Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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

Criticism of the Muir Russell inquiry

This section is to collect links and info for a future subsection on this topic.

For openers, Steve McIntyre has posted a detailed criticsm of the conduct of this rather pathetic inquiry here. It bears out the earlier WSJ comment that the MR report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." Straight out of "Yes, Minister" ... Quite remarkable. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here seriously believe that the denialist attacks on Muir Russell are unrelated to the fact that the inquiry didn't support the denialists' allegations? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More to the point - we've got a blog post and an (apparently) unsigned opinion piece. Neither are reliable sources for facts. Why not wait for a secondary source to report on these primary-source criticisms, rather than trying to synthesise our own critique? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"an (apparently) unsigned opinion piece".... Um, G, this means this is the editorial opinion of the newspaper. Like the NYT ""manufactured controversy" bit "your" side is so fond of? Sheesh.... </snark>, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it's signed then? It's under "Review and Outlook", not "Editorial". Does the WSJ not use the term? Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Um-2, that's house style. It ran (in the paper copy) as a left-column lead editorial. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. But it's still a primary-source critique, it's still an opinion piece. We need to wait to see if anyone cares. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Wall Street Journal editorial needs to be in the article somewhere, as it is a notable expression of opinion by an influential US newspaper. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial may be noteworthy - the paper's editorial page has been a bastion of the "skeptical" viewpoint. But how do we use it? You can see that Tillman's take on it is very different from ChrisO's. We could note that the criticised the report. But why one newspaper and not another? Why McI and not another blogger? If it's notable, secondary sources are going to cover it. If they don't, it sort of begs the question of whether it is worth including. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It belongs in the media reception section. Michaels' op-ed is noted there, but I think that is the wrong place. Michaels is not a media person. Another question: I've been away for a few days. What is the point of the neutrality tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, if the WSJ editorial is just added on, w/o moving Michaels, it would be a neutrality issue in its own right, as perhaps being overweighted toward criticism. The Col. Journalism Review article belongs there too. There should be a reasonable balance in the media section. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• McIntyre continues his analysis & criticism of the Muir Russell report here, concluding that Muir Russell "blatantly misrepresented the facts surrounding Jones’ notorious request to “delete all emails”, a misrepresentation that, in my opinion, was done, at a minimum, either recklessly or out of gross negligence." This is unusually strong language from McI, and it looks like he has good cause.

I agree, it's premature to post primary, blog-based material to the article -- though McIntyre is a recognized expert on the topic. But this should be picked up by a secondary RS soon. It's really quite shocking how shoddily this "independent study" was conducted. Consider this another "heads-up." Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is an active party to the dispute, so he's certainly not a secondary source. I've seen no evidence that he's a recognised expert on inquiries or independent studies, or indeed much else outside the mining business, though he's been described as a mathematician, apparently without qualifications in the field. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you're trying it on again, having conceded already that McIntyre is a perfectly reasonable source - have you an agenda to push or something? Once more: McIntyre is an expert on Climategate because it is his allegations that are central to it. A statement about what he has said he thinks can be referenced by reference to his blog. Anything else is ludicrous. Please stop trying to be a gatekeeper here. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Dave

• Here (original German) is a secondary source for some of McIntyre's criticisms, in a recent interview by Die Weltwoche, the Swiss newsweekly. I haven't read it closely yet, but the double translation(?) makes for clumsy reading. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reception

I have boldly trimmed and rearranged this section. Rationale:

• There was redundant reference to The Economist.
• I judged the funding aspect of Michaels' report unworthy of inclusion. If others disagree, here's my suggested wording: He further suggested that since both the UEA and PSU are partially funded by the US government they would stand to lose those grants if found guilty of substantial scientific misbehavior.
• I like to present in this order:

1. a positive review, (position)

2. a negative one, (rebuttal) and

3. a "you-be-the-judge" one. (conclusion) I think the final sentence as I've left it is a good conclusion at this point.

• Recentism does seem a problem, so we should probably not rush to add developing stories. --Yopienso (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't. ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles. Can you please revert and wait until the proposed decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Where have they asked that? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Risker says: "I hope everyone who has posted on these pages in recent weeks will make use of this break to step back from this topic area for a brief period." That is not remotely equivalent to saying that "ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles." There is no editing restriction to prevent Yopienso or any other editor from continuing to work on improving this or any other article in the topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, true, but it's still a bad idea. And I wasn't asking you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[Second edit conflict] [Edit conflict]

I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page. I'm going for a lunch break, and if others agree with you and provide a link to the request I will not hesitate to self-revert. Please give me up to two hours since I'm not sure I can be right back. --Yopienso (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS--I'm out the door... PPS--Bye.......

When you get back, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why he should. He's not a party to the case - nor am I for that matter - and he's not posted on any of the arbitration pages, so he's not covered by Risker's suggestion. Risker hasn't pursued it or tried to enforce it as far as I can see and nobody seems to have taken any notice of it. I wasn't even aware of it until you pointed it out. It's not binding and it doesn't cover Yopienso anyway. If you want to follow Risker's suggestion then please go and do so, and leave the editing to others without badgering them about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Risker posted that request at 04:51, 19 July 2010, this disputed edit was made at 11:33, 19 July 2010. A Quest For Knowledge, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? dave souza, talk 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Well spotted. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice ArbCom's request until after I made that edit. Since then, I have not edited a single CC article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Yopienso hadn't noticed it. Same principle applies. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ArbCom's request." It's Risker expressing a personal "hope" (his words). If the ArbCom wants us to do something, it will tell us, but don't put words in its collective mouth. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso wrote "I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page." Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Risker's request. He wants everyone who has participated in the Arbcom to stop editing CC articles? That presupposes, if so, that everyone who participated is an active editor. I've almost exclusively participated in talk page discussions, with only rare edits in these articles. So am I covered by this request? I agree that there needs to be notice in the articles as practicable.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a request. You don't have to abide by it if you don't want, but I am asking Yopienso to self-revert in the meantime. I'm not sure how closely you are following the case, but yesterday, several editors were edit-warring over contentious meterial in a BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I'm asking you to self revert material that's, in my view, contentious. Neither you nor Yopienso has to abide by these respective requests. . . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Michaels stuff deserves a brief mention, but absolutely not in the media reaction section. He's not in the media. To call that media reaction is not accurate. Also I'd like to see a broader array of notable reaction from columnists, etc. Quest, thanks for clarifying, but I'm still not clear on whether I'm covered by the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: I think he deserves a mention, too. The location doesn't matter much to me. It was already buried at the end of the article anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is where. The Journal editorial seems to say the same thing, and is a media reaction. Would anyone object to the editorial substituting for Michaels? 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the above, I've restored the older version of the article in the spirit of the comments made by Risker at 04:51, 19 July 2010. For some reason, A Quest For Knowledge felt the need to cross this boundary, and then had the nerve to come here and insist that everyone abide by it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[Yet another edit conflict!][Edit conflict]

Wow. First, I apologize for inadvertently failing to note either above or on the edit summary that besides trimming and rearranging I added Michaels' claim of a whitewash, which, in fact, was the main thrust of the article.

I'm not seeing a consensus or direction to self-revert so will wait a bit more on that. --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed there was again an edit conflict! I'll add that a Wall St. Journal opinion is certainly a media response! --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite secondary (or tertiary) sources describing the media response. Please do not cherry pick media responses. We have been over this several times. Find an article that talks about the media response. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely over-hasty and ill-advised, Viriditas. We were working on this. Wrt your edit summary, "Restore previous version per talk," it is neither the previous version nor "per talk." Please self-revert.

I'm taking a 24-hour break from this article. Anyone may stop by my talk page.

Oh, a new post--I am not cherry-picking: read my rationale above. We have no rule that a WSJ opinion piece cannot be used. Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird stuff

We seem to have ended up with

The Economist said the Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfill its remit," noting that the report failed to discover who "chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so."

This makes no sense. Finding out whodunnit was n't part of the Russell remit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. the word "noting" is misleading here because it assumes that the Economist got it right. The investigation would obviously not have been competent to make any such determination, which is (as far as who did it) the job of the police force, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. The why of the matter might well be a subject for endless debate, even if the culprits are eventually identified.

