Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Move request

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident → Climatic Research Unit documents controversy — Per discussion at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change Gerardw (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)}} Why are we voting twice? A vote is/was being carried out at the link provided above. Vote there, please.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not voting twice. We're merely following the published request move protocol. By posting on the move request page, allegations of canvassing are addressed. Whether the discussion is here or on the subpage is irrelevant (as the subpage is clearly linked from here). After the request move time period has elapsed we can ascertain the status of the consensus and move the page if appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmkay. So those of us who voted on the other page can refrain from voting here to avoid clutter while having our votes tallied?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter: see Scjessey's comment below, made nearly an hour before your question. It's not the votes that count, but the relative strength of the considered comments that decide a process like this. The straight name-only votes on that sub-page count for very little without the user's thoughts and considerations that led to them. --Nigelj (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the concealment of the "vote" (which is actually an RfC, so any votes there are utterly academic - it's "Request for Comment", not "Request for Vote"). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Review WP:RM. Move request templates are "not obligatory," consensus can be reached outside of them.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with anything. I don't object to the template. I object to all the underhanded crap that came before it, not to mention the fact the the proposed title is completely wrong in that it describes something that is only part of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The hacking incident is only part of the article as well. How about we call it the "CRU documents, hacking thereof, and haymaking by so-called climate change skeptics who want to call it climategate controversy"? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this move for two reasons:

  1. The article is not about the controversy. The controversy is just one of the consequences of the incident the article describes; therefore, the proposed title fails WP:TITLE insofar as it lacks accuracy.
  2. The discussion related to this move request is plagued by procedural shenanigans, including (but not limited to) indications of improper canvassing and meatpuppetry.

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very little of the article is dedicated to discussion of the hack itself. If the article were about the hack alone it would fail WP:Notability. As for the allegations of improper canvassing and meatpuppetry, can you provide specifics?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Much more about the hacking aspect was in the article before the recent rewrite, but much more of this information will doubtless find its way in once the Norfolk police and the inquiry make the specifics publicly available. The allegations with respect to canvassing and meatpuppetry were made by other individuals - I have conducted no personal analysis; however, there are other procedural concerns that I have. For example, a substantial portion of the discussion originated on the talk page of a topic-banned editor. The objection I raised in my first point should be more than sufficient to show that this move request is inappropriate though. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Editors, please don't argue about the name here. The debate has been extensive and full in the RfC. Let an uninvolved admin review the RfC and make his/her decision. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The RFC was an RFC, not a move request. And Oren0's latest addition was (a) not a move request (by what he said, it was just another step in the RFC) and (b) was entirely canvassed. Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly (without response) that move requests are not obligatory and that consensus can and often is reached outside of them. The present template is here to direct editors' attention to the corresponding discussion page. That's all. As for the allegations of canvassing, note (as has also been pointed out to you) that only certain inappropriate kinds of canvassing are prohibited. If you see these, please provide specifics and not diffuse accusations that ipso facto cannot be addressed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It has? Sorry I must have missed that. And, you know, instead of assuming bad faith and linking to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, would you please link to the actual discussion? And regarding Oren0's assurances...? Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to have to search through every single diff, but after looking through recent histories you've posed these concerns repeatedly: [6][7][8][9][10]. Answers given, e.g., Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/RfC_on_article_name_change#Discussion Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change#Is the_question of consensus still in doubt? Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Climatic_Research_Unit_email_and_document_controversy--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not diffs for my comments, diffs for replies that you claim I'm ignoring. In the second section, in response to my comment that an RFC posted the previous day was being used to argue for consensus for a move, you replied by posting something about the fact that there's no requirement to list move requests and WP:RM. True, but a non sequitur. In the first section, in request to my question about whether Oren0 had decided to implement the "decision" of an RFC that stood at "no consensus", he replied that no, he was just refocusing the RFC. A heavily canvassed RFC which was hidden on a subpage (but still managed to attract a flood of votes just a few hours) can't be taken as a legitimate move request. Not because it isn't listed at WP:RM, but because of the canvassing and the time frame, and the fact that it was hidden from most of the involved editors. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Answers were given in response to the diffs provided and elsewhere.

