himself as a critic of climate change science. "They were talking about destroying various files"
• BBC 3 Dec: "At the time that the theft of the data was revealed, some climate sceptic websites picked up on the word "trick" in one e-mail from 1999 and talk of "hiding the decline"."

I'm not accusing Heyitspeter of intentionally lying about misrepresenting the sources - clearly he was just mistaken, or didn't look at the sources before saying they said something they didn't say. Apparently the revert restriction prevents me from correcting Heyitspeter's obvious mistake. I guess he'll self-revert on seeing this, right? Hipocrite (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter's recently added ref:

• WSJ 23 Nov: "Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute ... John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama," - Patrick Michaels - "is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic." John Christy - "Global warming skeptic." Hipocrite (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This is a strange sort of admission, I suppose, but here goes: I was wrong, but now I'm right... I had added the section in question from a very old version of the article and thought they included certain refs when they hadn't. I've now added refs that "feature" the same allegations coming from non-skeptics. Thanks for bringing this and sorry about mucking things: up. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And your new ref shows that someone who is not skeptical made all those other changes exactly where? Please revert to the version supported by sources - if you don't do so, I'll probably bring this up at the probation board. Hipocrite (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can revert the citations I've added, and 2/0 has made it very difficult - nigh impossible - for me to stimy any such action. So that would probably be a faster/easier route. But it's your call. First please look at the refs provided and note that asserting that "skeptics" made the allegations in question would be WP:OR.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to revert any of your worthless citations, however, I'm going to ask you to find quotes from those citations which show "allegations" made by people who were not climate skeptics. That's what you falsely alleged I misrepresented in sources. Now I'm accusing you of misrepresenting your sources - I found quotes for you, now do so for me or self revert. Hipocrite (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't me, but Heyitspeter did the right thing in this particular case. Criticism has come from a broad range of people, including (but not limited to) George Monbiot[11]. BTW, I strongly encourage anyone who's hasn't already to check out my user page (not my talk) for my summation of the situation regarding this topic and the problems we're having with this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A simple yea or nae will suffice

I suggest renaming the article to Climate Research Unit email disclosures. This avoids pov regarding popular media references to it being a "...gate" or a scandal/controversy and also avoids the pov of emails being hacked (and also the fact it is what was disclosed rather than the method of disclosure that generates the interest). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have tried. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Nae, it was more than e-mails released(sorry i know your trying here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)
• Maybe (only the emails were of interest) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Hacking" has support from reliable sources. "Disclosure" appears to validate the (unfounded) POV that this was a benign release by someone on the inside trying to expose wrongdoing. We need to stick to the sources and not give implicit support to speculation. It isn't a matter of splitting the difference between reliable sources and blog speculation. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Nae, but effort appreciated. I think all retitling discussions should be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation by the Norfolk police. The title seems to hinge on how the data (my preferred term for emails/data/code) was stolen, which will be established by the Norfolk police. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree to your last point, except Guettarda has made a really good suggestion below - and I have suggested making that more npov. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is with the word "email." Why not, Climactic Research Unit documents controversy? Climactic Research Unit documents disclosure seems too vague, e.g., they disclose documents literally every day, should we include those documents too? And so on.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe you were looking for a simple "nae"...--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Royal mess - needs admin help attention

The last edit made a royal mess of the article. Had it happened a few minutes ago, I'd assume someone would be working on it, but it happened hours ago. Can an admin someone look into it? --SPhilbrickT 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It was just a simple cleanup that was needed, no need for admin tools. Anyone can remove unused refs. Guettarda (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I saw the lock symbol and mistakenly thought we were back to full, not partial protection. Thanks for the cleanup.--SPhilbrickT 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Proposal for New Title

Climatic Research Unit Data Breach Controversy

"Data breach" is how the investigators refer to the incident. This gets rid of the objectionable and possibility inaccurate "hacking". JPatterson (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Replace controversy with consequences, and you have my full support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  But that changes the focus of the article from the illegal access and dissemination of the data to the controversy that was whipped-up by all the AGW skeptics after the fact. Better to keep it more ambiguous, like Climatic Research Unit data breach (which is more inclusive). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if the data access was illegal. It could just have easily been an insider, which if I understand UK's laws, may not have been illegal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But either way it was a breach, no?JPatterson (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No evidence or reliable source to back up "insider". MSM virtually unanimous on "stolen", "theft", "hack"-type language. Data was definitely taken and disseminated without permission. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand the UK's laws then. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Naming Conventions lists a series of characteristics for the "ideal title" (I'm kind of newish, so I'm still reading this sort of stuff). So, is the proposed title recognisable? not really. Is it easy to find? not really. Is it precise? not at all. Is it concise? not at all. Is it consistent. not really. If I ask the same questions of the title Climategate Incident I get the answers Yes, yes, yes, yes and not really. Thepm (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I like Scjessey's title, which I think was proposed on the probation talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'Data breach' is just proceeding-in-an-easterly-direction-speak for 'hacking incident'. How do data breaches occur? Someone leaves a computer in a way that is less than secure, and someone finds a way into it. 'Finding a way into it' is a hacking incident, and what ocurs is a data breach - you have data that you shouldn't have. It doesn't matter if you are a member of staff moving data, or altering file access permissions, without the authority of your employer, or the Russian mafia. Data breaches occur because of hacking incidents that succeed. There is no reason to change the title at all; there is certainly no reason to change it into a mouthful of PC Plod-speak. --Nigelj (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, "data breach" opens up the door to it being a leak, a hack, or an unsecured FTP server. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'leaker' would have had to gain access to files that he was not supposed to be accessing in his day-to-day work (i.e. not authorised by his/her employer), then put them onto an internet-facing server, again against in-house IT policy. IT people are not supposed to access the emails of other staff or copy or zip them; research staff (i.e. recipients of the emails) are not supposed to access internet-facing HTTP or FTP servers and load their emails there. These are both examples of 'hacking' the security layers of equipment belonging to the employer. The purported unsecured FTP server (unless an insider set it up as per hacks above) would have to be found by the outsider trying many possible FTP addresses, and/or logon details until hitting on the one(s) that led the emails and documents - known as brute-force hacking. All this is supposition until the inquiries report, but they all involve some kind of hacking by insiders, outsiders or a conspiracy of both. 'Hacking' is the right word in every case except if the UEA management wanted the emails officially published. --Nigelj (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that an insider would be protected under Britain's whisleblower law, whereas "hacking" implies illegality. Kauffner (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide details of this UK legislation? Whistleblower Protection Act appears to be American, and there are no links in the category to legislation affecting England. My suspicion would be that the act remains illegal, but the claim of public interest allows a defence. . . dave souza, talk 13:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing compromise title that will satisfy both the "hack" camp and the "controversy" camp!