But if the most the Economist had to say was clearly nonsensical, it would not be worth covering--we're not a press summary website. Why not look at what else the Economist had to say and see if it made some kind of sense? We're not here to make the press look bad, either. --TS 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original which I paraphrased:

"The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored." The part I originally added noted that only a small portion of the emails (0.3%) were explored. The remit portion is in regards to why they didn't check all the emails not the hacker.91.153.115.15 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mystery at all. Any reasonable person can look at the timeline and see that the only reason the e-mails were released and the media outlets covered it in the way that they did, was to derail the climate talks at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which is what happened. If you recall, not only did the CRU allegations take away media coverage from the event, but climate scientists were attacked at the event using these allegations as ammo, and some countries began questioning the accuracy of the "evidence" for climate change at the conference using the just published e-mails as justification. There is no other logical conclusion for "why" the e-mails were strategically released at that time, and various sources have said just that. In fact, I would challenge you to find a better explanation; There isn't one. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears the most likely explanation based on the timing but others can not be ruled out. The Why can be deduced but the Who is not yet known. My comment was that the inquiry did not read all the emails.91.153.115.15 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll list the sources which state that, this can be added to the article. There have been several speculated ideas on the motiviation of the person(s) who stole the emails (even if it was an insider, "stolen" is still an accurate description because he/she almost certainly did not have authorization to take the data) and to derail Copenhagen is one of them. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the mystery is that this is just a bad paraphrase. I'll remove it, is omseone lese hasn't already William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I thought us ArbCom parties had accepted a voluntary topic ban on contentious edits until the case was decided. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What made you think that? If you believe it, I invite you to discuss [7] with MN (no, I'm not holding my breath). Anyway, I've corrected that error, which hopefully even Cla won't think a bad think. I've also removed the bit about no science checks, which is wrong: Muir-Russell repliced the temperature curve, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if ArbCom could clarify who falls under the aegis of that request. I'd step in and edit the media reactions section myself, but I don't want to disregard the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added media reaction from Columbia Journalism Review and the Wall Street Journal, and also added a bit from the Economist, thereby fleshing out the media reaction section in a roughly balanced way. I'm not sure if this is against any arbcom request; I can't find it, there is no notice here, so I thought I'd take the plunge. I think this improves the section. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's good, imo, Scotty. I don't know what others may have thought of my 1, 2, 3 outline above. Here's a suggested rearrangement, changing nothing of text. However, I think "whitewash" should be included in the second paragraph. The word's been bandied about in the MSM, including the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the WSJ, and a NYT blog that provides a link to the Financial Times. I can provide the links or you can just google "climategate whitewash" under news, not web. I'm putting my suggested rearrangement in green so we don't go cross-eyed in keeping it straight from our comments. If anyone finds that offensive, you know how to take care of it.

A New York Times editorial, after the July 2010 reports, called Climategate a "manufactured controversy," and expressed the hope that panel reports clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies," and in June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal."

A July 2010 Boston Herald editorial said that while the scientists were "given a not-quite-full exoneration ... echoes of the uproar still prompt needed skepticism." A Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the Muir Russell study as "a 160-page evasion of the real issues." The newspaper said that "the review assumes the validity of the global warming 'consensus' while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic."

The online edition of Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever." Media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.

The Economist said the Muir Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics." The magazine said the recent inquiries "raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere." --Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. Educational, as I didn't know you could change font color. Where would "whitewash" go? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tack "Assessing reaction to the Russell report, Andrew Revkin noted "many shouts of 'whitewash' by critics of climate science." onto the second paragraph.

I had intended to include The Economist in the third paragraph, for a total of only three. --Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "whitewash": do you think the Clive Crook quote from the Atlantic fills that need? He doesn't use the word, but it's substantial, thoughtful criticism. Plus he's not a climate-change skeptic, and I don't think he's particularly partisan. Interesting piece.

Since there are concerns re this section "growing like Topsy", we could consider pruning the Boston Globe quote as superfluous. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the various news comments across the pond are of interest, the focus of this story was in the UK and a brief overview of the UK responses would help. I've not been trying to find representative editorials, and don't favour that approach. A couple of sources of some interest: UEA's delayed response to climate emails caused by shock, says professor | Environment | The Guardian is the news story on a debate on the issue, it cites "prominent climate sceptic bloggers Douglas Keenan as saying "Both the Muir Russell review and Oxburgh review [an earlier review of the emails] are clearly whitewash", though a source saying that it's been said more generally would be better. The newsblog about the debate notes that "More than one [of the audience] suggested the media had hyped the "Climategate" tale beyond all reason, though none of the panel fully endorsed this view." A variety of views about the effect of media coverage are given at How has 'Climategate' affected the battle against climate change? | David Adam | Environment | The Guardian . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate image