The RFC was not hidden, it was clearly linked to (and originally moved from) discussions on this talkpage, just as it has been linked to in this very section. Additionally, those who'd voted on the original discussion were unanimously warned of the vote for a proposed move in order to further ensure that people were aware of what was going on (this is presumably the canvassing you're talking about). That is to say, the "canvassing" you dispute was initiated precisely so as to address your concern that it existed on an RfC page and not at the main article. Please please think through your criticisms. It sure feels like you're throwing whatever you've got at this process so that the outcome that may not be going your way is avoided.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• The RfC is tainted (see above) and it is important that these issues are noted. There can be no legitimate claim of consensus until the issue has been debated on this talk page anyway. It was wrong for the debate to be concealed in a subpage. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  The sub-page was created by TS who moved that discussion from here, so I don't think you can say it was "concealed". Arzel (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sure I can. The genesis of the discussion was on the talk page of a topic-banned editor, and it was a while before many people were aware of it. Then some people were notified, and others weren't. All very peculiar and troubling. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  You participated in that discussion, and you commended Go Right on his actions, and you said that it must be proposed here with no copy and pasting of results. [11]. Now that it has satisfied those requests you call it tainted? Arzel (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a different discussion, although obviously a petition on a user page can't be counted as anything more than a discussion on a user page. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - this article is not about the "controversy", it's about the data theft (ie, the hack) and its consequences. The title might have matched this article three months ago, but long and complex discussions among editors have resulted in this article. We can't pretend that the last 3 months didn't happen. Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No we can't. The hack is non notable without the controversy that ensued and it is the controversy about the content that has been covered in the media over the past three months, not the hack. If you want an article about the hack, support my proposal above and make the document fork the main article. Otherwise, the title should reflect the primary aspect of story. JPatterson (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This move to rename the title is a small step toward making the article NPOV. At this point, whether or not there was a hack or any data theft is clearly irrelevant and inconsequential to the revelation that global warming is a product of gross scientific fraud and corruption that, among other noteworthy political events, disrupted the Copenhagen climate conference, as indicated for example here: 'Climategate' at centre stage as Copenhagen opens http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6947199.ece HideTheDecline (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The present title has been subjected to the highest standards of WP:POV scrutiny ever since the incident occurred, and has survived them all. There are many people who are disappointed by the lack of effect this server hack and data theft is now having on the politics in their country, who would like to widen and refresh the anti-science AGW-denial debate, per some dubious and politically-motivated blogs. Renaming the article to allow more Wikipedia discussion of these extreme WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories is but a step along that path. The next time realistic information becomes available that may affect this article (including its title) for the better is likely to be when the official inquiries begin to report. The present title, and article wording, is strongly supported by the FAQ of the website that is live in preparation for the publication of one of these official reviews. --Nigelj (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How has the present title "survived them all"? There are 23 editors on the subpage who expressed support for the more neutral and comprehensive "documents controversy" (which would include the hacking) rather than "hacking incident" (which excludes the bulk of the controversy). So, no, it absolutely did NOT "survive", it was soundly rejected, yet a small group insists it be kept. Perhaps your confusion is relating to the "Climategate" rename debate, for which there was no consensus; this rename debate has no mention of "Climategate" ATren (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, canvassing produces results and can skew debates. We're well aware of that. That's why it's considered disruptive. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• oppose - Nigelj says it well William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds since the RfC seems ambiguous to me. Arguments on both sides have generated considerable support, which makes me feel like keeping the status quo is better than trudging forward with new problems. But User:HideTheDecline's argument in support of the move makes me convinced the move is inappropriate. Renaming may be appropriate, but I'm still convinced that title is misleading and avoids the manner in which the incident occurred and places undue focus on documents when it is really cherry-picking from e-mails that has gotten the most attention. Do we have a hide the decline article yet? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose canvassed - I was of the opinion that GoRight was merely soliciting opinions and seeking compromise on his talk page - however, I was recently made aware that dissenting opinions were being shut out by supporters of his proposal - thus, it appears this was canvassed. I oppose canvassed discussions. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary subject of this article should be something that can be characterized as a 'hacking incident' rather than a controversy, though I do not think that the current name is the best choice. If there is a controversy which should be documented, it is perhaps about the attitudes of various people working on the issue of climate change, not limited to CRU staff, maybe also including IPCC. This kind of extension is discussed in other sections of this talk page and rejected as a reform of this article. It may take a form of a separate article if there are needs and ways to document the issue from a neutral viewpoint with reliable sources.--Masudako (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and NOTE: 23 editors have already expressed support for the name change here, and this move request was made to finalize that consensus. Any opposition here should be balanced against the strong support there. It's clear that the consensus is to rename the page to "documents controversy" rather than "hacking incident". My support rationale (for about the 2,203,103rd time) is that "hacking" is POV because it only describes one part of a larger story. It would be like naming the Tiger Woods story "Tiger Woods' Single Car Accident". "Hacking incident" not only fails to cover the whole story, it doesn't even cover the predominant aspect of the story, which was the controversy arising from the contents of the emails. The hacking itself has received a small portion of the coverage, yet those who wish to de-emphasize the content controversy want to make it the main point. It's absurdly POV to anyone who has followed this story in the least. ATren (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that the discussion was tainted by canvassing issues has already been raised. Do you disagree with the premise that it was a canvassed poll? Guettarda (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think it was canvassed, then make a more broad announcement to bring in more opinion. This debate has already been advertised on several uninvolved forums (through the RFC) and several of the "supports" on the sub-page are from previously uninvolveds. Your argument holds no water. ATren (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, the solution to canvassing is not more canvassing. Secondly, can you please show where this RFC was listed? I can't even find the original RFC listed, let alone anything about Oren0's new one. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of WP:CANVASS do believe was violated? AFAIK, it was bipartisan effort by ChrisO and GoRight. Even WMC and Scjessey were approached. It seems that the 4 measures of Limited posting, Neutral, Nonpartisan and Open appear to have been met. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO and GoRight? No, this was Oren0's canvass. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we're talking about two different things. I was thinking of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda should read WP:CANVASS. I notified everyone who had participated in the RfC about the discussion, even those people such as him who disagree with me. I also posted on this talk page. This is well within accepted bounds, and if anyone has a problem with my conduct I suggest they raise the issue at the appropriate venue rather than smear me with (at best) half-truths. Oren0 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the policy you're quoting. The page refers to "editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion", but looking at your edit history, you ignored a large swath of editors who have been actively involved in the article and its talk page. Your inappropriate canvass produced a tainted poll. If you weren't actually quoting from the WP:CANVASS you could claim not to know what it says, but since you have linked to it, you need to stop pretending that your actions were in some way acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. As in all of the naming discussions that have been raging over the last 3 months, this proposal has one basic flaw... Nothing has changed, it is still the hacking that is the only really substantial element of the "controversy", everything else is simply conjecture and speculation. Possibly there will at some time be more facts to the incident than that there was a hacking - but that time hasn't come yet. Adding to that "Documents" is undue focus, since it is the emails that have been the focus of 99% of all coverage. As there seems to be no consensus (and possible canvassing) i believe that the status-quo is the only real choice - while maybe not optimal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has changed? Have you read the opinion polls lately? That wasn't caused by the hack. There's something like eight independent investigations going on, only one of which is looking into the hack. Jones has stepped down and given the China/Siberia stuff is unlikely to be able to step back up. Investigatory panel members have had to resign over allegations of bias, state legislatures are passing resolutions, law suits are being filed against the EPA using the documents as a basis for overturning their finding. Sponsors of the climate change bill in the US senate are dropping like flies. But we continue to sing la-la-la with our fingers in our ears and pretend nothing has happened and it's all about the hack. Hilarious. JPatterson (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps people just don't quite understand that it doesn't matter too much how the documents were obtained. So the "hack" has very little to do with the controversy. I don't see a lot of articles talking about people being outraged at the lack of security at UEA, for example, because no one cares. Everyone, including those who oppose this move request, understand that what was "stolen" and how people reacted to it is the notable aspect of this story, not how it was stolen. I don't quite understand the disagreement with "documents" in the title, since "emails" fall under the category of being a type of electronic document, and so "documents" encompasses both emails and the other documents. Moogwrench (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The rabid debate surrounding this article approaches absurdity. This story is old and stale, and its relevance in relation to anything important is questionable. The world's attention has moved to bigger and better things. Apparently, some wikipedia editors have not. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

More than 1800 Google News hits, just from the last week, for the term "Climategate". So, "old and stale"? Not quite. ATren (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support As long as the search term "Climategate" redirects to this page, then this page is about the controversy. If some editors want this page to focus on the hacking/theft aspect, that's fine. It is notable, in the same way that Dan Ellesberg's treason trial is notable. If other editors want to discuss the controversy stemming from the hack/leak, that's fine and notable too, in much the same way as the Pentagon Papers are notable. But the status quo is untenable, in so far as the larger square peg of "Climategate" keeps getting hammered into the smaller round hole of "hacking incident." Something has to give, and a new page is the most reasonable compromise. Evensong (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as the main subject matter is still about the theft, not about the "controversy" of what was contained in the stolen data. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "hacking incident" is accurate and neutral, and the consequences of the hack and alleged controversy fall under the scope of the article. StuartH (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "hacking" may not be accurate. The fact is, no one's been able to determine how these files were obtained. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. See this FAQ as well as our own above (Q5) --Nigelj (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been debunked before. This review will not investigate how the e-mails were leaked. It's not even part of its mandate. Please don't spread misinformation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Norfolk Constabulary are investigating criminal offences in relation to the hacking incident."FAQ . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If citing an incomplete investigation sponsored by an involved party about a charge that is not part of the investigation is the best argument we come up with, then let's move onto something based in reality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is from the FAQ Nigelj keeps citing:

"To put it briefly, we will determine if there is evidence of poor scientific practice which could call their research into question; whether they followed University and statutory FOI procedures properly; and whether they should have better procedures for managing their research and keeping their data safe."