I present for your amusement, with tongue firmly in cheek:

Climatic Research Unit hacks

Double entendre FTW! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been toying with an acronym that would result in CRUnch, but am confounded by the "h"! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Horror? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the newly spun-off article is CRUd. Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones interview

Articles have appeared in the British MSM about an interview given by Phil Jones to The Sunday Times. He confirms "death theats" and mentions thoughts of suicide. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See the PJ article William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Sunday Times articles seem to cover much of the same ground, one isn't very useful here, but the other gives some information on the numerous requests for "data [that] was available online, making the FoI requests, in Jones’s view, needless and a vexatious waste of his time... He also suspected that the CRU was the target of a co-ordinated attempt to interfere with its work — a suspicion that hardened into certainty when, over a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests." It gives some details on that issue, and goes on to the threats, stating "Two more death threats came last week after the deputy information commissioner delivered his verdict, making more work for Norfolk police, who are already investigating the theft of the emails." So, confirmation of a point in the article, should be briefly mentioned in the body text. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of splitting article

After Dave spun off a portion of the article into Climatic Research Unit documents, Hipocrite trimmed the material in this article, per the MOS. CoM has now restored this material, creating an near total duplication between the two articles. In my opinion, the spin off was appropriate, and given that, it was appropriate to replace the section with a summary. I don't see the point of duplicating the material in both articles. I am proposing that we re-instate Hip's version, or something like it, per the MOS. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This version with the fixed references section seems to be the appropriate one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Just to clarify, the split came after discussion above.[12] .. .dave souza, talk 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone point out where the proposed split off was discussed? I'm not finding it. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow the link I just gave, or look at #Another Bold Proposal before it's archived. . dave souza, talk 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, could you self-revert the pointer to your soon-to-be-speedied child article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It was created to keep a lot of worthwhile information that was removed in your earlier bold trimming, and as such stands as a self-sustained detailed article which is useful in documenting this issue. Summary style should have been followed at the outset, there's no good case for a speedy. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be helpful if the section title was more useful and specific. I looked for relevant discussion a few times, but didn't see anything that looked like a discussion of splitting the article up. "Another bold proposal" could mean anything and it's a busy discussion page.

I suggest we reopen that discussion with a better thread title so people know what's being suggested and we can garner broad involvement in this substantial proposal.

A new article on the documents and what they contain is fine with me. The main article still needs to cover the controversy over the e-mails and the repurcussions we've seen. I would think a sub-article of that title should focus on the documents themselves and what they contain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Check it out, it's essentially the info that was in the "Content of the documents" section before that was drastically reduced. WP:SUMMARY should have been followed then to preserve useful detail. I agree with Hipocrite that the section on this page can now afford to be a lot more concise, but wasn't expecting such a drastic change. However, there are advantages in keeping a more general statement on contentious issues here, and thrashing out the detailed arguments on the sub page. . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So, let me see if I've got this straight CoM: you're saying that because the title is unclear, we should rehash the discussion, despite the fact that no one was opposed to it (including, it would appear, you)? Interesting proposition. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. Because it's a busy talk page, because the previous thread wasn't titled more transparently, because the discussion involved only a few editors, and because the major change garnered some objections when it was implemented, we should revisit the issue and resolve how to move forward. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive with me. I've offered an opinion that I think is pretty reasonable and indicated that I'm open to compromise. The issue is being discussed, there hasn't been any edit warring or disruption, so I'm not sure what you're finding problematic. I've answered your questions on my talk page extensively and been very patient with you. AfDs last 7 days in order to provide a chance for editors to weigh in. It seems only fair and courteous that we work through this issue a bit and give everyone a chance to weigh in, so we make sure that we've covered all the bases. I haven't said we shouldn't move forward or that we shouldn't make changes (as other editors have when they object to attempted improvements). In future a link to the discussion on the talk page in the edit summary of a big edit like that might be helpful so people know what's going on. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't had time to read everyone's opinion here but my initial thoughts are two-fold. One, I think there is enough content here to justify a sub-article. Two, I'm not sure this is the right time to spin this off. Until the admins are willing to actually do something substantial to rein in both warring factions, another article to argue about will only add more drama to the proceedings. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I share some of your concerns, but I don't think we should just dig in and resist changes. I'd like to see a clearer statement on the scope of the new article v. this one and what it's purpose is. Is this round 2 of the attempted separation of e-mail issues from the "hacking"/ dissemination? Is the new article intended to cover the documents more comprehensively than is possible here? What will the relation of the two article be after the split? Is one a subarticle? Is this still the main article? Are they co-equals? Sorry about all the questions. But those are my concerns. I'll try to avoid commenting further for a while so others can weigh in. The straw poll below and further discussion and brainstorming seems like a good idea. I don't think I'm the only one who missed the original discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your concerns, the version you've restored is drastically shortened from the original detailed section. The new sub-article keeps the original detailed information and references, and is split with the intention of a WP:SUMMARY style section here covering the essentials of the sub article. As you say, the new article intended to cover the documents more comprehensively than is possible here. This remains the main article, and the length and comprehensiveness of the summary is a matter to be resolved here. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 13:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming consensus reflected below, including editors from all of the various camps, that the one paragraph summary (the way it's done on nearly every other article) is the best way forward, I'll be instituting that in approximately 3 hours unless someone has a reasonable objection. Of course, that would not cut off discussion while the article is in this format, so if you can convince the overwhelming consensus that they were wrong while the article is in the form the overwhelming consensus approves of, that consensus could change, but I see no reason why 2 editors saying larger and 2 editors saying smaller should stop 8 editors from saying in the middle from having the article reflect "in the middle." Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, I'd say get right on it and revert back to this version before additional edits make it more difficult. I can't do it myself because of an unrelated ArbCom restriction. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Options

Just a straw poll to try to understand what people are saying. Please add any that I might have missed.

Delete the spun off article, return this article to its original form

1. -Heyitspeter (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC) If by "original form" we mean "what it is now," with no redirect to the spun off article and a more or less detailed discussion of the documents, with quotes where appropriate.
2. Moogwrench (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) This isn't an AFD, but FWIW, I think the amount of information being discussed here does not require a separate article. I think these three choices overlap and are somewhat confused. I think both the FOIA issues (more part of the response) and email content are both important issues central to the controversy surrounding the dissemination of the data, and that any summary for any split/fork should adequately covered the breadth of the controversy. The "incident" itself is not the focal point of the news coverage, what was revealed is, so I find it curious that significant attention to incident (i.e. filenames, data going from one IP to another, multiple quotes, etc., etc.) is included in the article, without objection, but the "it" of the article, the true meat of the controversy (details, quotes, etc.), needs to be siphoned off into a sub-article? It doesn't make much sense.

   Check the links I've added below, the longer original version before the drastic cut to the current version on 6 February has a lot of significant information, now included in the sub-article. The shortened version as it is now makes the article more readable, though it could usefully be condensed further and has some problems with balance. If there's no sub-article then more detail would be appropriate here. . . dave souza, talk 11:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Retain the spun off article to deal with the e-mails and their contents; and per WP:SUMMARY only retain a short summary of issues related to the e-mails.

1. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Seems a better article split — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
4. dave souza, talk 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Nigelj (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I don't see the distinction between this and the next option as I don't know which part of WP:SUMMARY would be different to "this [is] the main article [...] retaining coverage of the key issues and controversies". I prefer an option that cites an editing guideline to one that tries to redefine one.

