Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

}}

Fluffy kittens

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for New Title

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

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

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

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

Another Proposal for New Title

Climatic Research Unit Data Breach Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climatic Research Unit hacks

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

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

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

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

Discussion of splitting article

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

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

• Agree. Just to clarify, the split came after discussion above.[6] .. .dave souza, talk 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eh, reverting the addition of a tag looks a lot like removing it where I'm standing [7]. People have given some of the NPOV contentions in this thread. Would you be opposed to me re-adding the tag at this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content restriction

I am not sure when the "content restriction" was imposed so that nobody can revert material that has been reverted in the last 24 hours, but it seems like a bad idea. That means anyone who wants to make an edit to the article has to study whether any part of their edit undoes anything that has been done in the last 24 hours, which may cover a good deal of edits. Why would this be required? It seems much more obstructive to non-aggressive editing than is useful or necessary. Obviously it means to keep people from contributing to ongoing revert wars, but I don't see how the wording should not be so broad as to require people to constantly keep track of everything that has been edited in the last 24 hours or face being blocked. Right now it appears I have to look through 30 edits to see whether I can make any change.[8] Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Uncontested" version

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits to the lead

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

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

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

Analysis of the edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert to earlier version of the article?

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

Revert the edit

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

Keep the edit

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

Edit the edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on article name change

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

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

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

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

• I think a convincing case for a proper name article title Climategate (as opposed to the descriptive article title Climatic Research Unit email controversy) is made here. Let me know what you think, Heyitspeter. As I read the policies, my own feelings towards a proper noun name vs. descriptive name changed (proper noun is preferred when it exists in the RS). Moogwrench (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Maybe you could re-evaluate your position re: WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV concerns based on a, I feel, more accurate reading of WP:NPOV and related arguments presented in my Policy vs. Guidelines posting. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming this article until investigation is complete. Support name change but oppose non-neutral "-gate" terminology. Wikispan (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per Scjessey. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support changing it to something other than the incomplete and very likely misleading title it's at now to something other than climategate, which although it's been widely used and has certain benefits of conciseness and catchiness has the same one-sidedness issues that the current title suffers from. Something balancing the unauthorized release of the information and the controversy would be best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climactic Research Unit documents controversy Arzel (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to Climatic Research Unit email controversy or similar. Calling it just Climategate would be OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support immediate change to *anything* which removes the POV and presumptive "hack" from the title. We now know from the Guardian articles that any number of ways in which the info became available are being considered by police. Additionally support re-naming of article to Climategate as per reasoning below i.e. it's the commonly used name. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support change in main article name to Climategate, per my reasoning here (it is the proper noun name commonly used by the majority of RSs). Please read policy-based reasoning before responding or reaching conclusions, or citing WP:AVOID guideline ad nauseum or the "highest degree of neutrality" title argument (which applies to descriptive article names, not proper noun article names). Moogwrench (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as is due to lack of consensus. Wait six months. In six months it will be a lot more clear how this controversy will be remembered. Compare to the controversy over how to name the article that Barack Obama's birth certificate now redirects to. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wait until the investigation is complete?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policies vs. guidelines

• Comment: (sorry in advance for the WP:TLDR)

I don't know if anyone has noticed the following: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal is a guideline. It says, in part:

The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal).) (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal

Now, one can argue that according to this guideline, the title "Climategate" is not used widely enough by reputable historical sources.

However, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a policy, meaning that it takes precedence over a guideline, per WP:Policies_and_guidelines#Role. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming states that:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming

Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive titles, another policy, makes it clear that when articles are given a descriptive title (as in, editors have invented a title because no clear proper noun title existed in WP:RSs) then it must take great pains to be neutral. However, Wikipedia:Article titles makes no such pronouncement regarding proper noun names supported by RSs, and in fact states that

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

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names

Those of you who editorialize against "Climategate" as an article name might consider that it follows well at least four of the five qualities of a good title, according to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title: It is Recognizable (commonly used), Easy to find (readers are most likely to search for it over other terms), Precise (unambiguously refers to subject), and Concise (short [unlike this comment :)]). The last one, Consistent, is open to debate.