Sounds like the investigation focuses on much more than just the "hacking" question, despite Nigelj's claim that this FAQ is evidence that the title "hacking" should remain. ATren (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiresome. Of course the investigation isn't there to investigate the [IT issues or technicalities of the] clarified later after e/cs --Nigelj (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC) hacking. Did you not notice this? "The University of East Anglia announced the independent Review on 11 February to investigate key allegations arising from the series of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in December 2009. The incident saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online". (My emphasis) --Nigelj (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But the topic is much more than the hacking. That's the point you seem to be missing. ATren (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But it is a hacking incident. Hence the title of our article. And we cover the reactions and responses as we should. --Nigelj (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is more than just a hacking incident. "Climategate" redirects here, and Climategate is about the overall controversy, which includes the hacking but also includes the content controversy. It's like naming the "World War II" article "German invasion of Poland" and redirecting WWII to that article -- yes, WWII includes the German invasion, but it's much more than that, and to redirect the former to the latter would ignore the bulk of the topic. ATren (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that Climategate should be turned into a dab, or pointed somewhere else? And what does either of those two issues have to do with the naming of this page? Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate currently redirects here, so it should reflect the entire issue, not just the hacking. An alternative would be to create a new article (e.g. "CRU Documents Controversy") which discusses the content controversy separately from the hacking, and have Climategate forward there (since "Climategate" is predominantly about the contents of the documents, not how they were obtained). I think it makes more sense to have it all in one, but having a new article on the controversy is fine too, as long as Climategate forwards there. ATren (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. You cannot use the existence of a redirect to dictate the content of the article, let alone how it should be titled. As for "as long as Climategate forwards there." This is all about pushing the "Climategate" to make sure the controversy runs as long as possible. I cannot see how it is possible for it to me a more clear-cut case of agenda-driven editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nor can you use a poor article name to dictate the content of the article. So, no, it's not getting ridiculous, it's been ridiculous for 3 months now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? You have come out quite recently and said "Yes, the title and the death threats in the lede. Fix these two issues and my concerns about neutrality have been addressed." You have stated that you have no problems with the rest of the content in this article from a neutrality perspective. Are you walking that statement back? Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, either I didn't say that right or you misunderstood. Either way, let me clarify. Over the past 3 months I've seen arguments that certain content be kept out of the article on the grounds that the article was about the hacking incident and not the subsequent controversy. This same argument is now being used to justify the article title. I'm fine with the content save the undue weight to the death threats in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, quit the agenda accusations. I have none except NPOV. "Climategate" exists, whether you like it or not. The term redirects here, so this article should reflect the Climategate topic, starting with the title. An alternative would be to create a new article which details the document content controversy and have "Climategate" redirect there. The current situation, which is to have Climategate redirect to an article on the hacking alone entitled specifically "hacking" (which is NOT what Climategate is primarily about) is simply wrong. Again, it's like linking WWII to Invasion of Poland (1939). ATren (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What information is lacking from this article that you believe needs to be inserted and can be sourced to a reliable secondary source? Be extremely specific. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to the title, not the contents. I only referred to the contents in the context of the possibility of splitting the article as an alternative to renaming. ATren (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So let's be explicitly clear here. When you wrote "The current situation, which is to have Climategate redirect to an article on the hacking alone (which is NOT what Climategate is primarily about) is simply wrong," you were not refering to the current situation when you wrote "The current situation?" Do you honestly expect me to believe that? Would you like to further clarify, or perhaps retract or revise your earlier statements? Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the title. I will clarify. I have not examined the content in detail so I reserve judgement on whether this applies to content, but the intent of my comments in this section has been to address the name only. ATren (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Sorry, but that is an absolutely ridiculous argument. By your rationale, I could create a redirect called "Utahgate" that points to Utah, and then start trying to make the article document every conceivable media angle of the recent Utah House of Representatives "resolution" denying science, and then try to get the article changed to "Utah House of Representatives Resolution controversy". The tactics that science deniers are now employing to try to bend this article to their point of view are scandalous. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is the second time you have accused me of bad faith. Please strike the above.

Your Utah example misses the point. I have no objection to redirecting Climategate to another article which focuses exclusively on the content controversy; I only object to the fact that this is the article on Climategate even though the title reflects only the hacking portion. But in any case, would you support a separate article named (e.g.) "CRU Documents Controversy", with Climategate redirecting there? That would be acceptable, I think. ATren (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, please stop the use of "science deniers". It is inaccurate and quite insulting.--SPhilbrickT 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "denialism" has been applied to this phenomenon both in the popular press and peer-reviewed publications. It doesn't strike me as inaccurate, and we can't really bend over backwards to avoid everything that someone finds offensive (after all, we don't require PBUH after every mention of the Prophet Muhammad, despite the fact that some people find the omission offensive). Guettarda (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, he is calling me a science denier, which is actually kind of absurd if you knew me, and certainly insulting. Read his last comment: "The tactics that science deniers are now employing to try to bend this article..." (emphasis mine). He's not talking about those writing externally about Climategate, he is referring specifically to the editors in this thread. In effect, he is calling me a denier for expressing an opinion on the content of the article, which is completely independent of my opinion on the topic itself. That's unacceptable, and he should stop. ATren (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't question that there are some people for whom the label "denialist" is appropriate. They make up a tiny proportion of the voices questioning some of the warming claim. There may even be some editing or attempting to edit here, but I don't recall any clearcut examples of editors for whom the label is accurate. The glib usage of the term, applied to editors to whom it most certainly does not apply, is quite rude, and should be discouraged. I'd be very surprised if a peer-reviewed paper conflated denialists and skeptics - if you can cite such an example, I'd be interested in seeing it. If anyone here uses the term, I will challenge them to back it up or remove it. Even now, I think Scjessey should refactor both instances. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 18:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I used Google News to search the relative frequency of terms in this debate, as mentioned in the press during the last month:
  • 1700 total Climategate hits.
  • 60 contain "Climategate" with "hack" or "hacking"
  • 285 contain "Climategate" with the exact phrase "freedom of information"
  • 195 contain "Climategate" with the term "controversy"

  Clearly, this is about more than just the hacking, given that only 60 out of 1700 (3.5%) of Climategate news items contain the word hacking. Note, this is an informal analysis, but it serves to show how completely wrong it is to state that this is primarily about the hacking. It borders on ridiculous, really. ATren (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You're back to publicising the opinions of blogs again. You know that's irrelevant - we do not base article titles on what bloggers say. --Nigelj (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out that this is about much more than the hacking. To deny all other aspects of this controversy is POV, given the relatively minor prominence the actual hacking gets in the coverage. "Hacking" to describe this topic is POV. ATren (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop typing for a second and read what I have already said to the same point when you just made it 10 lines above. Arguing about it twice in the same section does not help, and does not make your argument any stronger. --Nigelj (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the hacking is the predominant aspect of this controversy? Because it seems that you are. ATren (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the title of this section: I'm trying to discuss the move request, the title of the article. As I said in my !vote above, I think it's fine as it is, and nothing you've said here has altered that. --Nigelj (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No hacking, no controversy about the emails and their direct implications. As discussed above, the "controversy" is being used as a coatrack by the denial lobby for all sorts of claims which belong in other articles. . . dave souza, talk 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No invasion of Poland, no WWII, so do we redirect WWII to Invasion of Poland? It's a flawed argument to suggest that a topic should be named according to its triggering event even when the topic grows much larger that that single event. ATren (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to discuss world war analogies, the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria as a catalyst for World War I probably works better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But in each case, there were ensuing incidents, like the declarations of war for example. Rest assured, if the inquiries lead to all the scientists being arrested, the IPCC disbanded, and all the peer reviewed literature being burned in the streets, we will respond. Just that none of these things have happened yet. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, regardless of how the investigation turns out, there was still a controversy. That will not change. This well-documented controversy should still be documented, and if the investigations exonerate the participants, then that should be covered too. This controversy is not some insignificant claim on a blog, it's a months-long controversy covered in hundreds of newspapers across the globe. In the former case, no coverage of a discounted claim would be necessary, but Climategate is big enough that Wikipedia cannot ignore it, no matter what outcome of future investigations say. And those future outcomes certainly do not change what should be done now. ATren (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Meanwhile, why not try to respond to Hipocrite's challenge above (20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC))? Try to be constructive. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How it originated is irrelevant. It exists, and is referenced in many dozens of reliable sources. Even your own FAQ link talks about investigating the allegations of misconduct. This is about more than just the hacking, and the sources reflect that. ATren (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

←"Climategate" is much ado about nothing, and the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again these people have hijacked a rename discussion and started listing their Google searches, disputing the FAQs, etc. Can we move all this noise out into new sections below, so that the rename debate looks more inviting to thoughtful comments and less like a playground fight? --Nigelj (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(Supplement of my "Oppose") The logic of ATren that there is consensus to move the article does not make sense. The order of "move or not" and "to what name" matters. If there is a strong reason to avoid the current name and it is considered any name would be preferrable than it, then there will be a consensus on "move or not" first. But the present situation is not like that. (Some think that some proposed name worse than current one.)

The "-gate" names should not be a title of Wikipedia articles but just redirects. Even there is a opinion that "Climategate" may mean controversy about IPCC and therefore we should make a disamgiguation page.--Masudako (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I think that the issue people refer to by "Climategate" is not just a document leak insident but broader, and already broader than the issue alleged to the authors of those documents. So if you want an article aptly receive redirection from "Climategate", it should be newly designed. Shifting focus of this article does not arrive to a good perspective.--Masudako (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The story is the controversy surrounding the actual documents and the fall-out from those documents. How they were released is being talked about by almost no one. Or we could create this named article, and send the Climategate redirect to the new article dealing with the controversy and subsequent fall-out. Arzel (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The current name discredits Wikipedia. JPatterson (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(More supplement to my Oppose) I hope you do not hurry to write a "controversy" article based on your instantaneous perception. Though perhaps I cannot contribute except suggesting some references, I want an article discussing "Role of scientists in the issue of climate change", and the issue whether the attitudes of scientists at CRU were appropriate should be located somewhere in the subject. To have an article of the (itself controvertial) subject conforming to the Wikipedia standard, you probably need to refer to scholary works of social scientists as background. I am not familiar with them, but one example I know is as follows:

Clark A. Miller, 2004: Climate science and the making of a global political order. Pages 46-66 of: Sheila Jasanoff, ed.: States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge, 317 pp. ISBN 0-415-33361-X.