   CoM replaced pretty much all the content spun off in the original daughter article, and I originally phrased the alternative to reflect that. I can only surmise that this is what he has in mind. Guettarda (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   To clarify, CoM put back essentially the drastically shortened version trimmed in Hipocrite's edit of 6 February which omitted significant details and sources. The spun off article is taken from the much longer and more informative version before that, and can develop from there. . . dave souza, talk 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

6. I think I can live with this. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Let me make sure I understand the options - violate WP:SUMMARY, grow this article back into the disaster it once was, or get some of the crap of this page? Right. Perhaps this "probation" thing should have someone actually enforcing it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Nightmote (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The meaning and impact of the *content* of the emails has not yet been determined, and can be documented and argued in good faith at length on the spin-off page without making this article unreadable and confusing.
9. JPatterson (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Retain the spun off article to provide a more complete coverage of the documents involved; and keep this as the main article by retaining coverage of the key issues and controversies related to the e-mails.

1. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Oiler99 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Excellent. Now the current article can confine itself to the conduct, attitudes, and behavior that the rest of the world has been talking about for the last two months. Perhaps under the title of Climategate?

POV tag

The POV tag on this article was removed in this edit by Nightmote. Discussion about the tag and its purpose had long-since died down here and this was a bold and noble edit. Then it was re-added by AQFN for no apparent reason and with no section created on Talk outlining specific POV issues. I have reverted this addition and invite anyone who feels that there is a POV issue with the article to explain exactly what it is here, so that we can decide whether to add {who}, {dubious}, {cn} or other tags to disputed sentences; POV tags to specific sections; or if there are several issues distributed throughout the article, perhaps re-instate a top-level POV tag, and begin systematically working through the list of realistic issues provided. Placing a POV tag at the top of such an active article as this, with no list of issues and so no possibility of finding ways that it can ever be removed by diligent editing, seems to me to be unhelpful at this stage. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? You're seriously trying to say there isn't a NPOV dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any current neutrality dispute. After the recent massive changes by Nightmore and Hipocrite, there's very little of the article left to argue about! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh! But it was exactly what I was aiming for. Nightmote (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Search this talkpage for "NPOV" and you'll see numerous disputes of this article regarding that policy. This can give you a sense of the issues that need to be sorted out. Note that it is not common practice to give a list of contentions within the NPOV tag.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point Scjessey is making is that the tag was added to an earlier, very substantially different version of the article. It is not necessarily appropriate now that the article has been changed drastically. What are the remaining POV disputes? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All from the past 4-5 days: #Failure_to_produce_compelling_counterargument.3B_name_changed_in_compliance_with_NPOV, #The_name_should_now_be_.22Climategate_scandal.22.2C_as_per_NPOV, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25#Need_non-involved_reactions, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25#Lead_not_reflective_of_the_article, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Jones_e-mail_of_16_Nov_1999. Much of the talkpage space is dedicated to concerns about WP:NPOV (with a recent focus on WP:UNDUE). Note that all of these examples are post-rewrite.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the current POV dispute over the article's name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not taking any stance, but whoever tags it could at least use {{POV-title}} so people who come here know what's meant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you conceptually, but in this case there are also concerns about WP:Undue (see last three links I just provided).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also serious POV problems with the current article lead and the lack of any reactions from anyone uninvolved with the incident. The tag needs to remain, but unfortunately I can't readd it due to this silly editing restriction. Oren0 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with the lede now? The wording reflects a significant consensus that was worked out in this discussion. In fact, it drew almost unanimous support from the "skeptical group". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that I changed to support specifically reserving the right to address the NPOV inclusion of personal threats in the lede. RL has prevented me from pursuing it, and I'm barely (not even) keeping current on the discussion, but this is just one minor example of a NPOV failure.SPhilbrickT 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to re-adding now? The restrictions have been appropriately lightened.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are objections - don't edit war over a tag without discussing it. Of the list you give, discounting those that are archived and so died out as discussions and are not now current, and discounting those related to the title (which requires a different tag, has been escalated to 'enforcement', and is now being debated elsewhere), we are left with #Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999. The discussion above seems to have resulted in a constructive edit and collegiate, ongoing discussion. There is no POV impasse there that I can see. Your attempt to have me sanctioned via my talk page seems to have been unproductive too. Where is the sourced content debate that is getting nowhere, that means that this whole article has a POV issue "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."* --Nigelj (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, but you weren't supposed to remove the tag until the dispute was resolved. It specifically said, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Did you not see this? You shouldn't remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally felt the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Can you please show us where this consensus has been reached? Perhaps in a show of good faith, you will consider self-reverting? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-add the {{POV}} tag as outlined above. Both the title and the lead is disputed as indicated. Nsaa (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag, it was removed last week in this edit by Nightmote after a major re-write of the article. I reverted its meaningless and commentless re-addition. All this is above, along with my requests to anybody who wants to re-add it again. Please read the discussion thread before asking me to repeat it all for you. --Nigelj (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, reverting the addition of a tag looks a lot like removing it where I'm standing [13]. People have given some of the NPOV contentions in this thread. Would you be opposed to me re-adding the tag at this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's all to do with timing: Nightmote removed the tag on 3 February during a major re-write of the article that was under discussion by several editors at the time. The consensus on that removal held for best part of a week until AQFN re-added it on 7 February 2010, saying "Re-added {POV} tag. Not sure how this got deleted". I reverted that addition 40 mins later and started this discussion. If AQFN was adding it because he didn't know why it was deleted, he should have checked the edit history like I did, or followed the talk page to see what was going on (i.e. a major re-write). Not re-added it with no rationale other than that he hadn't personally been following the article or the talk.

Now, all you are doing is asking me to read the article and the talk page history, and this thread, and repeat it for you. How about reading my comment above, added this morning, and replying to that? Which part of the discussion at [[#Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 is so locked in well-sourced POV arguments that we need a POV tag on the whole of this article? The section on that e-mail is no longer even in this article but at Climatic Research Unit documents now. If you can find the POV issue with the article text "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors"* that cannot and has not been resolved by discussion, then we can talk about adding a tag to the section that that argument relates to, not the whole article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "section(s)" it relates to are, as pointed out in this section of the talkpage: the title, the lead, the e-mail and the responses sections. That is to say, all of them. So I'm going to readd this tag now. A glance through this particular section of the talkpage should be enough to confirm that it is appropriate. We can work through these issues together. --Heyitspeter (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, excuse me for butting in, but exactly what is the purpose of a POV tag? Is it to say that the article is POV, or that there is an active disagreement over POV? It seems inevitable that there will be some people who believe the article is biased and therefore believe it has a POV problem. If we were to edit the article so it met their standards for neutrality, then those editors who think the article is just fine now would think it has a POV problem. So it seems there may be a perpetual POV dispute. If we all know that already, what is the point of using the tag to say so? What does a casual reader get from seeing that tag? These may sound like rhetorical questions but I mean them earnestly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it exists to let readers know that there is a lack of consensus regarding the article of Most Interested Persons, and that they might want to evaluate the title/claims/sources of an article with more skepticism than usual? Moogwrench (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's a badge of shame. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

shrug. I was thinking more as editing motivation for editors coming across an article that has repeatedly/recently been the object of NPOV (often its UNDUE subsection) concerns. I don't see the article as the probable victim of a perpetual NPOV dispute. I'm open to discussing this, though. I didn't think of that consideration.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What circumstances would lead you to accept removal of the tag? Is it merely that the article is not named Climategate? Why was the suggestion to use POV-title rejected, if that's the case? If not, please formulate a comprehensive list of actual changes that would need to be made to the article to either remove the POV tag, or replace it with POV-title. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, which part of this discussion do you believe gave you consensus to re-add the POV tag??! One reply back, you were shrugging, saying you hadn't thought of points people were raising, and that you were willing to discuss this. This is precisely the kind contentious behaviour that probation is meant to reduce, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• The article actually isn't too bad currently as far as NPOV goes. If the word "alleged" was placed in front of every instance of the use of the word "hacked", I think the POV tag could be removed. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see consistent problems with WP:UNDUE violations, particularly in that the article covers the alleged hack more than it does the controversy itself. I'm adding some of this in now, though. Take a look at the edition and see if it fits. If so I'd be inclined to support removing the tag.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate this bit. Once the tag is in place, the 'masters of the universe' start handing down their *unsourced* conditions for its removal. No. As far as I'm concerned it's there for life now. I will not negotiate with pure political or personal opinion, sans WP:RS. --Nigelj (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't source conditions for tag removal. RSs don't report any such conditions. Can you (re)explain your concern? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, one sources for tag addition. Have a look at Template:POV, especially the last point in the usage notes: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Since you can't raise a single well-sourced discussion here, then I draw your attention to point 2: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." --Nigelj (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Content restriction