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
File added on 18:37, 23 July 2010 [8] deleted on 18:50, 23 July 2010 [9] Lasted a whole 13 minutes? Apparently some folks around here don't like this image. If some one would like to help me with the copyright page to satisfy everyone, I'd be pleased to add it again.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) No chance, clearly fails WP:NFCC#1+8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance [10] Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) This has been explained to you on your talk page, at User talk:Duchamps_comb#Climategate image. Please take the time to read it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Not only was it explained, but the image was deleted when he tried it the first time in November 2009.[11]. He was then blocked for a week, then indefinitely blocked, unblocked, blocked for a week, and now this crap again. Any reason why we are still dealing with this? Hasn't this guy had enough chances? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I wasn't around here in November 2009, not to mention several other editors. Let us have some time to examine the issue and figure out how best to handle this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Viriditas please refrain from personal attacks as you did above, keep on point here. I will not add the image again until there is some sort of consensus and a proper fair use. However the original image only lasted 2 hrs and 11 min, it was railroaded by speedy deletion and improperly handled. [12], [13], [14],[15] Why were these diffs erased from the main page archive? [16] Seems like someone may have been covering something up?--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Nobody has covered anything up - those diffs are reversions of your original addition of this copyright violation. There's also no issue to examine here. It's been examined by experienced admins doing copyright enforcement, and the image has twice been speedily deleted as an indisputable copyvio. There is no valid criterion under which it could possibly be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC) OK, why then can those diffs not be seen in the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" history, their is a gap in the edits from 19:55, 30 November 2009 to 21:52, 30 November 2009, those diffs are from my personal history? Just a question.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I have no idea. Probably just a glitch in the software. Wikipedia is remarkably stable considering the amount of use it gets, but it still suffers glitches of various kinds. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Wiki-gate :) Minor4th 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I wasn't here either - I think the use of the term is appropriate, many scandals on Wikipedia go by their actual common name, for example Watergate scandal, Betsygate, Bingogate and Bloodgate, just to cover through the "B"s. By the same token, the use of a fair-use image would also be appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Coingate scandal, Corngate, Debategate, Fallagate, Fajitagate, and Grannygate, thru the "G"s. GregJackP Boomer! 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I`m actually afraid to click on grannygate. what the hell is that :) mark nutley (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC) This isn't about the name of the article, this is about the use of a copyrighted image under a claim of fair use. The problem with that is that the image does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Not only that, because of the nature of the image and the attempted usage, it cannot ever meet the NFCC. There is no point in even discussing this further, since the image has already twice been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. Please accept that it has been reviewed by people who are experts at this sort of thing and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Comment -- Since we can't view the media now, there's no way to say for certain but a screen cap is not necessarily a copyright violation. It would depend on the intensity of the graphics, whether other text or media is represented, etc. It is a derivative work, but it is largely dependent on the content of the screen cap. In any event, even if it would fall within the copyright gambit, there is a fair use rationale for its use on Wikipedia in the context of this article. It is not accurate to say that this is a clear cut issue and proper speedy delete material without discussing these aspects. Minor4th 00:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The image was a picture of a couple of newsreaders with a prominent chyron below showing the word "Climategate" and some other text. I just posted the following explanation to my user talk page for another editor's benefit: First, the usage has to be directly related to the source. Suppose that screenshot was from Glenn Beck's show (I don't know that it is, I'm just using that as an example). It could then be used to illustrate critical commentary about Glenn Beck's view of the controversy. However, that would only be viable if Glenn Beck's view of the controversy was notable in itself (i.e. that it had been the subject of third-party commentary). There's a good example of this kind of usage at Truthiness, where a screenshot of Stephen Colbert is shown alongside commentary about a famous segment of his show. Secondly, any fair use image can only be used if there is no free alternative. Since the informational content of the image [in this case] is the text on the chyron, the obvious free alternative is to add text to the article instead of using the image. That in itself means that this image can never meet the non-free content criteria, since it will always have a free alternative. I know this may sound rather abstruse and technical but for those of us who've administered copyright issues on Wikipedia, this really is an open-and-shut case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC) And for the record, the relevant policy pages are Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [Edit conflict] Just wondering-- I have no comment on using the image in the article beyond wondering why it's important to Duchamps. Anybody who would come to this article would presumably already know the event and its aftermath are most widely known as "Climategate." One might reasonably scratch his chin and wonder where WP came up with such a strange title, but since "Climategate" at present count is contained 5 times in the article, 19 times in the footnotes, and once in the external links, there can be no confusion or doubt as to the use of the term. So, why is this even an issue? And if I'm cluttering up this page for no good reason, please answer on my talk page and I will remove this after a decent interval. OK, so now I have a comment, or a quote, actually: If the reader would get the same or similar information without the image, then the image is inappropriate. --Yopienso (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Precisely. The informational content of the image is that Fox News called the affair "Climategate". We already know this. The image is redundant from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Well, let's see. Should I believe what a practicing attorney says on fair use, or someone that has read some guidelines on Wiki? I think I'll take door #1 and the practicing attorney, since he actually knows the law on copyrights. Since Minor4th is an attorney, I'll go with his view. Or the most recent Federal court case on the issue, which states that use of a screenshot is fair-use. See Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, et al., 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Penn, 2007). Of course, if you don't have a law degree, are you actually qualified to comment on this (to paraphrase an argument that was made to me about editing GW/CC articles without being a scientist)? GregJackP Boomer! 01:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia's policies are often more restrictive than some national and state laws. This is because of Wikipedia's history as a free encyclopedia. Encumbering the free content unnecessarily with non-free material is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's policies. --TS 01:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) That's true but Wikipedia also recognizes various instances in which it's acceptable, even desirable, to so encumber the free content. This is one such instance. Minor4th 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Since you and GregJackP are so sure about Wikipedia's copyright policies, why not re-upload the image? The penalty for repeatedly violating copyright is a summary block but since you're so sure, this won't deter you. If you're so sure, why not put your accounts on the line to find out? After all, what's the worst that can happen, beyond being kicked off Wikipedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Gee, Chris, since I don't have the image (it was deleted, remember?), how am I going to upload it. Plus, I never play against a stacked kangaroo court, where the rules are different from one side than the other. Since I'm already sure that CC has its own version of BLP rules that are different dependent on which side one is on, I'll pass on letting you tattle me off to a CC-sympathetic admin. I'll be happy with knowing what the "rather abstruse[sic] and technical" laws actually say and mean, rather than let you "experts" inform me. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Chris -- There's no need for temper tantrums or angry outbursts. At this point, I'm not arguing for its inclusion and it doesnt appear that Greg is either. I said it's worthy of discussion and not so black and white as you suggest. Why is discussion a problem for you? In any event, how could I re-upload the image after it has been deleted? Further, I'm not concerned about being kicked off Wikipedia for a single good faith upload of an image worthy of discussion. I've never violated copyright and can't imagine that any admin would see fit to "kick me off Wikipedia" -- that's rather a hysterical response, don't you think? Minor4th 01:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Well, you've never patrolled speedy deletion; deleted files and images on Wikipedia; identified and removed copyright violations. Perhaps you should consider that those of us who've administered copyright issues on Wikipedia do know what we're talking about, hmm? If you don't believe me you can go and ask any admin who deals with copyright issues. User:Stifle and User:Fastily would be good places to start. But they won't tell you any differently to what I'm telling you now. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Um, you should check your facts before you make statements like that. You have made some wrong assumptions there. Come back after you review my edit history. Minor4th 01:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Compare and contrast: [17] [18] But this has gone off-topic enough, so I suggest calling a halt here - this discussion is pointless anyway, since the image in question isn't going to be re-uploaded. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Do you need me to explain what the definition of "never" is, as in "you've never patrolled..."? I just am curious, since it is different than "compare and contrast." Words have meaning Chris. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I personally thought the image was useful and was sorry to see it go. But since it's obviously prohibited by policy, why are we even discussing this? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Can someone please post a link to the image so we can see it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Open a paint or slideshow program, select a large font text and type the word "Climategate". That's what it was, basically. --TS 17:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Heh. Well, not quite. It was a screenshot of a news program, showing a talking head and some insets with captions on the screen, one of them being something like "'Climategate': E-mails suggest scientists are fudging data". I'm not aware of any online copies of the same screenshot elsewhere to link to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Nothing else on the screen was informative. The only significant informational content was the word. The rest was a precis and quotes made by somebody who knew, and probably to this day knows, less about climate science than my daughter's pet snakes. This is the kind of rubbish that should not be in any encyclopedia. It was the word "Climategate" on a television screen. --TS 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Are any of these images the one we're talking about?[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate image part II

I don't know why an active discussion was closed without resolution, so I'll open a second discussion. ChrisO: Is the only problem with this image a copyright one? IOW, if it turns out the image is not in violation of copyright issues, do you also have a POV issue with it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that the discussion was closed by ChrisO.[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was it closed? It doesn't seem ChrisO should close and hat off a discussion when he was the main dissenter and the issue wasn't resolved. I don't know how we can really discuss the picture if he deleted though before we could even view it. Minor4th 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is really over a moot point. The image is a screencap of a Fox News reporter giving a report, with the headline: "Climategate emails putting global warming stats in doubt" below him. Not only would using that image here fail NFCC, it would also most likely be an invalid claim of fair use, and illegal. It isn't going to happen. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be against Wikipedia policy, but it is clearly within fair use and legal, based on case law. This was discussed above, with the most recent court case on point, and an attorney weighing in on the discussion. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis assumes the conclusion. I think those issues are all up for discussion, and indeed they were being discussed. It is likely not a copyright violation at all, and if so it is almost surely within fair use. I have no idea about the actual value of the image in the article and it's my understanding that it was a poor quality image, although I did not see it. I am not advocating for its inclusion -- I just question the advisability of prematurely closing and hatting off the discussion before it concluded and by the primary dissenter in the discussion. Can you speak to that?Minor4th 03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As Prodego has said, the matter is moot. The image has been reviewed by four admins (Black Kite, NuclearWarfare, Future Perfect and Prodego). Two of them speedily deleted the image twice as a blatant copyright violation. All four of them have stated unequivocally that the claim of fair use is invalid. The reasons why it can't be used on Wikipedia have been explained in detail by several people, including myself. There is nothing more to add and no point discussing it further, because it isn't going to be undeleted and it can't be used - nothing that is said here is going to change either of those facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Greg and Minor4th above seem to grant that the image described by Prodego is not appropriate for inclusion; the only remaining issues then are procedural/user conduct. If you really feel strongly about them, there are venues to take them up, but I suggest focusing on actually improving the article instead. Yours uninvolvedly, Skomorokh 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not granting that the image is inappropriate for inclusion -- I'm saying it's impossible to tell, but the cited reasons do not seem to apply. It could well be that the article would be improved with the addition of the photo. Minor4th 05:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple - NFCC requires that non-free images be discussed in the text. What source do you propose to use that discusses this Fox news screencap? Guettarda (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I explained the copyright issue in detail at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Screencaps from news stations. There really isn't anything more to add on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This debate is a pointless red herring. The image was deleted because it failed WP:NFC. Whether it was legally a "copyright violation" makes no difference whatsoever. (Incidentally, I personally agree it probably wasn't, and people who described it as such were speaking a bit rashly.) The contention that it isn't possible to judge the case without seeing the image oneself is also a red herring. Anybody familiar with NFC knows that contention is simply false, because nothing in the relevant criteria depends on visual detail that isn't covered by the verbal descriptions of the image that everybody has been given. There is no point in debating either point further, since it cannot possibly change the outcome. The only possible reason for reopening the discussion would be if somebody were to bring a fresh rationale of how this image does not fail the non-free content criteria. I see nobody in this thread doing this, so why are we still here? If anybody should wish to actually make such an argument, they are strongly advised to take a good read of prior cases of TV screenshots at WP:FFD, plus of course make themselves thoroughly familiar with WP:NFC. For people to drag on this debate with no sign of having informed themselves of the policy basics is bordering on disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Can you please clarify something for me? Is the only problem with this image a copyright one? IOW, if it turns out the image is not in violation of copyright issues, do you also have a POV issue with it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"If it turns out..."? How many experienced editors have already explained to you that it does? The fact that it is copyright is indisputable. So the only question is whether we can justify the infringement of copyright. And the rules about that are governed by NFCC. Our rules are more strict than the simple legal requirements of fair use. Unless you can show that this specific usage is in keeping with that policy, it cannot be used. Guettarda (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda: That's not the question that was asked nor are you the person who was asked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. But your question is predicated on a false assumption and unnecessarily personalises an issue of policy. You're up against a Foundation policy. You can't simply ignore it. So just stop. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And if you want to have a one-on-one conversation with another editor, use their talk page. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will confess I don't see a lot of value in including the image myself, and wonder how much of the debate over its inclusion is related to the debate over whether to rename the article. However, just to clarify the basis of discussion... I agree with those editors that observe the image is infringing as is, and has been properly removed as such. Suppose however--just hypothetically--that someone had written to News Corporation (the copyright holder) and received a written release to use this image on Wikipedia for non-profit use. The image would then no longer be a copy vio. Would anyone then object to its inclusion? DGaw (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Yes, it would still not be allowed. If it was released "for non-profit use", it would still be technically non-free, and as such subject to WP:NFCC. It would still fail criteria #1 and #8. A "for non-profit use" release only helps it pass criterion #2, which, however, isn't really the crucial issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If, somehow, you could get them to release it under a free licence (either seems vanishingly likely) the answer would still be "it depends". And image is like a piece of text - its impact relative to NPOV depends on the context in which it is used. It seems like AQFK wanted to use it in connection with the etymology of the term "climategate". In a context like that, I could see potential for OR problems more than NPOV problems, but you never know. One could also use it to illustrate the whole "manufactured controversy" element. There you'd have to tread a narrow line, and again, there could be OR problems ("see how Fox news helped spread the meme" kinda things). Finally, any use would need to be very careful to address the BLP issues, since the image raises accusations of wrongdoing. It all comes down to where you use an image (where in the article, alongside what text), how the adjacent text related to the image, and what you say in the caption and alt text (if any). Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, you are disrupting this talk page. Either you have a case to make that the image passes WP:NFC, then make it, or you haven't, then take the bickering off this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[[do not be surprised all of you.any one who is critical of these wiki editor censors will quickly see their written comments that are not in agreement with wikipedia staff ( yes you have paid staff wikimedia/wikipedia) any one who is not a liberal pro - warming person is not allowed to post in this wikipedia site, regardless of the issue or topic, BlondeIgnore````