Believe me, I have seen this type of extremely contentious fight over at 2009 Honduran coup d'etat and related articles. Some editors thought that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was a "coup", others did not (and felt that calling it that was non-NPOV), however, in the end the majority of the WP:RSs referred to it as such, and as the result of several RfCs and AfDs, such as this, this, and this, "coup" was adopted as the correct consensus name for these articles. If the majority of RSs are calling using the proper noun "Climategate" to refer to this subject, then according to the above naming policies, it should be given serious consideration, and not be dismissed out of hand through a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.

Again, sorry for the long comment. I saw WP:AVOID being thrown about a lot like an ace card and I think it is important to put that guideline in proper perspective. Climatic Research Unit documents controversy is an solid, acceptable name if we want a descriptive, instead of proper noun, title, because it doesn't presuppose the outcome of the police investigation, and puts due emphasis on the content of and controversy over the documents, not the manner in which they were obtained and disseminated (the amorphous "incident"). However, I would hope that even those who find Climategate to be an anathema might consider the "common proper noun" naming policies I cited above in forming their opinions regarding the article title. Moogwrench (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" is fine for the controversy, but the controversy is only part of the incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to you, what is the "incident", exactly? What does it encompass? Because usually "incident" refers to a discrete event, not an ongoing series of events. If the incident is the removal and dissemination of the information, I really can't see that being the notable aspect of this article. If the incident had occurred, and no controversial data had come to light, do you *honestly* think that it would be notable?

When people think of the Watergate scandal, they don't think primarily about the burglary, they think about tapes, privilege, cover-up, controversy, etc. In this article, what is notable is the content of the documents, and the ensuing controversy, not the "incident" of data removal and release. If anything, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is a subset of Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (or Climategate), just as Watergate burglaries is a subset of Watergate scandal.

Secondly, did you look at my reasoning/citations on proper noun article names (i.e. Climategate)? Moogwrench (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the controversial aspect has been largely manufactured by the skeptics, I see it as a secondary issue. The criminal act of hacking into the CRU server, followed by the criminal act of stealing data, followed by the criminal act of distributing that data - these are far more serious issues than the faux "scandal" that followed these criminal acts. The anti-AGW echo chamber has made certain that the faux scandal has received an enormous amount of press attention, aided by the lack of details about the preceding criminal acts and by inane commentary by clueless politicians in the pocket of the energy industries. With respect to your "reasoning" about the use of "Climategate", I completely and utterly reject it. I find this whole retitling discussion to be so tendentious and disruptive that I find myself disinclined to elaborate any further on it. It feels like I am having to repeatedly explain why it is wrong to purposefully drive a truck into a crowd of schoolchildren. I hate having to restate the obvious, so I'm simply not going to bother anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think my point still stands. The criminal act: very few people (in the media and in the population) care. What the criminal act revealed, and what the UEA is having to defend itself on, even if it is misrepresented and "faux" as you put it, is what is the focal point of this story. To say that it isn't is just ignoring the content of media coverage. Notability is conferred by treatment in RSs, not because an editor thinks that it is more important. And just for the record, I don't feel that it is a waste of energy engaging those who disagree with me. It sure beats edit warring, and people might just listen to what I have to say. I'm not wedded to any title, but the policies seem to lead me in the direction I delineated. I hope that you can understand this, and not compare myself, nor anyone else who disagrees with you to "schoolchildren". Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is an outstanding summation. It's also why I won't be supporting the supposed "compromise", which is hardly better than the current neologistic title. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A well-formed and coherent argument. Well done. Nightmote (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, thank you for these extracts from policies and guidelines. However, you don't seem to have noticed the paragraph preceding the one you quote in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming, which states that:

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming

Note that the article titles which are sanctioned in the paragraph you do cite, e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, are historical events or figures covered by reputable historical sources, not current political news stories. "Climategate" is clearly promotes one viewpoint, portraying climate science as a political scandal, and as such fails the earlier paragraph which I cite here. It is not a historical event, so the term has not yet been widely used by reputable historical sources, a point described in the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal guideline. You're arguing that it's only a guideline, and choosing a part of Wikipedia:Article titles policy to claim that as a proper noun name "climategate" doesn't have to be neutral. However, the policy in fact states that

Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave.