I am not sure when the "content restriction" was imposed so that nobody can revert material that has been reverted in the last 24 hours, but it seems like a bad idea. That means anyone who wants to make an edit to the article has to study whether any part of their edit undoes anything that has been done in the last 24 hours, which may cover a good deal of edits. Why would this be required? It seems much more obstructive to non-aggressive editing than is useful or necessary. Obviously it means to keep people from contributing to ongoing revert wars, but I don't see how the wording should not be so broad as to require people to constantly keep track of everything that has been edited in the last 24 hours or face being blocked. Right now it appears I have to look through 30 edits to see whether I can make any change.[14] Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No one's going to care if you make a spelling correction that's a revert. And anything that may be controversial should be discussed. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to do anything controversial. I was going to remove a statement that had a fact tag on it, and then I was going to try to revise it based on a couple of sources I found. But more broadly speaking, even if I run a compare of the last 30 edits I won't see if material has been removed and replaced so now it is back where it started. So I'd really have to go through all 30 edits one by one. That seems kind of crazy. I don't expect that I'd run into trouble, but the rule seems set up to fail. Mackan79 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is uncontroversial, then people are not going to look to see if you are violating the restriction. If it has been removed for being unsourced, then it indicates that it is sufficiently "sensitive" to require sourcing; however, WP policy notes that if content can be sourced then it may be included (did the removal note lack of relevance, as well?) These restrictions are in place so that meat/sockpuppets cannot take up the cause of accounts who have expended their allotted reverts - if there was not the potential for such edit wars then there would need be no content restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC) ps. I was unaware of this restriction, and I have been asked and am involved in trying to overview these topics - I was not aware I was blindfolded as well as dumb! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, to some extent. The only problem is that it's basically impossible to ensure that you aren't reverting something. I can tell if I'm repeating myself, at least most of the time, but to see if I'm doing something someone else has had undone... I just wouldn't know, and there's no way someone is going to go through 30 edits to make sure. We're forced to say then that if an edit is uncontroversial no one will look, but I certainly doubt that in this environment. Probably it would work when it's obvious that the person didn't agree with the last revert, and so reverted back, but almost certainly it will get to where someone claims not to have known. I think for people who try to be conscientious, this is also a pretty big burden; if you don't know anything about enforcement, and you read this, I can't see how you're going to feel like getting involved in editing under rules that are so difficult to ascertain. Mackan79 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This restriction is just plain awful and I'm not sure what whoever added it could have been thinking. Not only is it awful for the reason stated here: that it's a ton of work to figure out whether something has been done in the last day, but it's awful because it allows pretty much anyone to freeze the page. If I go do anything that could be considered a revert, nobody can touch it for 24 hours? This is effectively indefinite semi-protection, but it allows disruptive editors to freeze the article however they like. Please remove this silly silly restriction. 1RR was more than enough and the page was under control with that in place. Oren0 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can see that that is unduly burdensome for an article under active development. I will amend it to simply WP:edit warring will be strictly interpreted. I wanted some unambiguous way of saying that these recurrent no, *you* do not have consensus edit wars are tiresome and interfere with building a quality article in a collegial atmosphere. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uncontested" version

Contrary to the assertion in the edit summary of this edit, I do not believe that it is the "uncontested" version.

Why?

1. 9 argued for a "short summary" (not necessarily this one) vs. 4 for a longer (again unclear which version) section in the main article, with or without the subarticle. 9 vs. 4 is not exactly uncontested.

2. Vis-a-vis #1, it wasn't even clear that those who supported the WP:SUMMARY option were arguing for this particular version, especially considering how short it is and the fact that it does not accurately summarize all the content of the sub-article. In WP:SUMMARY we are given the warning: "In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split which results in the original article and/or the spin-off violating NPOV), and/or a difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc."

3. In my personal opinion, I assume that the central aspect of this article, the content of the emails, deserves more than two sentences. I would suspect that some of those 9 that voted for a short summary would agree with that sentiment.

On a related note, I might want to add that, apart from the fact that declaring this mini-RfC closed after only 22 hours is a bit premature. Normal RfCs last for up to 30 days, and I am left wondering as to why such a rush to implement supposed consensus? Moogwrench (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose an addition to the two sentences that you feel more accurately sumarizes the sub article but does not duplicate it per the 9 people who felt that the old text violated summary style, I'm certain everyone would entertain your proposal. Hipocrite (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The issue was discussed, and there was no opposition until CoM came along and reverted the edit, claiming that it hadn't been discussed. I couldn't really sort out his comments, so I created the straw poll to figure out what people thought, and whether there was support for CoM's revert. The discussion isn't closed, but I think it's fair to say that there isn't widespread support for CoM's revert. Pending resolution, I think it's appropriate to undo his revert. Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that too much of the content regarding the e-mails was cut out. The discussion of the Freedom of Information act violations and other controversies need to be reincluded. Maybe Hipocrite can take a look and restore the key sentences? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least one !vote had trouble distinguishing between the last two options (arguing that the summary should retain coverage of the key issues and controversies, arguable in a 2 sentence summary), and one !vote could be taken even as an endorsement of the then larger summary and its larger subarticle (again, it is unclear because no particular versions were given as diffs for this "straw poll"). As far as people arguing that something is unreadable, I think sometimes we cite as unreadable what we don't wish to read, instead of what is incoherent or excessive.

My original point, made a few days ago, stands: This article might not even exist were it not for the particular content of the leaked information. This subject is notable because of the intense reaction the content of the leaked information generated (2 sentences), not because of how it was obtained and distributed (a brief episode which nevertheless commands 11 sentences over three paragraphs with numerous small details such as filenames, file size, locations of servers, etc. in this current version) WP:UNDUE anyone? If the previous version's document's section is too long, fine, but the solution is not creating essentially a content fork which substantially differs in approach.