Also some of the contributors there should know what the first chairperson of IPCC said in his recollections, whether to agree or disagree.

Bert Bolin, 2007: A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 277 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-88082-4.

Another thing I feel I need to repeat. I do think that the word 'hacking' is inappropriate, but it does not justify the change from 'incident' to 'controversy'. --Masudako (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• The current proposal is to rename the article Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. Both hacking incident and climategate are POV descriptions; both aspects can be fairly addressed in the article. But the title should be bland and as neutral as possible. Gerardw (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. It seems likely there should be two articles, one discussing the controversy involving CRU, UEA, NASA, GISS, and NOAA; alleged manipulation of data from Russia, USA, China, Australia, NewZealand, Bolivia, Canada, perhaps other sites. Call it what you will, but redirect Climategate to it. The other article (the residual of this current) should preserve the discussion of the origin and compilation of the file and of the release of the documents and any legal proceedings or complications which may ensue, and should provide a link to the other. Oiler99 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: This move has already generated substantial responses here. This move request appears to be an attempt at forum-shopping by those who don't like the consensus that already developed there. Any evaluation of consensus here should take this into consideration. As for my own opinion, I support this move because the current article is wrongly focused. As long as Climategate redirects to this page and it is considered the main article, it should be about the most notable part of the whole thing: the document controversy. Oren0 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. That discussion was produced by an inappropriate canvass, and is deeply tainted. Your canvass ignored a large swath of involved editors here who, surprise, surprise, happen to disagree with the position you advocated. Guettarda (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And, by the way, your accusation of "forum-shopping by those who don't like the consensus" is ridiculous. To begin with, the editor who started the move request agrees with you. In addition, bringing it onto the main page where involved editors are actually aware of the discussion cannot be faulted. Your canvass brought in a whole lot of editors who haven't participated here, and managed to exclude a large number of the ones who did participate. Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • As you have been told by a pile of people by now, these accusations of an inappropriate canvass are baseless. I contacted every user who had already replied to the RfC regardless of their positions. Isn't the inclusion of many uninvolved editors a good thing? Oren0 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I've been told that by a few people (far fewer than the list of active editors you failed to notify). Unfortunately, simply saying "you're wrong" just doesn't cut it. Your canvass failed to notify a large number of involved editors, many of whom were likely to disagree with you. For a canvass not to be improper you need to notify editors involved in the article. Which you failed to do in an evenhanded manner. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. I've already supported this elsewhere and maybe even above but I'm too busy to follow the twists and turns of where, when and how to vote. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nigelj makes the best summary of the reasons. I think those who keep citing that pathetic RfC need to step back and stop being so damn disruptive. Jeni ^(talk) 10:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to Climategate The name as it stands is potentially breaking UK law as it suggests a crime that there is no evidence occurred and which would be seen as prejudicing a trial if or when the person who the best evidence suggests is a whistleblower comes to court. How can this person(s) have a fair trial when Wikipedia, in the absence of all evidence have already decided they committed a criminal act. As someone who reads a lot on the subject, the only names I have seen repeated are:

1. The name as given (which as I state is a potential contempt of court) - and I've not seen for a while as it has been replaced by:
2. "incident that has come to be called: 'climategate'"
3. Climategate
4. "Climategate"
5. climate-gate

(I'm not fussy on capitals). The only long version I can think of is: "the issues surrounding the unauthorised release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia" - which is why I've said right from the beginning that the article was going to be called Climategate and that is the name it should have. Isonomia (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more – I commend Hacked climate science emails | Environment | guardian.co.uk to your attention. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The term "hacking incident" is accurate and neutral at the present time and should remian until the enquiries (police and academic) announce some conclusions. It seems to me the term "Climategate" gets more imprecise as time goes on and is now used to reffer to any attempt to discredit climate science from any source. Lumos3 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not the first occasion sceptics have applied this label. The website CLIMATEGATE.COM was established in January of 2008. "Climategate" is a catchall for a mystifying array of non scandals. Wikispan (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikispan, do you have a reference for the establishment date of climategate.com? I could not find one on http://www.climategate.com but having a WP:RS could be useful re the wording in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would prove anythign either way. Enterprising people are likely to register a lot of domain names ending in .gate, either to coin a term or in hopes the domain will be useful someday. Everytime anything happens, someone is apt to affix "-gate" to the end, but it doesn't become a real neologism until they convince a lot of other people to use the term. There are sporadic earlier attempts to call different things climategate. This is the first time it gained any currency. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This gives a Jan 2008 registration date, although Wikidemon makes a good point. Guettarda (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. "Domains by Proxy, Inc." I thought we might find some actual discussion using the term dating to 2008 or early 2009 on the site itself. I certainly agree with the premise that the term refers to a moveable feast, and that its emphasis is now moving on into referring to the hunt for IPCC typos. Once that is clear and is secondary-sourceable, it may be worth an attempt at an analysis, and this snippet may form a short 'prequel'. --Nigelj (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - @Atren - Re "More than 1800 Google News hits, just from the last week, for the term "Climategate". So, "old and stale"? Not quite." More than 23,000 Google News hits for "Tiger Wood". Posts on the Wiki "Tiger Woods" article discussion page in the past week, 0. Old and stale. Quite. Ahhh Atren..... I think the crazed amount of discussion on this article relative to the subject's relevance unmasks the event for what it really is. A blatant attempt by conspiracy theorists and denialists to discredit science&reality with a foul smelling red herring. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the proposed new title is not my favorite but as between the two I prefer it over the current one. This article is about more than the fact that someone hacked the CRU server. "documents" controversy logically includes the hacking of the documents, but not the other way around. So the new proposed name is more general and covers in more neutral fashion a larger part of what the article is about. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, the whole "documents" discussion was spun off into a separate article several weeks ago. What's left here is mostly the hacking incident. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a sub-article so it doesn't change what the parent article is about; it's simply another way of organizing the same topic. And actually, there is very little here about the alleged hacking incident. Who did it? How did they do it? Was it even a hacker or was it an insider? If it was an insider, what were their motives? This article covers very little about that. In fact, we don't even know it was a hack to begin with. So not only does the current title violate WP:NPOV, it might be factually inaccurate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, not exactly. Daughter articles are not "sub-articles", they are based on the conclusion that a topic is notable enough to stand on its own, independent of the "parent". We don't use sub-articles any more, haven't since at least 2004. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Who did it? How did they do it? Was it even a hacker or was it an insider? If it was an insider, what were their motives? This article covers very little about that - Is there any reliably sourced content on this that you think should be in the article? Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if it turns out that it was an insider, can we assume that you will be consistent and argue for the title to be "Climatic Research Unit whistleblowing incident?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Insider ≠ whistleblower. But if it comes to be described as a whistleblowing incident rather than a hacking incident, then I assume we'd move in that direction. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I've argued elsewhere on this talk page, I think 'Climatic Research Unit documents controversy' would be a suitable title for a separate article focusing on the controversy arising from the documents leaked/hacked from the CRU; but this article should remain focused on the initial release of data and its immediate consequences. Robofish (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Generally Support. "Hacking" fails NPOV, as there are some reliable sources that (appear to) state it probably wasn't hacking; it's difficult to determine weight. Those sources who quote other sources as saying "hacking" possibly shouldn't be included as supporting "hacking". The assertion that RealClimate was hacked to upload the documents there seems to have more support. Perhaps "Climatic Research Unit document liberation release incident", to parallel the daughter article Climatic Research Unit documents? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am unaware of a single RS that says it wasn't hacking. Please provide examples. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm working on it, but I'm not sure there are reliable sources which refer to it as hacking. We know UEA and CRU refer to it as "hacking", but those claims are self-serving. The police are investigating it as if it were "hacking" a data breach, because they would have no interest in it if it were not. (In the UK, "alleged" isn't used as often as it is in the US.) Is there a reliable source, not quoting those sources, which refer to it as "hacking"? I haven't seen one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The Muir Russell commission uses 'hacking' and 'theft' as well, and I'm not aware of reliable sources that dispute that account. But in search of a more positive argument, can you explain why you support "documents controversy" when the whole discussion about the documents has been spun off into its own article, leaving the "hacking incident" (or whatever you think it should be called) here? Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The same sources using the term hacking (without substantiation) to describe the data acquisition are using the term Climategate to refer to the incident as a whole. This proposed title is the compromise between the speculative and the common sense.
      --K10wnsta (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This article is mostly about the controversy surrounding the emails/documents/code released, which is the truly notable aspect of the so-called "Climategate" situation. If there is to be one main article on this, I would recommend that it be on the ensuing controversy, not the break-in (which is barely notable without the controversy which followed). Just as the Watergate scandal is the parent article to Watergate burglaries--no one would be interested in a "third-rate burglary" if it had not created an enormous political controversy. I am hearing a lot of non-policy based arguments against the name and several accusations of inappropriate canvassing. From the oppose !votes of both the supposedly hidden RfC and this move request, it is abundantly clear that those who might object to what I view to be a reasonable compromise name have been duly notified or abundantly aware of what was going on. It is my personal opinion that a policy based argument for the Climategate title is strong, but this presupposes that the topic of the underlying article be primarily on the controversy and not the break-in. The most likely solution will be a split to an incident article and a controversy article. Moogwrench (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