Do we need a 'Media reception' section?

I think someone mentioned when the section was newly-formed, that it was likely to grow out of control. Watching it's early development, it reminds me of sections like 'Alternative names for masturbation' and 'Mentions of sex in popular music'. Such misconceptions are more fun for new recruits from Urban Dictionary, than help here in building a useful encyclopedia. In particular, especially if we allow op-ed pieces from obscure and local press, there is and will be no limit to the extreme opinions of every kind to include. It will, I suspect, become a game where contributors rush here to add the maddest things they just found, and every attempt to cull entries will be met with howls. In this way the section becomes larger than the rest of the article; then at least we can split it off and remove the spin-off from out watchlists, I suppose. --Nigelj (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do. We can, however, put a limit on number of lines written and/or number of publications cited. The reason we need it is because the three reviews have not entirely satisfied all of the general public, and have raised further questions, doubts, and criticisms in some quarters. (If you're old enough to remember public reaction when the Warren Report came out, it's the same feeling--a crime, an investigation, an unpersuasive report.) Maybe later we can change the heading to "Public reception." But first we'll have to hear from the constabulary. --Yopienso (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage is an intrinsic part of this subject. You might say that this was a "media circus." It may be a good idea to have a full section entitled "media coverage," broader than a media reaction subsection as we presently have. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We need sources about the media coverage; We don't need POV pushers picking and choosing opinion pieces and editorials that criticize climate science. That's a transparent attempt at evading our sourcing policies. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That would leave only the CJR article. I don't see a POV problem if there's a fair sampling of notable media reaction. It helps readers understand the issues. If there is an over-weight on one side or the other, it can be remedied. Right now there are only very large publications in that section, plus CJR. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt that CJR is the only RS to have covered the media. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

True, there was also Howard Kurtz, who is quoted now. I think that's about it. What do you think of a broader "media coverage" section? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The best way to remain neutral is to use the timeline and adhere to it, paying attention to the most notable reports referred to by other media. You really can't go wrong when you do this, but we need CJR, Kurtz, and others to do it. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if we dismantle the current section, we still have NY Times and WSJ editorials, and these are extremely influential in the USA. I can't see excluding them, whatever else may be taken out. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles don't use editorials as sources. If the editorial is notable, then secondary sources will have mentioned it, as they mentioned Dowd's when she called Obama "Spock", etc. Individual editors do not get to highlight which editorials they think are important, especially when it comes to a subject that involves significant political spin. If we are writing about the "controversy", then other sources will have covered it. Stick to those. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to add that I made my comments above before seeing the current version of the article, and the quote tacked on from some guy at the Atlantic. Your point is well taken that this section can pose dangers if it is a repository for press comments presented in an unbalanced fashion. I think the problem is inbalance and a potential POV issue. I don't see problems with editorials per se, if safeguards are taken to not weight the section one way or the other. We may just want to include the WSJ and NY editorials, and jettison the rest except for CJR, Kurtz and whomever else is writing specifically about the media coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How would we as editors judge 'balance'? The same number of quotes from 'both sides'? The same number of words per quote? What about the very serious possibility that 'both sides' are not in fact equal in any sense and that we should be reflecting, say, a 97:3 ratio, not 50:50. There are not two 'sides' anyway, there are at least half a dozen different important points of view regarding different aspects of the case and the reviews. We need to rely on secondary sources for analysis. No question. Then it won't be 'media reception', but all kinds of reception/comment/analysis. --Nigelj (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the 3-point proposal I made near the to of the "Media reception" section of this page? Position, rebuttal, you-decide. What do you think of my proposed rewrite in the "Weird stuff" section? I agree that after the police report and some more tertiary summaries, there may be need for a separate article. --Yopienso (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Position, rebuttal, you-decide": gross oversimplification. The three reviews don't represent a 'position', they praise some aspects of the work, criticise others and make important points about the science and the scientific methods. Selectively cherry-picking a sentence from an op-ed is not a 'rebuttal' of anything, much less of all the basic tenets of modern climate science. Finally, the point about climate science is not that 'you', the reader, should listen first to the findings of decades of painstaking work endorsed by the worldwide science establishment, then to quotes from a few American right-wing journalists, and then 'decide' on your own novel scientific theories. If we're going to go into the media's responses to, and effects on, this controversy, we need the guidance of scholarly secondary sources, not knock together our own synthesis. --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel, you make good points. I do think it's important that the article at this point "praise some aspects of the work, criticise others and make important points about the science and the scientific methods." That is what I'm understanding from the MSM. Andrew Revkin is not an "American right-wing journalist." Here are links to the MSM that suggest or document that others suggest a whitewash, 2 from NY and 3 from the UK:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/climate-whitewash-blackwash-and-mushroom-clouds/ (With link to the "Financial Times)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7876999/Climategate-professor-gets-his-job-back.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292703/Climategate-scientist-Phil-Jones-STILL-gets-job-back.html

We typically use reliable newspapers as sources--that's why we have a whole list of them--and to refuse to present this information would constitute NPOV. --Yopienso (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I should note at this point that three of the four sources you mention there are extremely right-wing (the Daily Mail notoriously so - it supported the fascists in the 1930s). We shouldn't give the false impression that this is anything other than a partisan controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a British, middle-market tabloid. Why is it listed here? The Michaels piece is an editorial short on facts and long on wild accusations; Not exactly material needed for an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should definitely be heading in the direction of informed discussion, which severely limits our choice of credible sources. --TS 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Demonizing the right is precisely the POV that has been repeatedly challenged here. "Right" does not equate to "fringe". Judging by recent elections, about half the voters in the US and the UK are conservative. The Wall Street Journal is, according to us, "the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation." The Daily Mail "...is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper..." It would be egregiously POV to dismiss those sources. (Of course the Mail supported Mussolini in 1933; so did Churchill and Roosevelt.)
• The Mail is listed here because it's listed here.
• I give 5 sources: I cannot provide a direct link to the Financial Times article because it requires a subscription. There's a pop-up in the dot.earth blog (Revkin). Surely my fellow editors will not exclude Revkin, a reliable source that could form the basis for the "Media reception" section. These statements are too long to quote in their entirety, but I'd like to see the notions included:

--The reactions to the Independent Climate Change Email Review are flowing around the blogosphere, including—predictably—many shouts of “whitewash” by critics of climate science and proclamations of vindication by the scientists and institution thrust into the spotlight after the unauthorized release of a batch of e-mail strings and files revealed the sometimes-unseemly back story behind climate research. (Click on "whitewash" for the Financial Times blurb.)