And I still think 22 hours is a bit short for consensus to be established in any RfC. Moogwrench (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well put. I'm okay with a subarticle on the documents, but as it stands now it looks like an improper forking to cut out the most notable aspects of the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not 22 hours. More like 70-some. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 22 hours. The "straw poll" that you set up at 20:59, 7 February 2010 that is now supposedly serving as "consensus" is not even 24 hours old. Moogwrench (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? It's obviously falling way in favor of one option, so WP:SNOW should apply. Let's not waste time arguing over process. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SNOW only applies to things that need to be closed. Since this poll can remain open for a long time, SNOW would never apply. Obviously, if it turns out that theres a proposal that is more supported than my two sentences, that would be preferred. Since the only alternatives are deleting an article that 11 people want kept, or including language that 11 people dont like, it seems to me that the 4 people who disagree with the 9 people can either stand aside, find at least more people to agree with them, or present another alternative, which is why I suggested that Moogwrench present a third way. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW has nothing to do with closing anything, although it has been applied to such circumstances. I'm not saying it applies to the straw poll. I'm saying it applies to the circumstance. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, 9-4 is not WP:SNOW, for one thing, and for another, process (of consensus building) is Wikipedia. Consensus is everything, so to say, "let's not waste time arguing over the process" kinda misses the point that the process is supreme--we are all here to build an encyclopedia. Finally, not all people interested in a particular decision log in 10 times a day, like all of us Most Interested People. Are you going to invalidate the editor who logs in every couple of days and tell them that their opinion goes against a consensus they had no part in forming because some people were so anxious to see their vision put forward as the dominate one that they couldn't allow a little time to pass to hear everyone's viewpoint?

This is why a traditional WP:RfC lasts up to 30 days. I would challenge those who believe that consensus is important to either put up a real RfC and see what consensus emerges out of that, or at the very least let their straw poll last a little longer than 22 hours. Moogwrench (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion began three days ago, and no one objected to the fork. So it was done, and the material here trimmed per WP:SUMMARY. CoM reverted, claiming there was no discussion, or there was no consensus, or something. I couldn't figure out what he was saying, so I added a straw poll. And from it, it's pretty clear that there's been no major change in consensus. The poll is still open. But given the lack of support for CoM's rv, it was undone. The status quo ante was restored. But discussion—and more importantly, improvements—can still go on. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

From the proposal on at 14:14 on the 5th to the creation of the new article at 12:48 on the 7th: 46 hours. 46 hours is not a good sense of consensus. Like I said before, not everyone logs in every day--again this is the reason why things like Move requests and AfDs last 7 days. So you can't claim some kind of grand consensus after just a day or two. Not everyone is obsessed with Wikipedia like us, but their opinions should count, which means giving them the time to notice what you are doing before you announce it as a ironclad, consensus-bound, fait accompli less than 2 days after proposing it. Moogwrench (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone announcing anything as ironclad, consensus-bound fait accompli except you. If you have changes you'd like to suggest that you think will gain consensus, suggest them. If you think over the next 30 days additional people showing up to voice their opinion will change the accounting such that the current solution is not the most-preferred version, then we'll switch to the version that work its way out then. I don't know why 2 people who support a version should hold up 12 people who don't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, announcing that since "no one has objected to something I may proceed with consensus" doesn't have as much value when you haven't given much chance for them to object to it, much less an example/sandbox version to consider. This is what I mean by announcing something as a fait accompli. The fact that people didn't object until a couple hours after you did it merely shows that either they hadn't noticed what you were planning, didn't have the time to do so, or didn't realize what the plan entailed, for what its worth. Is that consensus building? Moogwrench (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, let's not get bogged down in a meaningless process discussion where the outcome is already obvious to everyone. Nobody objected to the fork. The objections began only once the fork was reverted, and then again when the reversion was restored. Nothing prohibits further discussion, but the forked version should remain in the meantime (since it enjoys far more support). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

←Recent edits completely ignore the consensus so carefully worked out just recently. These should be self-reverted - some arguably violate an ArbCom interaction restriction. In fact, any changes that might have the slightest hint of being controversial should be discussed on the talk page first. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking in horror at the same diffs. I agree, CoM should self-revert asap. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The user in question may need a user talk page notification (which I am unable to do). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of the edit:

• "had been" -> "were"
  • No, "it was discovered that...documents had been obtained..." not "it was discovered that...documents were obtained..." Basic grammar.
• "The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists" -> "The unauthorised release of the documents and the contents of the e-mails resulted in a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", regarding whether there was misconduct by climate scientists or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics. "
  • Actually everything CoM added to the article has been removed from the article (and no, I don't mean "spun off into the daughter article"), making it inappropriate for the lead. But more to the point, "climategate" what evidence is there that "climategate" was used to describe the attempt to undermine Copenhagen? "Swifthack", maybe, but not "climategate".
• "The UEA"->"The University"
  • Don't see why the latter abbrev. is better, but it shouldn't be capitalised, since it isn't a proper noun.
• UEA-> the scientists
  • This is not what the cited sources say. The cited sources say that the UEA failed to act.

Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

a) most of the edits made in the diff provided involve trading synonyms for synonyms. ease bring this up in an appropriate (new?) section. This is a fork(done)--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not synonyms for synonyms. The first one is the introduction of a grammatical error. The second changes the meaning and goes beyond the article content in a big way. The third is a synonym, but with a capitalisation error. And isn't worth keeping. The fourth changes the meaning, and deviates from the sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to reread diffs especially where the editor has demonstrated a POV before, as this can color interpretation. It usually does in my case.

If you look at the diffs, the only change that doesn't involve either an extremely close approximation of the earlier version or a simple and straightforward pronominal substitution is the second, where CoM added the clause, "...or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics." I agree that this clause, while supported by the article, should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, but it's not worth bringing to the talk. Anyone can remove it with a short edit summary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Guettarda, there were changes of meaning which I didn't notice. A bit tired at this time of evening. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, Heyitspeter, I have discussed each of the changes I objected to here. So let's try again:

• Do you disagree with my assertion that "it was discovered that...documents were obtained..." is ungrammatical? If so, please explain why.
• You agree that the second statement, at least, is problematic. Correct?
• "The UEA"->"The University" is trivial. But it introduces a slight error. And, quite frankly, using "the university" is a bit of an affectation. Trivial, but not worth restoring.
• Finally, saying that "the scientists" were at fault on the FOI deviates from the source in a way that isn't trivial. While I don't know the specifics of UK law, FOI requests are usually made to institutions, not individuals. They are normally sent to legal departments, or something of the sort. And the onus is (normally) on the institution. Regardless of what CoM intended, this change introduces a change in meaning which is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I suppose I can't speak for Britain, but it's a very commonly used construction in American English. I searched "It was discovered" alongside "were" and the second link that came up was from KOMO News: "Five Transportation Security Administration employees have been placed on administrative leave since it was discovered that sensitive guidelines about airport passenger screening were posted on the Internet."
• I agree the second addition was a poor choice (as per WP:UNDUE), but the motivation is comprehensible and it's certainly not worthy of censure.
• I agree it's trivial.
• No. It's made to individuals. The IOC quote from the bottom of the timeline reads: "Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information" (my emphasis).

Even if you were right, this could easily have been reverted independently, and if it had to be brought up it should have been brought up at CoM's talkpage, not here. This comes across as an attempt at public shaming.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert to earlier version of the article?

Hey. I'd like to do a regular old poll to test consensus on this deletion of coverage of the emails. The edit was based on a possible consensus obtained in a three-option straw poll about which several editors expressed confusion. As a result it's not clear what the consensus is, and this will hopefully disambiguate the issue. This poll only concerns whether or not to revert the deletion, but if you have a more subtle position feel free to indicate that alongside your vote.