For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Another example is that the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive titles

That policy specifically rejects a common partisan -gate nickname in favour of a more neutral descriptive name. Both "Attorneygate" and "Climategate" are proper noun names, but they are not neutral and are not appropriate. The other points you make in favour of "Climategate" apply equally to "Attorneygate". Your partial reading of policies is inappropriate for this article. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You won't accept this as proof, I'm sure, but the Ghits alone speak to the HUGE difference between "Attorneygate" and "Climategate."

1. Attorneygate = 47,900
2. Climategate = 2,850,000

I think it's pretty obvious which one is a neologism and which one is an actual useful term, employed by scores and scores of reliable sources. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, self evidently "Climategate" is a newer neologism, and it's clearly useful to those opposing action on the scientific consensus on climate change. Many of those ghits will be to articles using inverted commas to denote the artificial misuse of genuine concerns about how science and peer review are to deal with changing circumstances.[10] Almost certainly many more will be used by political opponents aiming to undermine the scientific consensus.[11] . . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, even if you find 500 billion Google hits for "Climategate", it would still violate policy. Why is so much time and effort being wasted on this? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it violates your interpretation of a guideline, but is well within the bounds of our policies on the matter. Are there enough editors who don't like it to stonewall the name change? It looks like it. But that won't lessen the ridicule that Wikipedia comes under due to the current tortured and neologistic name. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're asserting that counts of Google hits = reliable historical sources? Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, but that is a convenient straw man for you to knock down. My Ghits comparison was only intended to discredit the Attorneygate comparison. However, a simple news search shows that many reliable sources call it "Climategate." I have no idea what you even mean by historical reliable sources. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness me, UnitAnode. The article has a descriptive name that satisfies Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive titles as quoted by dave souza above. If one fraction of the energy going into this campaign against consensus was spent improving the articles (or reading refs or swotting up on the physics of climate change for example), Wikipedia would greatly benefit. --Nigelj (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It satisfies neither NPOV or RS, as "hacking" is very non-neutral (and, increasingly likely, false), and no reliable source calls this kerfuffle "the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." Scottaka UnitAnode 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not about to start the whole argument over again from the start for you. We're done here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be "done here", but that doesn't mean we're "done here." It's been clearly demonstrated that a vast majority of the reliable sources call this incident "Climategate." Nothing has been shown to disprove that fact. It has been equally clearly demonstrated that the current term is used by only ONE source -- and that is done in reference to this article, and what a terrible title it is. The fact that a core group of editors doesn't like the term is all that is keeping it from being properly-titled. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My response:

Dave, I did notice that previous paragraph. You have to understand the difference between proper noun titles and descriptive titles. It is only for descriptive titles, not proper noun titles. Let's read it together:

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming

The very next paragraph discusses proper noun titles (different standard):

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. [edit] Article structure (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming

See the difference? Descriptive titles, combinations of words which describe the subject, have to conform to the highest degree of neutrality, whereas proper noun titles can contain non-neutral terms as long as they are supported by the majority of RS. This argument is supported in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Descriptive_titles:

Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. (italics mine)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Descriptive_titles

Attorneygate was a nickname that never was extensively used in RS, hence it is inappropriate as a proper name title. Climategate, on the other hand, is an extremely common name used extensively in WP:RS:

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

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names

Common names, even if they contain non-neutral terms, have preference over other mere descriptions. Also, the specific deprecation on -gate names is from a guideline (WP:AVOID), not a policy, so the policy take precedence. I really don't think "We can't have an article named Attorneygate, so we can't have one named Climategate" isn't an especially strong, policy-based argument. You can't automatically apply all the arguments against Climategate that apply to Attorneygate, because of the difference in their use and acceptance among RS. Attorneygate was never extensively used by people other than critics of the government, versus Climategate which has been used even by supporters of AGW consensus, and most importantly, by a large majority of the RSs, which is what guides Wikipedia. Moogwrench (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article called Climategate - it's a redirect to here. So what are you worried about? People will find this using their favourite POV neologism, and then they will read about it under a neutral descriptive title. Best of both worlds, and it always has been like this. The problem is that some (very few) people want our readers to read the article under a POV neologism for a title, presumably to help drive home their POV. It is not to help readers find the article. That's a problem, and that's the reason why the present set up is the most NPOV we can have. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, like I said above, I am not wedded to any particular title. I did my own analysis and came to my conclusions. Before analyzing it, I thought perhaps as you did, that Climategate was POV, or at least recentism, but when I read the policies well, and thought about it, I came to my conclusion. Proper, common names are better than the descriptions we come up with as editors. My earlier experience in 2009 Honduran coup d'etat with non-neutral titles that accord with RSs helped inform my conclusions as well. I believe we should try to follow Wikipedia's policies the best we can, and so we shouldn't shy away from proposing what we feel is in accordance with those policies. I know a lot of people don't like the proper name "Climategate", think it prejudicial to AGW instead of merely the best descriptor of the phenomenon, and that is fine. A lot of people didn't like calling Manuel Zelaya's ouster a "coup", either, and thought that the sun shined out of Roberto Micheletti's butt. However, when the RSs call it something, we ought to follow their lead. It shouldn't be up to our own POV. Hope you understand. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs as "press coverage"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let me get this straight. If I happened to e-mail Phil Jones at some stage about something, say asking them whether they'd be in New Zealand any time soon because I was hoping they'd give a lecture on the compound eye of the common housefly, and he e-mailed me back saying he though I probably had the wrong person since he's involved in climate research and I e-mail him back apologising saying I'd intended to e-mail p.janes and he wrote me back saying no problem, and both of these were in the archive then I now have a COI, in fact I presume much worse then any WMC may have because Jones sent me two emails and so I definitely should avoid any and all involvement in editing this article?

Even if this is what you're saying, I'm confused. Why do these hypothetical e-mails have to be in the archives? Surely anyone who has ever been e-mailed by Phil Jones should be included. Perhaps don't limit it to him either. How about Mann as well? Maybe we should add an editnotice warning people they are forbidden from editing if they're ever been e-mail by Mann, Jones and whoever else we choose?

Incidentally are you aware that this 'large role' we're discussing is 11 edits out of the past 500? And in fact, one of these was apparently accidental (reverting a bot) and was quickly reverted by someone else, and there are also 2 self reverts which means we end up with only 8 or 6 (if we presume the edits associated with the self reverts never happend) out of 497/495. If this is a large role to you, what exactly is a small role?

BTW, what exactly do you mean 'COI-ed out of participation in the discussions ...... the BLPs of those involved in the scandal'? I hope you are aware that while our COI policy discourages people from editing articles if they have a COI (but doesn't forbid it), it encourages those people to air their concerns (provided their COI is declared) on the talk page and take part in the associated discussions instead. There's no such thing as a person being forbidden from taking part in a discussion because they have a COI it what they're supposed to do if they want to participate in an area where they have a COI (although if they allow the COI to get in the way, e.g. if they disrupt the discussion e.g. by continually bringing up issues other people find irrelevant or unimportant and refuse to accept consensus when it's reached if it goes against them then that's obviously an issue which will be dealt with appropriately as with all COI problems but that doesn't seem to be the case here since WMC is rarely alone in his views). If you aren't aware of this you probably should read the policy.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An analysis of various potential titles by news hits

1. "Climategate"

   1,711 hits in the past month.

2. "Climategate scandal"

   199 hits in the past month.

3. "Climategate controversy"

   29 hits in the past month.