--No inquiry of this sort will ever clear the slate given the polarization over this issue, fueled both by divergent ideologies and very large financial stakes related to energy policy. Everyone shares some blame in how this incident played out.

--Yopienso (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In looking at the list under Edit war over POV tag, I thought that rather than expand #6 to note the word "whitewash" doesn't appear, I would just add it. While I was at it, I did some more arranging but no deleting. If my edit stands, I won't worry about adding "whitewash" to the list; if it doesn't, I will. Simple. (The edit summary says +Harribin, rearrange paragraphs. I meant to add +Harribin, (+"Critics suspect a whitewash") rearrange paragraphs but forgot before saving.) I thought it well to end on a start with disclaimers, follow with doubts, and end on an accented solid note: "...its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever." --Yopienso (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Still not clear what the problems as: including the one above about this image - errm, which image? The one taht was deleted? We can't use a deleted image. If you want it undeleted, you need to go through review - not slap a tag on this page William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The image issue has nothing to do with POV, it's a straightforward matter of copyright. A twice-uploaded copyright violation isn't going to be undeleted by anyone. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC) ChrisO: Where can I find the image so I can see for myself? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) You don't administer copyright, you didn't upload the image and you weren't involved with it, so it's none of your business, frankly. Please stop going on about it - it's a complete waste of time. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC) ChrisO: Ummm...this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I answered your question in the thread above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Does someone have a copy they can e-mail me? My e-mail address is [email protected]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) So I can see it and decide for myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC) To form a judgment on this matter, what you need is not to see the image (which I have described in all necessary detail to you), but to understand our non-free content rules. Why do you believe seeing the image would improve your understanding of the image policy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I'll let you know after I see the image. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Shrug. Have fun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

There is no discussion on the talk page. I've removed the banner William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that a number of active discussions are directly related to POV, including the one above about this image. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Give it a break already. This article needs to be gutted and the POV pushers need to find something else to do. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was curious myself about the NPOV banner and I asked about it a day or so ago. Where is the overarching NPOV issue serious enough to slap an NPOV tag on the entire article? Unless there is a specific allegation, so that it can be explained and addressed if warranted, I don't think the NPOV tag is warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was added by Hipocrite on 16 July after some changes had been made to the article by AQFK, I'm not clear exactly why. Mikenorton (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the tag is warranted, the article clearly is biased and presents the information from the CRU/CC POV. Any attempt to balance that information is resisted and delayed. The tag should stay. GregJackP Boomer! 12:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's nonsense. The CRU "POV", as you call it, is the established POV. No amount of birthers screaming "drill, baby, drill" is going to change that. Climate change is happening, and humanity is responsible. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You make my point for me, although I'm not sure why you feel the need to add an irrelevant "birther" comment, unless you are just trying to shut down conversation. That is typical of this area, and is part of the problem with the "established POV" - Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, not an established POV, and is supposed to show what is being reported, not just the spin from one side. The point that CC "is" happening is likewise not relevant to a POV discussion here. There are many reports and sources that are being dismissed solely to control the spin on Climategate. GregJackP Boomer! 13:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you or other editors feel there is an NPOV issue, you should cite passages in the article that present a problem. The point of the tag is to allow specific issues to be addressed, and there's been no attempt of which I am aware to do so. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP, it's entirely relevant that climate change is happening, and climate science isn't "spin". If you have children or plan on having them, you may want to pay closer attention to articles like ocean acidification. As for the established view, you may want to pay closer attention to WP:UNDUE. This entire article is a non-topic, and is taking time and energy away from serious articles that need work. I suspect that is the sole reason for its existence. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair comments, so I'll address your relevant points. This article is not about CC, it is about a lack of transparency, a violation of the FOIA, alleged scientific and academic misconduct and related matters that cast doubt on the veracity of CC scientists. It has been widely reported in the media, both pro and con. Actual disagreements on CC should be in that article, not this one, so WP:UNDUE as to that is not relevant here. Second, if you feel this article is a time sink and not important, go edit another article that is important. No one is forcing you to be here - so that is really your choice. Finally, of course I'm concerned about the environment for my children and grandchildren. My people have been treating the land in a sustainable manner for centuries, and have fought Anglo-Europeans (litterally at times) over the issue. As recently as my youth, these same forces disagreed with our sustainable lumber industry and attempted to terminate our people's way of life so they could clear-cut our land. I don't need a lecture from you on how to treat our planet - and you might want to consider that if you don't know anything about a person, you might want to hold off on offering advice. GregJackP Boomer! 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this comment is not helpful in identifying specific supposed problems in the article. If they're not identified, they can't be addressed. What specific parts of the article are problematic? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here are vague expressions of dissatisfaction from both sides, and no specific NPOV concerns. Unless there is a bona fide dispute that is explicitly detailed (with more than just conclusory statements), and I'm not seeing one at this point, the tag is not warranted and should go. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Was the comment I was responding to helpful? As to specific issues, the article spends most of its space saying "nothing to see here, move on" without explanation of specific allegations, nor does it have any of the published criticisms of the investigation(s) or reports. The phrasing at one point that items were taken out of context does not identify that one of the subjects of the investigation is the one that alleges the statement - and in the reference it does not specifically state that either politicians statement was out of context. I'll look at and address similar issues when I get a chance. Additionally, the source is of questionable reliability, since it is reporting the immediate comments of selected individuals to the report - close to being an op-ed piece from the CC scientists. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think you need to cite specific passages in the article, and explain why they violate WP:NPOV. It's your responsibility to make your criticisms understandable. It's not the obligation of other editors to take your vague comments and figure out which specific passages you're referring to, and then guess what your objection is. I've read through this entire article and find no conceivable POV problem. I see nothing saying or implying "nothing to see here, move on." If you just don't like an article, that's not sufficient to place an ugly and disruptive POV tag at the top of the article. See comment by SCJessy below. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It will take me some time, but I'll be happy to do so. As for putting the POV tag on the article, you would have to ask the editor who originally placed it on the article. As to the comment by SCJessy, it incorrectly identifies the issue as CC instead of the actual issue, which was the leak of the e-mail, the allegations made therein, and the various responses, including that of the media. Instead, SCJessy attempts to shift the issue to CC/denial, which is assuredly not the issue for this article. I note that you declined to make a comment about the post I was responding to also. I would ask in the future if you intend to call my responses unhelpful, that you be fair and address any comments that the response was directed towards. Otherwise it appears that you support those comments. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be greatly helpful if you or someone would specify what specific passages are problematic and why, for otherwise there's no basis and the tag should be removed. You have a point: the tag was placed there by Hipocrite and he should explain what he feel is wrong, if he hasn't done so. As for my "decling to make a comment about the post you were responding to," there have been several posts and replies, and I have no idea what you're talking about. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to move away from the NPOV "badge of shame" tactics. If certain editors find specific wording that they don't regard as neutral, the verbiage in question should be locally tagged with the most appropriate tag and then immediately brought to discussion here for timely resolution. All such tags are ugly and should be avoided at all costs. Some editors are also getting a funny idea of what they think "neutral" means. It does not mean that both "sides" are represented. It means that all sides should be represented at an appropriate weight. In practical terms, that means the tiny minority denying the indisputable fact of anthropogenic climate change should not be holding this article hostage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Who are you accusing of "holding this article hostage"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be obvious that there are a number of editors here who are actively promoting a fringe POV. Not naming names, but you know who I mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't go quite that far, but I believe that the presence of an NPOV banner is disruptive and unwarranted, and needs to go. The editor who put it there, Hipocrite, has never provided specifics and has not participated in this discussion. Other editors (from the opposing POV!) support the banner but likewise haven't provided specifics. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suspect the removal of the image might be a POV issue, but I'm not getting much help yet in finding a copy of image. Also, since ArbCom has suggested not working on these articles, so I'm focusing my attention on just one POV issue. But the entire article reads like an UAE talking points memo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I emailed you a link to it. It really has nothing to do with any POV issue. NW (Talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NW: Thanks. It does contain the word "Climagate" the use of which has been a long-standing POV problem with the article, not to mention the fact that it lists one of the main allegations against the CC scientists. Something else to consider is that this screenshot helps the reader understand the scandal better. The current image is of the CRU building and does not help the reader understand this scandal at all. On the other hand, the picture quality of the screenshot is quite poor. Perhaps another image can be found? Anyway, I'll be leaving for my father's birthday party shortly so this will have to wait until later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What does the United Arab Emirates have to do with anything? And I have to say that your whole approach to this is symptomatic of the problems with this topic area (and with your own battlefield attitude). The image was speedily deleted twice because it was a copyright violation. You've been told repeatedly why it was deleted and that it had nothing to do with POV. You've had confirmation from a completely uninvolved admin, Fut. Perf. And yet you still pursue this. All along the way, you seem to have assumed bad faith of everyone who has explained to you why it was deleted. Rather than accept explanations in good faith, you've pursued it obsessively, clogging up talk pages and wasting time all round. It's exactly this kind of unproductive behaviour that led to the current arbitration case in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Hipocrite, who placed the tag here on 7/16, to either explain the reason for the tag or remove it. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the removal of the NPOV tag by Kittybrewster. This matter is still under discussion, and at least two editors and possibly more have questions on the neutrality of the article. I am still gathering examples of specific instances, but the entire article also violates NPOV. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't count me among those questioning the article's neutrality. POV is glaringly evident on the talk page, but little or none of that is reflected in the article. Any such reflections would be errors of omission, not inclusion, and I haven't taken the time to scrutinize it to see what may be missing. Obviously, facts distasteful to both the alarmist- and denialist-leaning camps are included, an evidence of upholding neutrality against personal opinions or preferences. The lede seems to be rigorously neutral. I'm fine with removing the tag. In fact, I request it be removed and not restored without a list of specific POV statements or omissions. --Yopienso (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