Revert the edit

1. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Moogwrench (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep the edit

1. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. This edit was simply a restoration after a previous edit that had no consensus. Poll is a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
3. It's good to start from a concise basis. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Verbal chat 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit the edit

1. Could you detail what information you'd like reincluded so we could improve the article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Briefly mentioning the main topics of the previous subheadings would be worthwhile, kept to two or three short sentences. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Totally on board. Go crazy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Assuming that we keep sub-article, I think that this section should be expanded a bit. A good paragraph should be sufficient. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Why don't we simply copy and paste the summary for the sub article here? On a side note, I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia doesn't do this programmaticly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think there is some general consensus that the summary should be larger than it is presently, but smaller than CoM's reverted edit. The main difference appears to be between those who want to work from smaller to bigger vs. those that wish to pare the larger one down. Maybe, like AQFK suggested, we can get a sample to tinker with, perhaps at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/sandbox or pasted in the discussion. I am still not convinced of the necessity of the sub-article, but if we must have it, then we do need to amplify that summary.Moogwrench (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Err, agree, as demonstrated by my edits to the article. The resulting version seems more or less okay to me for reasons stated in my edit summary. Any thoughts? I'm down to self-revert sections if faced with good reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Yes, a more complete description of the issues and controversies related to the e-mails needs to be restored. (I haven't looked yet to see what Hey has done and am voting based on the options offered in case this poll is cited going forward as far as a consensus on what needs to be covered in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on article name change

Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support name change and suggest Climatic Research Unit "Climategate" incident. I believe that this list shows that "Climategate" is now the common name for this incident used in print and video media, by government figures, and by the general public, on both sides of the controversy. The list of sources even shows a couple of major Spanish newspapers using the "Climategate" term. I suggest adding "Climatic Research Unit" at the beginning to clarify the title, and putting "Climategate" in quotation marks (WP:AT does not appear to prohibit using quotation marks within the full title) and adding "incident" at the end to NPOV it. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a second choice, I support any variation of Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Trade "email" for "documents" and I'm game. The controversy covers coding as well.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support change to Cla's version, or perhaps "Climate Research Unit Email Controversy" with Climategate mentioned as aka in the lede. Note that the use of the word "hacking" is similarly unconfirmed, so that shouldn't be there either. OTOH, it's clearly a "controversy" (both the "hacking" and the emails themselves, in fact) so calling it "controversy" should not be a problem. ATren (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose name change until investigation conclusions are known. Oppose anything using the non-neutral terminology "Climategate". Oppose proposal by Cla68 - WP:NPOV violation (not neutral), WP:WTA violation (uses "-gate" construct), WP:TITLE violation (uses "quote-like characters"), unbelievably tendentious given recent discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming this article until investigation is complete. Support name change but oppose non-neutral "-gate" terminology. Wikispan (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the drive to wait until the investigation is complete before changing the article title. The current article title makes an assumption - viz., that the documents were hacked - whose corroboration requires a completed investigation, whereas the proposed title doesn't have to. So these arguments favor changing the article title now and not later. Reconsider this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A fair point expressed well . I'm striking out my original vote. However, I will continue to oppose any attempt to rename this article "...climategate..." for reasons already explained. Wikispan (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support any NPOV change that removes "hack" from the title JPatterson (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "generic" name change. Oppose proposed non-neutral title. Given the fact that "climategate" titles have been rejected over and over as non-neutral, I endorse Scjessey's comment above. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is part of an ongoing attempt to rename the article from a US conservative viewpoint. Brought to us by people who disbelieve climate science and think this story is the biggest thing since Piltdown man. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "US conservative viewpoint" is news to me. Do you have any reasoning/evidence to back that up and could you explain just what you mean by that? Last I heard, the US president and a majority in Congress were members of a more liberal political party that generally supports the IPCC's stance on AGW. You know, the party of Al Gore? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• There are many commentators, including scientists, who accept the scientific consensus on climate change but who think this is a scandal and call it "Climategate". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as "I don't like the current name, so we gotta change it to something" is an exercise in pointlessness. Also, any suggestion of "-gate" is a non-starter. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Either new name is fine. Both seem consistent with WP:AT. The idea that "Climategate" is biased is founded on the idea that calling this a "scandal" is somehow biased (since "-gate" implies scandal). But it is a scandal, as numerous sources -- not just partisan ones -- have pointed out. For instance, British government investigators have concluded that there were violations of the FOI law. "Scandal" fits. Early on, it was right to avoid calling it a scandal, but now it would be biased not to admit it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)added to my comments -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climactic Research Unit documents controversy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support calling it what the reliable sources call it: "Climategate." Right now, we're calling it some neologistic, hackneyed thing that someone somehow thought sounded "neutral." The current name is like calling World War II something like Global Conflagration of various nations with grievances against one another. It's absolute madness. As a poorer alternative, I support Cla68's proposal. UnitAnode 05:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe Reagan assassination attempt should be neutralized to Attempt to woo Jodie Foster using a firearm aimed at President Reagan? Just sayin... UnitAnode 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe Caution; Dangerous Not-Unsharpened Objects Ahead. Tarc (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe you could deal with the fact that the article's current title is a hackneyed neologism. UnitAnode 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any attempt to change it to the POV term "Climategate" per Scjessey. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any name change until investigation conclusions are known, Strong Oppose anything involving the POV term 'climategate'. Verbal chat 08:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "gate" suffix per policy. Moreover, Newsnight called it "emailgate" (with a scare quotes intonation) only a few days ago, and Channel 4 News has done the same. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to the POV term "Climategate" . Suggest we await the result of the investigation. Lumos3 (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The present title was created on the basis of reliable sources at the time of, and in the few weeks following, the incident. Since then it has stood the tests of time, despite a huge amount of largely uninformed input from the (mainly US) blogosphere. The next time large amounts of reliable relevant information will be available is likely to be when the inquiries begin to report. They may or may not change the landscape sufficiently for a re-name, but it certainly won't be any US-politics-based 'X-gate' format. --Nigelj (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Point me to a couple of "reliable sources" that call this kerfuffle "the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." UnitAnode 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scjessey. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support changing it to something other than the incomplete and very likely misleading title it's at now to something other than climategate, which although it's been widely used and has certain benefits of conciseness and catchiness has the same one-sidedness issues that the current title suffers from. Something balancing the unauthorized release of the information and the controversy would be best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climactic Research Unit documents controversy Arzel (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wait until the investigation is complete?

There have now been several (4) votes to oppose name change on the grounds that we should await the outcome of "the investigation." If you mean the police investigation, this is puzzling, as the current article title makes an assumption whose corroboration requires the completion of that investigation - viz., that the documents were hacked -, whereas a new title can avoid this. The "we don't know the outcome of the investigation" point would thereby support changing the article title now rather than later. If, on the other hand, you mean the investigation by Muir, I fail to see its relevance to a name change. Nothing he decides will affect the appropriateness of the word "hacking," and nothing he decides will change whether the subject of the article is a "controversy" surrounding a hacking incident or a simple "hacking incident" (the latter of which wouldn't be notable if taken by itself).