'Change !vote to mere comment: I think that we should change the title to perhaps something like "Climatic Research Unit data breach/release" and split the article into one that details hack/release and another one which details controversy. Moogwrench (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The current "hacking incident" title isn't neutral, as many editors have contended. Several sources have suggested the possibility of a leak and police have not confirmed nor claimed that a hack occurred as of yet. Additionally, this article would fail notability standards if it were about the hack exclusively (the title suggests it is, though not the body). Computers everywhere get hacked into all the time. It's the controversy ensuing from the hack that's being covered in the news. The proposed title accounts for this and has been widely accepted (see RFC), which means it would drastically reduce the (rather staggering) rate of move proposals for this article. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I think this proposed move may marginally reduce the unproductive and acrimonious "let's move it to climategate" discussions, but the only criminal investigation ongoing here is the hacking. The rest seems to be largely a media circus. This could be changed by the result of the inquiry commissioned by University of East Anglia, or by other inquiries commissioned by qualified bodies, but I think we can wait for that. --TS 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting position. "Media circus" or not, the media are the reliable sources that Wikipedia bases its coverage on. Do you disagree that the vast majority of coverage has been on the documents and the ensuing investigations/debate/controversy, rather than details of the hacking itself? Oren0 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • If you think the media are reliable sources, that is your problem. There is a good reason why Wikipedia is not a newspaper. To put it simply, just because somebody puts something into a newspaper does not make it true. It is our job to report from reliable sources, and it part of that job involves determining which of a multitude of sources in any particular instance is reliable. The only reliable information we have to date is that the police, including a computer crime unit, are investigating criminal offences related to a data breach and that the CRU has an independent investigation running to ensure that scientific data was handled correctly. The rest is mere speculation and punditry. --TS 03:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty novel interpretation of WP:V. When pretty much every major newspaper in the world reports about something as news, repeatedly, for months, that confers notability to the subject. Add to that the huge number of scientists, politicians, and others who have commented on this and the controversy becomes notable whether you like it or not. You can't just say that you don't like the style of reporting this has received and that therefore you'll ignore the preponderance of sources. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • TS, how do you know the police are investigating? Gerardw (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the third time in three different votes, all of which arrived at the same consensus. Getting a little boring now. Thparkth (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support tentatively, as whether hacking was involved is pure speculation (per discussion) and use of the appropriate Climategate title does not yet have enough support (per vote).
  --K10wnsta (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- "Hacking" is obviously POV and the article needs to move. I can't believe the obfuscation that is occurring among the editors on this article. It is harmful and I cannot figure out why such is tolerated.--Jarhed (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I already made my "oppose" vote, but I feel I must speak again in the discussion. To avoid the word "hacking", as Jarhed and Arthur Rubin base their opinions to support the move, does not justify the change from "incident" to "controversy". Certainly "document" does not match what is meant by "hacking". May we extend the discussion out of context of particular request of move? I already said around 1 January that "leak" is preferrable to "hacking" if and only if all present participants agree that "leak" is a neutral concept between whistleblowing by insiders and cracking by outsiders. -- 125.2.117.51 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC), addendum Masudako (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC), edited not to be taken as a vote --Masudako (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  If you wish to comment on a specific vote simply use a : and respond to that topic. If you wish to add to your original comments do the same to your own comments. I refractored this comment to clarify that you were responding to the previous, but you might want to go back and refractor your previous comments to avoid additional confusion of appearances of a multiple vote. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Hacking incident reflects the point of view of those who were negatively impacted by release of the data. --207.237.162.147 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)--

• Support though started with the hacking it has now spun into the controversey around the documents rather than them being "hacked" Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Any name change can be viewed as a "move" so that argument carries little weight - the RfC is valid. Collect (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• support Definitely a controversy. 69.201.160.76 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose' because of consensus that "controversy" should be avoided in article titles. I have already suggested and supported other titles such as "Climatic Research Unit computer files controversy". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you suggested "Climatic Research Unit conmputer files incident", not "controversy" which you say we should avoid. Right? --Masudako (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Itsmejudith, Masudako - first everyone calls it climategate (I bet you do!) - but as I'm more concerned about the suggestion of criminality and the possible prejudicial effects on a trial if/when the individuals/s responsble are found - it is time it changes and if you have to have a POV title, it would be better to go with what you suggest than the present nonsense title. One suggestion is Climatic Research Unit email and data incident ... although everyone talks about the emails, and very litle (as yet) about the data, so it might be shortened to CRU .. email incident. But still, we all know that it will be written up in the history books as climategate, so why on earth we are playing around with other titles is beyond me. 88.110.16.230 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The absurd title of this article is a prime example of how fraudulent, politically corrupted, and in cases like this and 9/11, how scientifically inept the Wikipedia conspiracy is. Changing the title to something reasonable and appropriate would, of course, make it a little more difficult to bash Wikipedia on issues like Global Warming fraud and false flag operations, e.g. US state-sponsored terrorism, in particular 9/11. Without this prime example, some people with I.Q.'s under 100 might not so easily understand that Wikipedia is a propanda tool operated by the Anglo-American-Israeli establishment. Hence, unless this proposal includes a mass witch hunt, wholesale Wikipedian purge and major revision of the topics starting with 9/11 to reflect what actually happened and instead regurgitating the official lies of corporate-controlled police states, it is in way no way desirable. HideTheDecline (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

fyi, user HideTheDecline, this is the second time you have voted on the same subject. The first vote was for supporting a change to the article title. This time you wrote "oppose" instead, but by your comment content, seem to actually support the change.Farsight001 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be a never ending poll which, even when some form of consensus appears to be reached the nay-sayers refuse to acknowledge or accept. This is true from all sides, and there seem to be many more than just two, so I am not pointing any fingers in any particular direction. I have not bothered to attempt to tally up the responses above because it has been demonstrated time and again that this would be a waste of time. We have all heard the various arguments and pros and cons of a myriad of possible names and solutions so there is no need to rehash those ad infinitum. I would propose that we close all open threads dealing with the naming issue and proceed as follows:
  1. First we run a poll to separate the "good eggs" from the "bad eggs" by simply asking people to declare explicitly whether they (a) are willing to work as part of a group to find a compromise wording and agree to live with and defend that wording even if it was not their first choice, or (b) are only willing to accept their first choice and intend to defend that to the bitter end. You can decide for yourself who the "good eggs" and who the "bad eggs" are between these two options, I explicitly place no value judgment on either.
  2. For those people who are willing to work as a group I would propose that we simply put all the preferred wordings from that group into a multi-way poll where everyone simply expresses their opinion about each option and then let the chips fall where they may. That group as a block then agrees to support the joint results and they as a block defend the resulting option.
  3. For those people who are only willing to accept their preferred option, they can likewise offer up whatever preferred wordings they have to offer and then they can self-identify themselves under whatever option they prefer.
  4. After a suitable time period (i.e. a couple of weeks or a month) we take stock of the results. If the group who worked together has a wording that coincides with one of the groups that is only willing to accept that wording then the two groups are logically combined to form a block of editors willing to defend that option.
  5. If, after all of the above has been completed, the combined group is large enough to constitute a super majority (defined as 66%?) of the entire population that participated then this is declared to be a consensus and the article is renamed, or not as the case may be, in accordance with that demonstrated consensus.