PS Oh, duh--the title is certainly POV. But that's not reason to tag it, imo. --Yopienso (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm working on a list of specific items, including the page title that are POV and can retag the article when I post those. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that you're "working on a list of specific items", I've removed the tag for now. Maybe we can retag it when you (or anyone) posts them, but not before. StuartH (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the NPOV badge to be anything other than a disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT badge of shame, there needs to be a prospect that it will change the article for the better, or that the minority of editors who consider it POV will be happy with anything less than a Conservapedia mirror. I'm not remotely optimistic, but I'm prepared to be surprised. At the very least, though, articulate what the problem/s is/are. StuartH (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

People always tell us that the reasons for the POV banner were given earlier, or will be provided in the near future, but very rarely actually articulate them, with quotes and diffs, now. Until this happens, and then the discussion stalls regarding the issues brought up, the banner should not be added. --Nigelj (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Which is why I removed it. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the banner as a result of inapropriate weighting of Patrick Michael's minority opinion that the funders of a review makes the review biased over the opinions of major editorial boards that the scientists at the center of the scandal were largely vindicated. It appears that weighting no longer exists (though I wonder why a summary of the media reactions still hasn't made it to the lede - perhaps because some editors here don't like a summary of the media reactions?) and so I have no problem with the tag being removed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. So why was it just re-added? I don't see which discussion here on Talk User:Tillman referred to in that edit. --Nigelj (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the article is a lightning rod for disruptive edits. I'd revert it myself if it wasn't for the 1RR. Adding the POV badge, but refusing to discuss what the POV issue is should be a big no-no. StuartH (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since WMC did the right thing and requested the POV concern, the badge has been repeatedly added back in with "see talk", but without actually adding the concerns to the talk page. How can we resolve a POV dispute that doesn't exist? The only issues raised in response have been a copyvio and something about "CC" being a POV. What are the issues, how can we solve them to the satisfaction of the badge-of-shamers? StuartH (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the title POV?

I would change the word controversy to incident. Any other issues? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was "hacking incident" until a name change to reflect the focus on the content of the emails rather than the hacking incident itself. "Email incident" makes a little less sense, and "controversy" doesn't imply guilt the way other titles might. The current title to me seems to satisfy the neutrality requirements for a "descriptive title". The problem to many is that we're not using their POV term for the article (i.e. Climategate). There are claims that there are grounds for changing the title to such a non-neutral term, but that doesn't make the current title POV. StuartH (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think Climategate is hugely POV. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues; do a word search for "title" in Archive 35, especially on July 12-13, when we discussed it at length. In brief: Since critics quickly slapped "Climategate" on the incident, it was understood by supporters to be a pejorative, and almost certainly it was, and was therefore to be avoided. As time passed, however, usage widened--it is a catchy, brief term that rolls off one's tongue, unlike the present WP-invented title no one else uses. At least two of us googled for any RS that had not used "Climategate" and were unable to find one. It seems likely this incident, if it is remembered 20 years from now, will be called "Climategate." In other words, the word is losing its sting because of broader use and repetition and so is more acceptable.

Some editors are reluctant to use it because, apparently, they feel it will signal a "victory" for editors who are critical of the CRU. If this is true, if some editors want to "win" or see the incident called what they consider a justly-deserved ugly name, it's too soon to change it. I've laid out my reasons for changing it in Archive 35. It would be a pity if childish name-calling attitudes increase the length of time we must display this contrived title. --Yopienso (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather avoid having a re-run of the article title wars. Nothing useful came of it then and I doubt it will now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few useful things came of it: it was discovered and admitted that the term is more widely used than it was previously, lists of its wide usage were compiled, the background as to why some find it POV and others find it common-sense was discussed.

It would be as wrong for you, William, to refuse ever to reconsider as it would for me to start an edit war. The fact that there have been "article title wars," or at least article title discussions, shows there is not an overwhelming consensus for the present title. --Yopienso (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. But it would be entirely correct of me to say that it is very unlikely to be worth the time and effort required (which is what I actually said, making your edit comment unintentionally self-ironic), which could more usefully go into actually improving articles William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell should they do that? It's so much easier to spend month after month arguing about a POV article title pushed by none other than Faux News itself. Don't you dare claim that editors should actually be writing articles and using reliable, authoritative sources to do it. Faux News said it, that settles it! Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kittybrewster: Proper names for events which incorporate POV terms (such as Tea Pot Dome scandal, Corrupt bargain, Great Leap Forward, etc.) are legitimate article titles if these are the most common names used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not do an RFC and let the community decide mark nutley (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The community already decided, and you didn't like the decision, so you're back here asking the community to decide again until you get the decision you like. Since the article is being held hostage, I propose that we capitulate and cater to the demands of our dear captors with the one provision that every new account created since the last decision took place is automatically excluded from any new discussion, thereby preventing the usual suspects from engaging in the predicted shenanigans. Deal? Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate" redirects here. There have been umpteen battles over it, and we don't need another. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus can change". There's nothing wrong with taking a quick straw poll. If the need arises for an extended discussion on the topic, I would welcome it once again, provided any new accounts, IP's, and socks are excluded. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be against policy, you know were anyone can edit wikipedia? mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Socks excluded, to be sure, but not IPs or new accounts.--SPhilbrickT 12:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My questions are few. Is the title agreed? Yes, but it could yet change. Is Climategate a preferable name? No; already determined; but that could be changed. Is controversy POV? Would incident be preferable? I think so. Should the word email be included in the title? I simply don't have a view on that. But they are different issues. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Rename article?