I'd love to hear any explanation for your reasoning if I'm missing it, or a refactoring of the corresponding comment to weed out that point if I'm not (I hope you'd remove the vote entirely if it's based exclusively on that premise).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all to do with WP:RS. When the incident happened, we had a flurry of statements from involved, reliable people who knew what had happened, and we wrote most of the current article(s) (including what's now in the CRU docs article). Since then, nothing much has happened except a lot of people who weren't there, and know very little about anything, have been talking unsupportable nonsense all over the blogosphere and in a few op-eds and on some TV shows. The next time we get reliable facts will be when someone releases some. Unlike you above, we do not know what the police or Muir Russell will say, nor which will report first. In the meantime, have a look at Hacker (computer security) and some of the sub-articles; it will be useful background when the time comes. --Nigelj (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still confused. The article title is problematic now, even taking account of information now available from RSs, regardless of what happens later. It's been disputed for months. Be that as it may, thank you for the response.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with "hack" is that it is a loose term. As Nigel says, the blogosphere speculation has been uninformed and unpersuasive. The Daily Mail even suggested that Russian students might have something to do with it (yeah, like universities give undergraduates in all disciplines easy access to dedicated servers in research centres). Apart from that, all seems to be framed in terms of "outside hack" versus "heroic internal whistleblower", when the reality does not have to be either of those. While the police investigate, all we know for sure is that a) a lot of computer files intended to be for private consumption were released onto the web for all to read and b) they were not released through any decision of UEA. The release was therefore likely to have contravened one or more UK laws, we don't know which yet. "Hacking", though loose, covers all the eventualities in a way that more precise wording doesn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are lots of names that would pass muster. None of them include the word "Climategate." I look forward to a strong proposal for a name that is better than the current one that is likley to both follow guidelines and policies and reach consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit computer files incident. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero news hits[15], and potentially even more hackneyed than the current mess of a title. UnitAnode 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither news hits nor hackneyed are an issue. I'm just imagining people sitting around suggesting alternative names for our article on a certain world superpower. "Not' United States of America, puhleeeeeze, that's sooooooo hackneyed!!!". We just need a descriptive and neutral title. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs as "press coverage"

The pressmult template featured one blog, and attempts have been made to add another (which was commented out, shown below)

{{pressmulti
 | collapsed=no
 | author=[[Lawrence Solomon]]
 | title=Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing
 | org=[[National Post]]
 | url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/16/lawrence-solomon-better-off-with-bing.aspx
 | date=2010-01-16
 | archiveurl = 
 | archivedate = 
 | quote = after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident” that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised release of thousands of emails 
<!- 
 Since James Delingpole is so contentious I will (Nsaa) not add it, but hopefully others have the nerve to do it. See the detailed discussion about the matter here
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia 
 | title2=Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia 
 | author2=[[James Delingpole]] 
 | date2= 2009-12-22 
 | url2= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/  
 | archiveurl2 = http://www.webcitation.org/5mEN1r8yk 
 | archivedate2 = 2009-12-23 
 | org2= [[The Telegraph]] 
->

In my view this template was giving inappropriate attention to unreliable sources, and these blogs don't justify inclusion of it as a header template. . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been the standard use of the {{press}} template as I pointed out here Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_by_Dmcq. Reinserts it. Nsaa (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with DS, and note that the second blog was inserted by NSAA multiple times, and was roundly rejected. I wonder why inserting blogs that mention this article in a sentence or two is so important to NSAA, especially given that the second blog piece is an offensive violation of BLP. I will never consent to the insertion of the second piece - it is a dealbreaker of innacuracy and offensiveness. Hipocrite (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Both blogs fail BLP, and as the second header points out, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". . . dave souza, talk 13:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How does a blog that simply points out the weird title of this article violate BLP? That's utter nonsense. Just realized that the "second blog" is an aggressive piece aimed -- at least in part -- at WMC. That said, it is disturbing that WMC is taking such a large role in the Climategate article, when he was himself a recipient of one of the messages. This would seem to be a huge COI. UnitAnode 13:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A. He's not taking such a large role, and B. Does getting sent an email create a conflict of interest? I don't see how being the recipient of an email that was included in a massive data-dump of emails and that has never come to anyone's attention at all is remotely a conflict of interest. Have you reviewed the emails that WMC is mentioned in? Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just "getting sent an email", when that email was a part of a rather large scientific scandal. UnitAnode 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the email he got sent was "part of a rather large scientific scandal," because it seems to me that "Most of the e-mails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences." Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So now Climategate isn't even a scandal? Good grief. UnitAnode 13:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I merely note that "The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to or from climatologists Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, and Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), one of the originators of the graph of temperature trends dubbed the "hockey stick graph."" Do you believe WMC was copied on any of the interesting emails? If so, which ones? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The emails show a clear connection between WMC and the Climategate scientists -- particularly Phil Jones. This is the basis of my COI claim. He should either recuse himself, or be recused by motion, from further editing of these articles related to Climategate and Jones. UnitAnode 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand - you are arguing everyone that sent Phil Jones or Michael Mann an email is barred from editing this article? Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am arguing that everyone who was CC-ed on any of the Climategate emails should be.

(undent) Sorry, let me try that again. The emails that are controversial are a small subset of the other emails, which "concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research." Are you saying that being in any email that was included in a massive dump of thousands of emails, the vast majority of which were uninteresting and mundane disqualifies you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made it clear: if a person was CC-ed by the man at the center of the scandal, in the emails that were stolen, then yes, that person is COI-ed out of participation in the discussions surrounding both the scandal and the BLPs of those involved in the scandal. UnitAnode 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you have a conflict of interest if someone sends you an email, and that email is later stolen, even if nothing in the email is controvercial or interesting? I think your take on COI is unique and interesting. Perhaps you should see if you can get an editor who hasn't taken a position on climate change to agree with you that being the recipieient of an email can create a conflict of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

@dave souza: Fails BLP=? Please. Read this for the outcommentet one: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. This doesn't fail. Some of your guys think that only say it enough times and it becomes true ... Nsaa (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

←Delingpole and Solomon are AGW skeptics, and they very clearly disapprove with Wikipedia's non-neutral coverage of this incident. We are under absolutely no obligation to give them another platform to spout their opinion about climate change or Wikipedia. You would need an overwhelming consensus for inclusion, and I see no possible way this is going to happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So now you get to declare what needs "overwhelming consensus for inclusion?" Sorry, no. UnitAnode 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, Unitanode. This has already been discussed previously, and a consensus for exclusion remains. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that a concerted effort has been put forth by a group of editors who have a very strong POV on the issue to "scrub" this and other articles, yes. UnitAnode 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you also well aware that a conserted effort has been put forth by a group of conservative activsts who have a very strong POV on the issue to "push" this and other articles? What does this have to do with including a press-multi to a bunch of blogs which are neither reliable sources (they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) nor really about this article at all? Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about on-wiki groups, not off-wiki ones. I'm a part of neither group. UnitAnode 15:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you alledging that there is no group of conservative activists who have also shown up as SPA's here to push this and other articles? Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on that issue. There are always going to be SPAs. What concerns me is that a group of established editors are stonewalling in favor of their own POV. UnitAnode 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me is that a group of unestablished editors are stonewalling in favor of their own POV, how ironic! Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's so far from the truth that I can't imagine it was unintentional. The current title is neologistic, hackneyed, and holds WP up for deserved ridicule. The stonewalling is coming from a group of established editors pushing for their own POV. UnitAnode 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you think I'm talking about the title. I'm not. I'm talking about unestablished editors stonewalling on splitting the article and moving it to summary style. I'm talking about unestablished editors stonewalling on cutting down the article to only the points that matter. I guess the only part of the article you're paying attention to is the title? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An analysis of various potential titles by news hits

1. "Climategate"

   1,711 hits in the past month.