This approach is offered up as a means of breaking this never ending cycle of argument and I suggest that it is the best way to find what could reasonably be called a compromise and a consensus. The entire process should be canvassed at any and all appropriate public venues only via neutrally worded messages.

Is this a workable approach or am I wasting my time here? --GoRight (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Slo-mo edit war?

Rv: why

Crit-of-AR4 doesn't belong [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This science article from the science website sciencemag.org shows that there is a very strong scientific connection. While I understand why the two articles shouldn't be merged, I do think the inclusion of the "see also" is well justified. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind, but, your article does not seem to mention CRU or the hacked emails. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Whats up with all of this? No connection? What world are you living in? See this Scandinavia-gate?. Read also this Scandinavian temperatures, IPCC´s "Scandinavia-gate" More evidence that IPCC's claim of global warming in the Scandinavian area is yet another home-made "fact" from IPCC.. All the request from professor Karlen has been revealed in the Climategate emails, see One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.” I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. Here’s the story, complete with pictures. I have labeled the text to make it clear who is speaking, including my comments.. Nsaa (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Less of the soapboxing please. hidethedecline.eu isn't a RS for anything. Please bear in mind that this isn't usenet William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

True, I see no evidence of reliability in either of those blogs. Guettarda (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, Kintisch's blog post doesn't seem to say anything about the CRU hacking issue. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't say anything? No it says nothing about what you care about (the misleading hacking), but says a lot about Climategate. Should we create another article then? And iff you both care to read the actual emails you clearly sees what these blogs pinpoints. Nsaa (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you sees, and while you're welcome to put your conspiracy theories on your blog you keep linking, that's not an adequate source for putting your original research on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see anything in Kintisch's blog post that can be tied to the hacked emails. He appears to be using "Climategate" to refer to the entire issue surrounding the IPCC, which appears to be novel usage. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of reporters starting to use the term "climategate" in a sense far broader than simply the CRU incident. (As an aside, if this becomes commonplace, we'll have even more titling issues to address). ::::::::I agree that none of the items mentioned in this article relate to the CRU article, but they do relate to the article currently titled Criticism of IPCC AR4. Perhaps that is a better place to discuss whether this cite belongs in "see also"? (Although as a blog, it probably doesn't meet RS)--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Crossposted with Guettarda - no it's not novel usage, I've seen it many places, but it is not yet the prevailing usage. --SPhilbrickT 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting. If that catches on, we might have to switch the redirect on 'Climategate', or turn it into a dab, pending reliable sources. Great - that'll one more thing to watch people fight over. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the climategate issue is connected to a general criticism of the IPCC and the AR4 by extension. This is the only article that could be named climategate (for various reasons), and that word is linked to this article. It is logical to assume that anyone searching on Climategate is also looking for a broad view of the controversy surounding the CRU breach and the subsequent fallout from the release of data and emails. I cannot see any logical reason to suggest that they are not at all related. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to see that the CRU controversy has resulted in a deeper look into the AR4 resulting the retraction of a number of claims from the AR4 (namely the end of the Himilayian Glaciers, the amount of Denmark under sea-level, ect.) I see no reason why it cannot be linked, and I fail to see why it is a problem, unless people just don't want the Crit of AR4 article to be highly visable. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent argument. I agree with you that people who do a search for the term "Climategate" will be likely to be interested in all of that scientific information. It does seem that this is a debate of inclusionists vs exclusionists. I am an inclusionist, and I want the readers of the encyclopedia to have easy access to all of the information. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. There's nothing to suggest that people searching for "Climategate" are looking for anything other than the CRU hacking story. It's pure speculation without factual support. No need for Wikipedia to act as an enabler for science skeptics looking to promote their cause. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a believer, not a skeptic, of science, and I believe in manmade global warming. I also believe that it appears that some scientists may have exaggerated the effects of manmade global warming, and that readers who are interested in reading about such exaggerations will use the term "Climategate" when they do a search for such information. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate, the contents of the documents taken/stolen/hacked/leaked from CRU, and the AR4 are all closely related. In fact, the IPCC AR4 WGI long ago issued a statement countering the numerous media criticisms of AR4 based the contents of the documents. So those of you claiming AR4 is not related, AR4 WGI disagrees. Evensong (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to provide a link to the IPCC page containing the statement, but it was (apparently) deleted about an hour after I made the above comment. No connection, of course. Just inconvenient. Evensong (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The link to Criticism of the IPCC AR4 belongs in the "See also" section and we should agree to return it there. The "Process issues" section parallels the concerns brought up by the subject of this article, in the same time period and involving the same IPCC organization. Would readers of either article find it very useful to be told about the existence of the other? Of course. To the extent a reader would be interested in this article, there would be an interest in the other, and vice versa. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO: Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm...when I said "that'll one more thing to watch people fight over", I wasn't saying that the fight should start now. Wait a bit. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

These things can change over time. "Watergate" originally referred to a break-in, then matastasized into any politics-related shenanigans of the Nixon administration from 1971-1974. That's another reason to be careful about using the word in the title and to just wait and watch for now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From the above, obviously there is no consensus for the attempts to conflate criticism of AR4 with concern over hacked emails. Since somebody has again attempted to add the link, I've removed it. --TS 18:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit looks to me like the latest shot in a slow motion edit war over the same link. I don't know who started it, but can this please stop. The correct action would have been to discuss the matter on this Talk, not re-insert the link over and over again.

My opinion, FWIW, is that everything is intertwingled, but that does not mean that we can have everything in every 'see also' list. We have a 'Global warming and climate change' nav-box at the bottom of the article. If you want your favourite article to be read, then make sure it's as prominent as is reasonable within that, don't edit-war your personal favourites into random 'see also' lists. --Nigelj (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After the edit war, it was discussed here. There was clearly no consensus for addition. So Arzel's revert strikes me as inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I fully support its reversion, as before. This is an example of "conflation" to artificially lengthen and expand this largely manufactured controversy. Lack of consensus-seeking by Arzel quite troubling. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no concensus to remove it either. This idea that the fall-out of Climategate have nothing to do with the subsequent IPCC AR4 criticism are laughable at best. The only reason to not include it is to keep people from finding out about the AR4 crit article, because there is no other logical reason. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Arzel. This seems a bit of a whitewash attempt. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, a quick check of the portal finds NO link to the AR4 Crit article. In fact you pretty much have to know exactly where it is to even find it since the only link I found was in the IPCC article under the criticism section. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we have Arzel's rationale being "no consensus" (which usually default's to "preserve the status quo ante", not "make a change") and Unitanode's opinion that this is a whitewash. That said, is anyone willing to actually advance a rationale for linking to that article? Not having made up my mind how I feel about the link, it might be nice to see something of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