It is proposed that the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" be renamed "Climategate". Is this proposed rename supported or contradicted by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? What are the risks and benefits of such a rename? mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

As this is what all the sources call it [21] In the past month Climategate has been used 566 times in the media [22] It gets 275 hits on google scholar [23] and there are 46 books about it [24]

• WP:V verifiability, not truth therefore arguments saying those involved were cleared and as such the -Gate should not be used is wrong.
• WP:UCN 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. And there is the policy based reason for title change mark nutley (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Climategate" fails WP:LABEL because "-gate" suffix suggests a scandal, and no aspect of this incident is (or has been) described as a scandal. "Climategate" fails Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming because it supports a non-neutral neologism. "Climategate" already redirects here. Current title is descriptive. No need for change. Also, no need for this RfC, seeing as this has already been decided not less than eleventy-billion times in the 8 months since the hacking incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Even with the narrowest possible search to discover whether or not this has been described as a scandal, i.e. a google search for "Climategate scandal" as an exact phrase, I find 61,000 hits in Google, and 64 results in Google news, including such esteemed sources as the Los Angeles Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post, Telegraph (UK), etc. It is absolutely implausible to say that no aspect of this incident is or has been described as a scandal. It is a scandal, if anything ever was. (That is not to say that I support the name change to this article, just to say that this particular argument is not even remotely persuasive.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:RM (rather than WP:RfC) the correct way to get this discussed, as per the numerous previous similar discussions? is this some kind of forum shopping? --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. StuartH (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC`s are an integral part of dispute resolution, it is hardly forum shopping mark nutley (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse "dispute resolution" with "wikilawyering". This is basically vexatious litigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't confuse self-published pamphlets as "books". Google isn't very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff in this respect. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: "...no aspect of this incident is (or has been) described as a scandal" is untrue. Several aspects have been and are being widely described as a scandal. Please strike. --Yopienso (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Please explain which aspect of this incident has been described as a "scandal" by a legitimate source. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the original Watergate could be called a scandal, it doesn't immediately follow that any other -gate suffix implies scandal. Ironically, WP has an article on the term, List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, but I think that article should be revisited. A quick glance will show that not all are called scandals. A better description might be "controversy" While some rise to the level of scandal, many do not, so the inference is false.--SPhilbrickT 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Clicking through the links on the "-gate" list, an overwhelming majority are not actually used as titles, because WP:LABEL makes it clear that "-gate" is contentious and should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." "Climategate" is consistent with the other entries there -- we don't use the pejorative title ourselves, but we refer to its use by others. StuartH (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose - WP:WASTEOFTIME applies. Pointless troublemaking William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Since 2009, a requested move for this article has taken place at least four times: 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (failed) 17 February, 2010 (failed) 17 March, 2010 (successful) Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support As an editor who previously opposed the name 'Climategate' every single time it's come up, I now officially change my position. Climategate is clearly the most commonly used name in English by reliable sources including BBC News,[25] The Guardian, [26] Christian Science Monitor, [27] CNN,[28] Der Spiegel,[29] ABC News,[30] CBS News, [31] New Scientist,[32] Nature,[33] etc. For a list of reliable sources calling this Climategate, please expand the following section:

As for arguments that you can't have an article title that expresses a POV, this is incorrect. Proper names for events which incorporate POV terms (such as Reign of Terror, Corrupt bargain, Bataan Death March, etc.) are legitimate article titles because these are the most common names used by reliable sources. For a list of article titles which express a POV, please see this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's a great argument against changing the name. All article titles are POV, but are based on the most neutral POV we can create, often times by combining multiple POV, and this involves creating article titles that are inclusive and represent the entire subject. Non-netural POV titles are often too narrow, hence one of the major problems (one of many) with a title like "Climategate". That's one reason why Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial, and why Barack Obama birthplace controversy redirects to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. There's a big picture and "Climategate" doesn't begin to even incorporate every aspect of it. Since the CRU and the email are the central aspects of the dispute, an article title using those terms meets our neutrality policy without taking the POV of a small fringe element composed of vocal climate denialists who have named the topic "Climategate" solely to push their POV before the investigation was even begun. We now know there was no such scandal, and that some of the major claims made by this group have been retracted. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your arguments are more in support of "Climategate" than opposed. Had the breach revealed innocuous emails, there still would be a police investigation, but it wouldn't have been a noteworthy event. The only thing that turns the minor incident into a controversy is the conduct alleged, and subsequently discussed by the media. We didn't have multiple investigations to figure how who did the breach, we had multiple investigations to discuss the contents. It is so much more than CRU and an email breach. There's a reason we call it World War One and not the Gavrilo Princip incident.--SPhilbrickT 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your own comments support the current title. You say that it was the breach of the CRU's servers which revealed the contents of the emails. The title covers that. You go on to claim that there is more to it than that, which justifies the use of the word "controversy". So, the current title meets your requirements. However, you have failed to explain how the term "Climategate" is a better title. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his comments fall right in line with Wikipedia policy ("True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental."), explained in my comments below. GregJackP Boomer! 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How does that address my comment? Please don't reply with random replies picked out of Tristan Tzara's hat. I'll ask again: How is "Climategate" a better title? By default, you are arguing that "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" is an opinion of some kind, whereas "Climategate" is less of one. That makes sense, how?? Viriditas (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote, from Jimbo (abet with a "weak oppose" because he did not want to fight about it) - "Here is my view: Climategate is obviously the correct title. It is the overwhelming choice used by virtually all media. It is an accurate, non-POV-pushing description of the event, because the event was in fact a scandal." The first quote was straight out of Wikipedia policy, which states at Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. You either follow WP policy or you don't, but as Jimbo said, Climategate is the correct title for the article. GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. Not this nonsense again? It's already been discussed to death, as Viriditas has pointed out above. The current name is a compromise. Policy on POV names has not changed ("encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality"). The "Climategate" moniker is the same as it ever was - a POV nickname meant to impute wrongdoing and scandal. Using such a POV nickname while the controversy was still ongoing would have been grossly inappropriate. Using it now that the reports are in and the principals have been cleared of wrongdoing would be insane. We are not in the business of rewriting history. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV, Article Naming, which states: 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. Using the current title and looking for GNews/GScholar/GBooks hits show zero hits, while the popular name of "Climategate" showed over 4,100 GNews hits, over 200 GScholar hits, and 29 GBooks hits, clearly showing that Climategate is used by a consensus of the sources. The argument that it cannot be named Climategate is not correct - there are plenty of examples of popular scandal names being used in Wikipedia per the above policy. Second, the argument that the principals have been cleared of wrong-doing has nothing to do with the naming of the article, except to put a POV spin on the title. The policy is clear that the title used by a consensus of the sources, not a consensus of the editors, the commonly used phrase is used. Period. Anything else is POV. GregJackP Boomer! 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Even if your position is that the term "Climategate is judgmental and POV, policy requires the use of the common name used by a consensus of the sources, which is overwhelmingly "Climategate" - I have found no source that titles it the way it is currently listed. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "True neutrality means..." That statement was added to the Article titles policy on 20 May 2010 by Blueboar.[34] Clearly, article titles is not a stable policy. The current article we are discussing was created at 00:20, 22 November 2009 by User:Doize77. This is what Wikipedia:Article titles looked like on 26 November 2009:[35] Notice how there is nothing about "Neutrality and article titles", which was added later on 28 March 2010 by Blueboar again, with the edit summary, "Incorporating what is said at WP:NPOV".[36] Please also note that Blueboar added this to the policy right after being involved in a contentious discussion about the term Climategate several days previously. However, looking at WP:NPOV we see completely different wording at the time of 22 November.[37] Somebody has been playing games with the NPOV and the article title policies. When this article was created, the NPOV policy said the following (emphasis mine):

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[3] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[4] Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

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

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used; see also WP:Naming conventions (common names).