4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

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

Climategate in quotes: 11 [12][13][14][15][16] [17][18] [19][20] [21][22]

Climategate not in quotes: 2 [23][24]

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7 [25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

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

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

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: [32] and [33] for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Read the series of articles by The Guardian that I linked below, and then tell me that there aren't any politics going on behind the "scientific scene." UnitAnode 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I guess the answer is, "no". No, you aren't basing this deprecation of Nature on anything but your own POV. No, you don't have any reliable source criticizing Nature for being political. And you similarly failed in recognizing your premise/predicate problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay cut the crap. I haven't even implied that Nature is "deprecated." They're a great source for actual science, and the fact that they have a POV on the politics behind the science doesn't change that. And I notice how you failed to reply regarding the politics that go on behind the scientific scene. UnitAnode 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Great. Since you admit that Nature is a great source for actual science and global warming is actual science then they are a great source. Whether global warming is a political issue or not is irrelevant to the fact that the source I cited was discussing the presentation, conduct, and application of science (not politics which isn't the subject of either article). Since we need not intuit any political bias when none is explicitly mentioned in the articles in question and since you were unable to provide any source which indicated as much, we rightly rely on Nature for notable commentary on this issue. I'm glad we came to an agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree with Souza here. I really don't care where this series leads, but the work done by The Guardian in this case is outstanding, and merits inclusion in our suite of global warming articles, particularly the ones surrounding Climategate. It's not about "ownership" here, it's about focusing this particular discussion on the "hows" not the "ifs." UnitAnode 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• No, these articles can't be used because they are not from peer-reviewed, scientific publications. Just kidding. I would suggest simply going to the appropriate articles, including this one, and start adding the information. I'll try to help out later today if I find time. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly - you've spammed this elsewhere, but the answer is the same: Both assertions are false. That there is no urgency to this is obvious; indeed the reverse is obvious: taht we should *not* rush to put new sources in. And the *need* to incorporate them is not obvious. Some parts might be valuable, who knows William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit, Connolley. I did not "spam" it. I placed it here, and at Talk:Global warming. Stop making ludicrous accusations. UnitAnode 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, are you willing to commit to assisting in adding any useful information contained in those sources, whether it be "positive" or "negative" about AGW, to the appropriate articles? Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they will. Just read the the 11 article which states "The initial response from both the emailers and their employers was to condemn the hackers and ignore what they hacked."'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review. This is the same tactic most of our AGW editors has used as far as I can see (hack, stolen has been the important part, not the suppress of the per review process, turned down FOI request, you name it) Nsaa (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You mean they didn't put hacked in scare quotes? Or say 'allegedly hacked'? Shall I go and fix the wording in the lede of the article using this ref? Is there a couple of re-name discussions in various places we can close now? --Nigelj (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone please calm down?

This series is not one-sided in either direction. Sourcing using it would give a much better balance to the articles, and would not provide one "side" any advantage over the other. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you could usefully contribute towards the calming down by posting less, and being less provocative. You are part of the cause, not the solution. And: to state the obvious: using a psuedo-neutral "calm down" section to push your partisan viewpoint isn't helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a "partisan viewpoint", Connolley. If you'd chill out long enough to read what I've actually been writing, you'd see that. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Of of course not - you're the one unbiased person here, how silly of me not to realise that. But in this case, the partisan viewpoint you're pushing is Sourcing using it would... - that is your viewpoint. Others disagree. You should not be using a "calm down" section to push your POV (you see, there is more than one sort of POV; it doesn't have to be just pro- or anti- GW. If you'd chill out long enough to read what I've actually been writing, you'd see that William M. Connolley (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this particular series will end up being the best source. It's certainly a good starting point for people doing research, but there are much better sources available (such as the ones I pointed out from Nature, those from John Tierney of the New York Times, etc.) ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? The Guardian isn't partisan, and it doesn't have some hidden agenda. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very naive. Every newspaper has a certain bias, and every newspaper has a hidden agenda (and sometimes it isn't hidden at all). The Guardian has always had a left wing bias, for example. The Telegraph has always had a right wing bias. I've noticed, in fact, that British newspapers in general seem to have a degree of AGW skepticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So then, if anything, The Guardian would have a slightly pro-AGW tilt, I think you're saying. And yet, it's a couple of pro-AGW editors that are seemingly the most agitated about this series? Why? Scottaka UnitAnode 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the opposite. British media tends to be anti-AGW, if anything. Just to clarify, a position on AGW is largely independent of political bias, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We here at WP are not arbiters of the truth but the aggregators of others' reports of the "Truth", right or wrong. We say what WP:RS say. Newspapers are WP:RS. The bias of UK newspapers is hardly the point. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an "arbiter of the truth". I was just making an interesting observation. This Guardian series has been setup as the Holy Grail, when really it is no more or less reliable than any other reliable source that has been introduced. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers are reliable. The Guardian is reliable. ATren (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The conversation is about bias, not reliability. And "reliability" is only one aspect of the whole question of sourcing. Accuracy and balance are also important. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be setting yourself up as the arbiter of accuracy and balance. If the Grauniad is not good enough for you then it seems you will never approve anything as a RS unless it agrees with your POV. Fortunately it is not up to you, or, at least, it ought not to be. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading the whole series, overall it gives what seems to me a pretty good balance. The Grauniad has a good track record for accuracy, but that doesn't mean that we take statements uncritically. For example, this article in its closing paragraphs refers to the hockey stick being shown without error bars in the IPCC summary, which is probably correct, but should be taken in the context that the graph with error bars was included in the IPCC report, according to this. Something to check to avoid a misleading impression. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, newspapers are good for summarizing what the external perspective on science is. However, this article is, in part, about how scientists operate internally. We could use better sources than a newspaper for understanding that subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Journalists, scientists should cover climate science truthfully