These are two recent controversies related to climate change and it seems reasonable to assume that someone unfamiliar with the subject would also like to see the other article. I see no reason not to include the link as by doing so we are not implying any connection between the the two articles other than climate change.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about some reliable sources that state/mention/discuss/elaborate the connection between the CRU hacking incident and the errors in AR4? Without them it is some kind of WP:SYNTHESIS, from what I see. Like finding an article on a person you don't like and adding, at the bottom, "See also: Basketcase; Nutter; Fascist" --Nigelj (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The connection is that they are both climate change controversies. The See Also section on Swine influenza lists Horse flu, but no one is suggesting swine flu causes horse flu, it's just a related subject that readers might be interested in. To suggest See Also links require citations is ludicrous. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this? "Climate change controversies" are currently being manufactured quicker than you can list them. They all amount to nothing. Spring is still coming earlier, seas acidifying, ice melting etc., and the oil and CO2 are still getting pumped. There is a political motivation, originating largely among the US right-wing, to want to conflate all the so-called controversies, but that, as I say, is as biassed a position as that of someone wanting to add "See also: Basketcase" to the article on their least favourite politician. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Basketcase anaology is not relevant. Gordon Brown's article does not state he is a Basketcase, neither is it in the Category:Basketcase politicians. Here we have two pages in the Category:Environmental controversies because they are both about climate change controversies. That is undeniable and it's natural that a reader would be interested in both of them. What other people are trying to manufacture, or what people's opinions are on climate change are not relevant. There is no POV-pushing going in here in trying to link articles about the same subject. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So we need a reliable source that specifically says that climategate resulted in criticism of the AR4? Do we really need to be so pedantic? How often is this required in other articles we see also? Nigelj, your opinion is noted, but that doesn't change the fact that they are related. Arzel (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Requirement met

Other scientific research included in the same IPCC report has also been questioned because it comes from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Sceptics claim that emails stolen from the CRU show that climate change scientists were willing to manipulate data in a scandal known as 'Climategate'.

Arzel (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen how many articles are in the "Global warming and climate change" navbox at the bottom of the page? They are all related, but you can't have links to every one in the 'See also' of each article. This isn't 'my opinion' for you to superciliously 'note', but plain facts. You can't build a WP:SYN case that there is insurmaountable criticism by giving undue weight to all this anti-science nonsense and trying to pretend that it's all in some mysterious way 'related'. --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the navbox lately? CRIT of AR4 is not even in there. The distaste of that article is so great that it is all but impossible to find. Now certainly you would not want to have links to all related articles, but it is absurd to say that the AR4 has not come under increased scrutiny and criticism as a result of climategate. And please stop with the anti-science crap. I have several published scientific papers to my name. Hopefully our peer review process never sees the corruption that the climate sciences world has experiences. Arzel (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think we should remove Global warming conspiracy theory and Global warming controversy from the See Also section too, surely if including Criticism of the IPCC AR4 is WP:SYN then including these other links is also WP:SYN or WP:UNDUE? --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you're saying that, because some links between articles have been made justifiably, all links (or at least, the links that you espouse) also follow. I don't think it works like that. This isn't a game of six degrees. --TS 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm simply applying Nigelj's logic to the other links to show his argument is flawed. The inclusion of this link stands on it's own merit as I have stated above. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Erh? The link between this article and Global warming controversy is a clear one, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is a controversy and that it is within the topic of global warming. The AR4 crit article has no such clear link (in fact i'd say that the link is very very unclear). It seems to me that it is being used as a coatrack link instead of what the See also section is supposed to be. Btw. i think both links (to this and to the AR4 crit) should be in the GWC article.. where again it is a clear link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think the link is unclear, perhaps you should start by checking which categories the article's share. The main link is that both subjects are notable recent climate change controversies and the reason to link them in the See Also section is that due to this link, a reader of one might want to read the other. The argument that including the link gives WP:UNDUE weight to the linked article could equally be applied to Global warming conspiracy theory (who believs that fringe shit anyway?) and Global warming controversy (those unscientific denialists shouldn't be given an equal platform). For avoidance of doubt my personal opinion is that AGW is happening, but I really don't see how including this useful See Also link is asserting some connection between the CRU and AR4 other than the fact they are both topical climate change controversies. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The tactic is as follow, contain the negative stuff about AGW theory and all surrounded by it, by either delete critical comments, rewrite it to something unrecognizable, or at least buried as far down as possible with no links what so ever to the article. They succeed. How many pages links to this page? Not more than 24. It's not present in any navigation templates (vigorously kept out like the {{Global_warming}} which even have an own section called Opinion and controversy where this article belong, see the discussion here Template_talk:Global_warming#Link_to_article_on_the_Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident). It's bad and it will probably backfire, as we have already seem in article like Delingpoles and Solomons pieces (earlier debated at length, even kept out of this talk page...). Nsaa (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's no doubt that this is true. However, until the embarrassment level rises to an unacceptable level for Jimbo and the powers-that-be, the obstructionists will not be sanctioned, and the status quo will remain. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from today's BBC News story, showing why the average reader would want a See Also link:

Leading scientists say that the recent controversies surrounding climate research have damaged the image of science as a whole.President of the US National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, said scandals including the "climategate" e-mail row had eroded public trust in scientists...Dr Cicerone linked this shift in public feeling to the hacked e-mails and to recently publicised mistakes made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its key reports.

--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only is there a clear link that is being established, there should be a section relating to the subsequent IPCC fall-out. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Short explanation of the link is OK and maybe desiable. But if you want to discuss problems of IPCC or of the people participating in IPCC but not appearing in the CRU e-mails, shifting the subject of this article is not a good way to achieve that. Please consider starting a new article.--Masudako (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed addition to the introductory section

At the end of the introductory section, tack on the following paragraph: "Information disclosed in this incident have led to an increase in verification checks of related and unrelated climate research and claims. The results of those checks and the unusually large number of corrections stemming from discovered errors, while not part of the hacking incident, are generally understood as part of Climategate."

The case for this addition is that it makes clear that there's something much larger going on than a hacking incident. The discovery of all those AR4 corrections, the popular discovery that the IPCC doesn't actually have a correction mechanism, not having foreseen that it would be mistaken on any point, merely that its conclusions would become out of date with new science bringing better understanding, all this stuff should be at least mentioned as related consequences of the incident. I think that this mention would settle a lot of ruffled feathers and would move the page along so that we might no longer need protection. TMLutas (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking together all the Elvis Sightings gets some people excited, but it doesn't make any of them true. --Nigelj (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I support this proposed addition. Evensong (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I can support addition of introduction, but I oppose the particular plan by TMLutas. The errors of IPCC have little to do with the leaked documents at CRU. I agree that there may be an issue covering both and more. If you want an artcle for the issue, please consider starting a new article. If this were the article with the title "Climategate" now, the shift of scope following that of the word may be justified. But the history that it was called so does not justify the shift.--Masudako (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose While I think there's some truth to the statement, it smacks of Original Research and Synthesis. At a minimum, someone proposing the addition of factual information to an article has the duty to supply some references—it's not even worth debating the question with seeing the relevant references. Even if there are some, then we have to debate the scope of this article. As I have noted previously, the media are expanding the scope of the term climategate and this goes in that direction, but we do not have close to a consensus that this article should cover the broader consensus.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pure original research, with absolutely nothing in the body of the article that supports this conflation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Without a solid source I would have to Oppose inclusion. JPatterson (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Adverbs_that_editorialize - i.e. "unusually" large number of corrections. Can someone just split this article already? 1 for hack, 1 for controversy? Moogwrench (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose - unfortunately, the article as stated is about a hacking incident (one which noone can prove happened), so strictly the article should be about this hack and everything else removed. Obviously, the information you suggest should go in an article called "climategate", but for obvious reasons, this is being opposed by POV pushers who don't want wikipedia to explain the scandal. In an ideal world, I would suggest creating one article in which to put all the related "interest" that has come from the release of the emails because otherwise (if it were covered in a neutral way), they'd be dozens of articles. However, creating such a catch-all article whilst beneficial to anyone with a real interest in understanding these events, clearly isn't going to get past the people who want to keep all the smaller bits of climategate out of Wikipedia by saying they are all individually not notable. And, to be honest, the wording sucks - to my mind you should just speak the truth and to hell with the petty politics of the POV pushers, which is why I don't try and edit this article! 88.110.2.122 (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

An epic game of nitpicking

Here is an interesting piece by Jeet Heer published in The Globe And Mail entitled Climategate's guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs? Wikispan (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I didn't see this and posted the same article below. Sorry about that! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate's guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs?