2. "Climategate scandal"

   199 hits in the past month.

3. "Climategate controversy"

   29 hits in the past month.

4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"

   1 hit in the past month, and that's from a source mocking the silliness of the title.

I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. UnitAnode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Climategate articles also describe it as scandal or controversy. Ex. Climategate+near+Controversy gives 163 last month. What is good with our current title is that it gives a hit. The old one gives ZERO (all time) "Climatic+Research+Unit+e-mail+hacking+incident" Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Nsaa (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, pointless bit of GoogleDiving to waste everyone's time. There is no notability requirement for titles, and there are no policies that prohibit us from inventing an entirely unique title. As long as it is accurate, unambiguous and neutral we can pretty much have anything we like. Even if you could find 100 million GoogleNews hits for "Climategate" (or variations thereof) it would still fail the neutrality requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It's reliably-sourced, and much clearer than the hackneyed junk that currently constitutes the titling. UnitAnode 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-neutral. Saying it isn't won't ever change that fact. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "non-neutral" to call it what the reliable sources call it. UnitAnode 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most reliable sources use the term in quotes, indicating it is not their choice of word. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Of the top 10 Gnews main results, 6 use it without quotes, and 4 use the quotes. UnitAnode 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which most are blogs/op-eds/opinion pieces. Legitimate reports from legitimate reporters almost all use quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are simply a way of acknowledging that they didn't coin the phrase, not a statement on what they think of it as a neutral term. UnitAnode 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on the "Climategate" name change issue. As a skeptic I would like to state for the record that it's just too soon to re-name this article "Climategate" even though many (every single) reliable source calls it that. For two very simple reasons: 1. It's a violation of WP guidelines (a word to avoid); and 2. We don't know yet whether or not this is a significant event. Someone once opined that everything since the Fall of Rome is current events. I don't take quite such a strict view, but there's no avoiding the fact that this is a developing story. Maybe the term "hack" should go. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to talk about it, especially since it rubs some folks raw (for one reason and another). You know what really would help, though? The whole "assume good faith" thing. The skeptics (and we know who we are) need to stop acting like this was something other than a minor issue of semantics and WP policy. The True Believers (and you know who you are) need to ease up on the stridency and condescension. (tongue-in-cheek) How's about htis for a compromise - if Al Gore calls it "Climategate", can we put it parenthetically in the title? Nightmote (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found:

Climategate in quotes: 11 [16][17][18][19][20] [21][22] [23][24] [25][26]

Climategate not in quotes: 2 [27][28]

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7 [29][30][31][32][33][34][35]

I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: [36] and [37] for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[36] is certainly an apologia for the UEA, while [37] is behind a paywall. How do these show anything other than that Nature.com certainly has their own spin on what happened? UnitAnode 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet is not a reliable source regarding climate change-related issues, then I really, really encourage you to go to WP:RSN and see how far you get with that argument. I think that deserves a *rolleyes*. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't a reliable source, only that they clearly have their own spin on the politics of what's going on in the scientific community with regards to the CRU/UEA. UnitAnode 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concure with SA. Nature is peer-reviewed, academic journal. Such sources are highly prized by Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints are presented fairly and with equal weight. It present viewpoints as they're presented by WP:RS. Since the scientific consensus is that AGW is the correct viewpoint, we're supposed to repeat that bias here. Maybe AGW really is the greatest scientific fraud since Piltdown man? Who cares? That's not our problem as Wikipedia editors. You're just going to have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a pristine reliable source on science takes an unequivocal position on the politics behind that science, we give it no more weight than any other RS on the same political issue. UnitAnode 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you basing this on anything but your own point-of-view? Has any reliable source ever criticized Nature for being political? And since when are there "politics behind science"? Are you referring to the politicization of science, because if that's so then you've got your cause-and-effect mixed up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How can we incorporate this series by The Guardian into the various GW articles?

Cross-posted from Talk:Global warming, as several of these directly affect this article, and the discussions we are having here.

• Part 1 -- "Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics"Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics
• Part 2 -- "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies"Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
• Part 3 -- "Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts"Emails expose tension between desire for scrupulous honesty, and desire to tell simple story to tell the policymakers
• Part 4 -- "Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick'"Steve McIntyre pursued graph's creator Michael Mann, but replication of his temperature spike has earned him credibility
• Part 5 -- "Changing weather posts in China led to accusations of scientific fraud"Climate emails suggest Phil Jones may have attempted to cover up flawed temperature data
• Part 6 -- "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics"Peer review has been put under strain by conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions
• Part 7 -- "Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors"Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency despite being hectored and abused by rabid climate sceptics
• Part 8 -- "Climate scientists contradicted spirit of openness by rejecting information requests"Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-global warming agenda
• Part 9 -- "Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues"Ancient trees dragged from frozen Siberian bogs do not undermine climate science, despite what the sceptics say
• Part 10 -- "Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit"Truth could turn out more embarrassing for university, but CRU 'dissidents', a corporate leak ahead of Copenhagen or bloggers intent on data 'liberation' are all still in the frame.
• Part 11 -- "'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review"Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access
• Part 12 -- "Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible"Climate science can no longer afford to be a closed shop or over-simplify the complexities of a changing climate if it is to reclaim credibility

The information found in these articles needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly. The series is a treasure trove of information, and appears to be pretty pro-AGW, while not denying the major problems caused by Climategate. How should we deal with this series of articles? UnitAnode 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some is news, much is analysis, some is comment. We need to incorporate the important bits that we do not already cover, but we don't need to be in a hurry. WP:RECENT applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that WP:RECENT applies here. This is an unprecedented series of articles, by a respected, reliable source. There is no reason not to include a lot of information from this series based upon a gross misapplication of RECENT, or NOTNEWS. These are by far the two guidelines most commonly misused to keep new information out of the GW suite of articles. It's not going to happen this time. The discussion is about how to include the information, not if it should be included. UnitAnode 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to seize control to me. There are several issues to consider here, not least of which is the fact we don't want to rely on one source for a large chunk of information. There may be a combination of WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT issues as well. Pull out a few things that you consider are important and make formal text change/addition proposals so that we can have a proper consensus discussion about them. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• And, even if it were in contravention to WP:RECENT, who cares? It's an ESSAY for cripe's sake! Now, let's focus on how to use this series of interesting an informative articles. UnitAnode 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying WP:RECENT should be used as a block for any of this material. I'm just saying that we should not rush. The article was marred for a long time by having been cobbled together quickly in the first days. And then some kind editors did a major rewrite. Now we have a reasonable structure, lets not mess it up again. I've read a lot of this material and it does seem to be mainly analysis rather than new fact. But if there is stuff you really like there, why not start off by pulling out 3 or 4 statements that you think should be added and we can discuss them here. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Unitanode for raising this here, the series forms a detailed analysis and overview, not a collection of news stories. For a start, pert 12 provides a useful basis for an outline analysis of the context and issues raised. In terms of impact, a news story on US climate monitoring information service gets go-ahead in Washington links it to the email "controversy". See also Agency Will Create National Climate Service to Spur Adaptation - NYTimes.com. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)