This article Journalists, scientists should cover climate science truthfully (archived) in The State News ("Conservative critics argue that The State News has a liberal lean") by Fred Fico[34], Michigan State University journalism professor is quite interesting and have some comments about the area covered in this article. He says for example "Related to this, journalists need to realize that science sources, like other sources, can and will spin what they tell journalists, especially when their money and prestige are at stake. Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the glacier gate scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion. The admission of blatantly political motives to influence opinion on the part of the scientist involved in glaciergate should give any journalist pause.". This is maybe to specific to be included in the article? Nsaa (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, its wrong, so that is a poor start (it is entirely correct that science should be covered truthfully, of course). From your summary it appears to completely ignore the thoroughly mendacious reporting from the bulk of the media over this issue. No, we shouldn't use yet another piece of journo tripe that just happens to fit with your POV William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that tone is called for at all. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be a useful source, though, because the purpose of the article seems to be to warn journalists to take care with spin on science stories, simply using this as an example. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the good old State News. Main issue here: Fico is a journalism professor, not a science professor, so while we should take his advice to journalists seriously, we shouldn't put too much weight on his opinions about science. The State News is an excellent college newspaper, but it's still just a college newspaper. An Op-Ed by an MSU professor probably doesn't receive a whole lot of editorial oversight. After all, the editors are probably his students. It's a reliable source for Fico's opinion, but there's no reason to assume that he's an expert on science. In fact, the page Nsaa linked to says that "[h]is research interests focus on news coverage of conflict". Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: You state that "Well, its wrong, so that is a poor start". What is wrong in what he states in my quote? Just declaring it doesn't make it wrong. The first thing I qoute is "can and will spin what they tell journalists". If you have remotley followed this you know that the Glaciergate exactly revealed this [35] [36] "The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.". The second one is this "the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed". This has been discussed in length. Even we have some of it at Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Trenberth_e-mail_of_12_Oct_2009. Nsaa (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading his comment, I believe he's talking about the article, not your quote from it. And yes, he seems to have gotten things wrong on the science. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what? (this tactic just committing usourced claims make the discussion much harder) Nsaa (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nsaa's saying he/she's not sure what Fred Fico got wrong with the science Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it lacks notability and (honestly) applicability. If the State News article raises public ire and a politician calls for an investigation, the politician's demands, the subsequent investigation, and the outcome are what matters. This seems to be more of a wine-and-cheese college dorm debate than something more concrete. I don't want to be misunderstood: I think that the UEA/CRU scandal is real; that a full third-party audit of their activities is called for; and that identified instances of wrongdoing should be brutally punished. But this news article seems too vague for me. Nightmote (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the article is terrible. I guess Fred Fico believes that journalists should police scientific journals. Maybe they should also police law journals, economic reports, mathematical proofs, and dictionaries too? I guess journalists are the smartest people on the planet and Fred Fico is prepared to use his infinite knowledge to condemn all those who are wrong. Really poor argumentation and essentially a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the glacier gate scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion are both wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)