Here's a nice analysis from The Globe and Mail: [13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good overview, though it's mostly about other issues than the hacking incident. Some odd things – it seems to omit M&M's 2003 paper, and for some reason thinks the Himalayan glaciers correction was down to the AGW "skeptic" bloggers, when the detailed issue was publicised by Graham Cogley, as publicised by the BBC on 5 December 2009.[14] . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe your are correct. The glacier story appears to have gotten a new lease on life AFTER the hacking incident when the MSM started looking at "climategate" on the blogs that incidentally also covered the original BBC story. --> Secondary effect of the hacking incident. I'm not sure this can be reviewed very easily.130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There certainly has been a rehashing of stories that have been known about for years, but which didn't seem to interest anyone in the MSM till climategate. Wang is another example, a very clear compelling story which only made the news after climategate. What is strange is the stories that haven't been picked up. Is this because they haven't been "found" or is there some controlling mind behind a drip-drip PR campaign, and if so are we going to see the pack of cards dealt out slowly to keep climategate in the news? Fascinating stuff! 88.110.2.122 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Climategate scandal began in November 2009. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Hard to tell, as the MSM might have picked it up from various sources. Or do you think they get their stories from skeptic bloggers? Another take on the coverage here. . . dave souza, talk 23:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to say. Possibly impossible to prove with a reasonable effort. The MSM was pretty slow the first few weeks if I remember correctly. I'm leaving this at that.130.232.214.10 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps with timing, the UK government website petition (for a link see[15]) was created on the the Sunday (22nd November) and became public on the 24th Nov.88.110.2.122 (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources about the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" exclusively?

Off the top of my head, it seems that most (all?) of the sources used by this article are not about the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident". Instead, the sources seem to deal with some other aspect of the data release, usually the resulting controversy, investigations, etc. Are there any reliable sources about the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" exclusively? How many? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing an improvement or change to the article, or is this just a fishing expedition? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been argued that the topic of this article is the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident", and that the resulting controversy is only secondary. Assuming that this is correct, I'm wondering whether the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, could you split the article? The hack is barely notable without the ensuing controversy, but arguing that it isn't notable is just going to waste more time. I would appreciate someone spearheading the split after the move request ends, if not, I will try to find sometime to do it this next week. Point is, one article needs to be on the hack (the breach, the criminal investigation, etc.), or whatever you want to call it, and the other article should be on the controversy (reaction to leaked documents, inquiries, FOIA issues, etc.), whatever you want to call it. I think that would go a long way to resolve the toxic atmosphere here. Moogwrench (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, I've not come across a single article that suggests any insider knowledge of the mechanism of release. Even the investigation by the police has faded from the news and I didn't spot any conclusion in the press. The only two articles which look specifically at the mechanism of release are from what's up with that and the guardian. On the other hand, the UEA have stopped talking about a "hack". This either suggests a decision to stop making unsubstantiated allegations of a hack or ... some evidence has come to light indicating the source was not a hack. As for the name, there's no doubt about it that the article name is about a event about which we have almost no evidence except that "something" happened to release the information. That is the reason I put in a AFD on the article, but the POV pushers who run Wikipedia didn't want to have a AfD they knew they couldn't legitimately win! 88.110.16.230 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding of Template:Global warming controversy

Template:Global warming controversy {{editprotect}} Please add this template {{Global warming controversy}} to the bottom:

{{Global warming controversy|state=expanded}}

Nsaa (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This template doesn't look right to me. I've never seen categories incorporated into this sort of thing before, and why have you failed to seek consensus for this? I'm going to have to object to its inclusion until this can be properly discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But why do you object to this template specifically, other than "you've never seen this sort of thing before"? It seems an ideal way to link related articles and obviates the need to include a See Also link which caused so much controversy above and caused the article to be fully protected in the first place.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that I object to the inclusion of this template because of the categories. Indeed, I have opened a conversation on the template's talk page in the hope of resolving that issue. I would also probably object to the template being included in "expanded" form (as requested above). Also, given the controversial nature of this topic, there is a longstanding consensus that any non-minor changes are first proposed on this talk page. There's been no attempt to discuss prior to the request for edit. "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." This text within the {{editprotect}} template has been ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So you don't object to it for any substantive reason? You'd just like the categories not to be included because of the fact they are categories, and for it to be discussed here first? As this template seems a nice way to solve the edit war, perhaps you'd care to state that you support it in principal? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In its current form, I object to inclusion. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors on this template before I would even consider withdrawing my objection. Certainly some changes would need to be made to the content and display parameters of the template as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What actual changes do you propose?--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the categories would be a good start, but the question of whether or not the template is appropriate must be discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate?--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is clearly controversial and needs discussing. Please reativate the request when you have consensus for this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This largely duplicates the Opinion and controversy section of the main Template:Global warming, which would cover the subject by including links to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Criticism of the IPCC AR4. Any reason not to update that main template, making this new template superfluous? . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this template any use at all? Discuss on template page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mann inquiry result

Currently we have:

"The committee pointed out that the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report[43] found that "Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but deferred final evaluation of the question if Mann operated within the accepted practices for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities to a newly formed investigatory committee of faculty members."[44]

sourced to the committee report itself. Since this is a primary source, it should be quoted from directly and not paraphrased. The clause "but deferred final evaluation of the question if Mann operated within the accepted practices for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities to a newly formed investigatory committee of faculty members." is not found in the document. We should change this to quote the finding directly as we did with the other findings. JPatterson (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be quoted directly and not paraphrased? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid interpretive analysis when paraphrasing which runs afoul of NOR#Primary sources. For instance above, is "deferred" an accurate characterization of the committee's action? After all, they had specific finding of fact re the impact the emails have had on public confidence in the process and convened a faculty panel better qualified to examine the matter. It seems to me "deferred" is an interpretation which falls short. JPatterson (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose a specific change and we can consider it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reputable secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". The committee pointed to the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report which found that "Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but noted that since that report the purloined CRU emails "give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science." Noting the public outcry from some quarters "may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically" but that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee chose to constitute a multi-discipline, faculty committee to further consider that specific allegation.

This IMO is a more accurate depiction of the committee findings than our current version above. JPatterson (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very much not. There is e.g. nothing like your first or second "but" in the report - neither literally nor implied. The only mentioning of "public outcry" is in a very different context. Your suggestion is longer (too long, but then the whole section is too long already, given that this is not an article about Mann), but in fact less accurate than the previous (disclosure: "my previous") version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to revise

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee chose to constitute a faculty committee to further consider that specific allegation, as the allegation "revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists".

Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Better, but it misses one crucial point, namely that the committee declared itself incompetent to reach a definitive finding on the last point. This does not suggest or imply any differences in the committee or conflicting evidence, this is the committee saying "we are administrators, this is question that only faculty can decide (to the satisfaction of the public)". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Permit me to re-revise

The committee was unable to reach a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter."

Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Still too long, though ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hacking?

Non-starter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Answer A5 above conflicts with the neutrality claimed as a Wikipedia objective in answer A1. It also presupposes guilt rather than innocence as is the tradition in the US and much of the western world. Given that an "inquiry" does not mean a crime has occurred, I propose the title of this article be changed to "Climatic Research Unit email incident." That title is neutral on the controversial subject of whether, or not, hacking has occurred. It also welcomes the many points for and against the charge of "hacking" in the body of the article. Or, for consistancy, since an investigation is about to be opened on the entire Climate Change topic [16] Wikipedia could always change the title of the Global Warming article to "Global Warming Fraud" since investigations immediately confer legitimacy to a charge here. --138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Minority Report

SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY links to all .gov sites from antony`s site :) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)