That's a huge difference from what it says now and what article titles has been changed to say as a result of this debate. The NPOV has been changed to remove "generally" and has since been radically changed from its former state, and the article titles policy has also been changed, in this case, by an editor who wanted to rename this article. Something isn't right here. Viriditas (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. I also clearly remember "Climategate" being ruled out because the naming conventions explicitly ruled out "-gate" suffixes except in historical cases, which has also been changed. If it's the case that these changes have been made by involved editors, it's worrying. StuartH (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In Blueboar's defense, there is no evidence he has done anything wrong but it looks somewhat fishy. I first contacted him on his talk page on 18 March about his expressed support for the term, "Climategate", and here we see him changing the article titles policy on 20 March and then on 28 March, in a way that could be construed to support the term. I'm left wondering about the stability of a policy like this and the impact of sudden changes on discussions when involved editors are making the changes. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind, but the changes in the NPOV and article titles policy appear to have occurred in response to this topic. I can say that fairly confidently in regards to the latter policy, but I haven't had time to investigate the former. Perhaps somebody can do this. Viriditas (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting history lesson. However, the current policy is clear. Perhaps one should look at the policy talkpage and note that the new wording was the consensus of the community, arrived at after several months of discussion. If the policy is wrong, feel free to propose that it be changed, but the old policy is not really germane to this discussion. BTW, the discussion on changing the policy started in January 2010, well before the policy was actually changed, and to indicate that the change was in response to the Climategate naming is clearly mis-stating the policy change as it was in process well before then. GregJackP Boomer! 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I wish to make no implication of any wrongdoing, but the discussions of these policies seems to have spread around a few places. I found Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Erachima, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Wikipedia talk:Article titles debate closure and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Alternative article names --Nigelj (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Despite the verylonglistofarticles (which were not hand-reviewed - they are the result of pro-googling), sources have not reached consensus that Climategate is the name for the events described in this article. I have three serious problems - first, in the verylonglistofgoogles, the vast majority use "Climategate", the scare-quotes used to connotate that it's not being adopted by that media outlet in question. Compare - [38][39], [40] - no scare quotes to [41], [42], [43] ... scare quotes abound. Secondly, how many times do we need to do the same thing - from Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Considering_title_changes - "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Thirdly - can we please let the ArbCom case finish? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels like we are Waiting for GodotArbcom?--SPhilbrickT 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Waiting for the Barbarians ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Waiting? They're already here... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what would we do without barbarians? They are some kind of solution at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT per M. Nutley et al. Past due to retire this clumsy name. Even the NY Times now calls it Climategate -- without scare quotes, even. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support name change to "Climategate" per naming conventions, per nom and per GregJackP Minor4th 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose rename as current name was product of compromise.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - just to make clear. GregJackP Boomer! 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - current name was a good-faith attempt at compromise. Partisan branding should only be used when a consensus of historical sources use the name. No scholarly historical sources exist on this yet. So what's the rush to embrace POV branding? Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose With such a loaded and non-neutral term, the argument needs to be convincing. The current title is reasonable, and the result of a good-faith effort to achieve a compromise. Resuming the battleground mentality so soon after the compromise serves no-one, and there is no need for "climategate". There also appears to be some confusion over recent policy changes on this issue, and it should really be a Requested Moves, not a RfC. StuartH (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget the outcome of the last discussion: "More neutral title; a compromise between "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate" [44]. This discussion is not about NPOV at all - it's about one POV-faction attempting to overturn the results of that carefully crafted, extensively discussed compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Yes, an IP but I would like to remind folks Jimbo also gave his support.91.153.115.15 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo supported the current title and !voted for it in the last discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thnk you are distorting the record, Chris. Link, please? Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[45], WP:AGF --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. He supported the current title as a reasonable compromise given the editors active at the time, but thought "Climategate" more appropriate. In his words: "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate."--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a request on Jimbo's talk page for him to comment here, so we don't have to guess what his opinion is. GregJackP Boomer! 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I am putting my !vote here to respond to the above thread. Here is my view: Climategate is obviously the correct title. It is the overwhelming choice used by virtually all media. It is an accurate, non-POV-pushing description of the event, because the event was in fact a scandal. (As in most all scandals, there are perspectives on the scandal and who was right or wrong, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a scandal.) There have been offered absolutely no non-POV pushing arguments put forward against the name - it is opposed vigorously by those who, like me, think that most of the people who made hay out of this are in the wrong scientifically and ethically. You don't have to be a climate change denier in order to recognize that this was a scandal. Having said all of that, the current title is a compromise hammered out with much difficulty. In 10 years we may look back and be embarrassed that we got this wrong for as long as we did, because in 10 years, this article will be named "Climategate" as all historical sources will converge to that name, whether people like it or not. But as for today, it just isn't worth fighting about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree "-gate" implies "scandal" but I think only in the sense that some wrong conduct has been found. There seems to have been very little wrong conduct found in the official inquiries. We may disagree with the official inquiries, but the reliable sources covering this put a lot of stock in them, and so they keep the scare quotes around the name when they use it, even now. It is the only one-word name for this, but that probably explains why it's used in headlines (one-word names are extremely useful to headline writers). I think NPOV -- and especially BLP -- demands we not call it a scandal because there have been no findings of gross wrongdoing. This is why this issue has been so contentious for so long on these pages. If we use "-gate" we imply any of the definitions of "scandal" (see Merriam-Webster's definition here [46]). That's how readers will interpret that name. We can't do it without the reliable sources doing it first (without scare quotes). We're not there yet, and it now looks like we won't be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, so would you support a change to 'Climategate' controversy? If your objection is that reliable sources are using the scare quotes, doesn't it neatly resolve everyone's issues with the current title?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't really resolve my issue. In my experience, scare quotes are generally used to imply some contempt towards a overwrought label, or at the least, some dubiousness -- but very often to imply that the name is not settled. Seems like labeling should be drawn more from scholarly sources than the-usually-more-sensationalist popular media sources. However, if this is the way that Wikipedia is meant to work, by seizing upon only-months-old media neologisms, then I may just have held some strange notions. BigK HeX (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I respect your opinion, but the applicable policy states: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as

evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." (from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming) Policy is clear-cut, and your comments above seem to be in line with this policy, rather than the "weak oppose" you register as your !vote. Would you consider changing to "support"? GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be preferable to straight "Climategate", but I'm still unsure about whether it's better than the current title, and to keep playing musical chairs with the title isn't the most productive way to improve the article (it would be even worse with "'Climategate' controversy" because I can guarantee that straight "Climategate" will be pushed within months). Is there much of a precedent to having quotation marks in the title itself? I'm not sure it's as good a fit for an encyclopedia article title as a news or opinion piece. Historical sources would be preferable (and for "-gate" suffixes, last time this came up it was pointed out that they were required at the time), but there are obviously not going to be many of those right now. StuartH (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guettarda, StuartH, Jimbo, etc. How many times are we going to !vote on this? Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Until common sense prevails? <G>. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "Climategate" is only used in the media by global warming deniers who represent a fringe view of climate science. When the term is used in mainstream media it is always in scare quotes, which means the mainstream does not accept the term. TFD (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the FT the Climategate e-mails or the Sydney Morning Herald [47] or the Guardian Climategate emails report due today Yes these are not MSM are they mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

e/c::Laughably false assertions --unless you count the NY Times as "deniers." And please note their non-use of "scare quotes". Please don't clutter the discussion with such easily-refuted nonsense. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please strike your comment, TFD, as it 6-mos. outdated. It is not true today and should not be on this page. --Yopienso (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The term is not used (without scare quotes) by serious commentators. I would support a section on the coining and usage of the term (it was in use at least a year before these emails were hacked), when reliable secondary sources become available on that sub-topic. Without that, it is no more use in an encyclopedia than Swifthack. --Nigelj (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, please see my and Mark's cmts immediately above. Your assertion "not used (without scare quotes) by serious commentators" is demonstrably untrue. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The following media outlets have used Climategate in headlines without scare quotes and without being used by "deniers":

The Telegraph, the Atlantic, CBS News, the Mail Online, Fox News, New Scientist, the Los Angeles Times, the Register, the Irish Times, the Detroit News, UPI, etc. There are many more. GregJackP Boomer! 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that headlines are not written by the journalists or commentators themselves, and are often designed for shock-value, don't you? Apart from that, I should have said 'rarely' so that this tag-team wouldn't get so excited as soon as they found an exception somewhere on earth. Ah well. My !vote stands. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: I think you should take another look at those articles posted by GregJackP. By my count 10 out of 11 of those articles use the name "Climategate" in the article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per arguments listed above. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia's job is to describe controversy as neutrally as possible, not participate in it. The current name was a reasonable compromise, and is more neutral than both the original name and the proposed alternative. So long as the article explains the term "Climategate" has been widely used to describe the incident, that seems sufficient. DGaw (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

^^^^ GW/CC editors pick teams and draw bright lines around existing factions/cabals/cadres/confluences ... When a few more editors show up and weigh in, we can have a scrimmage. I am not promoting WP:BATTLEFIELD, I just think it is funny how clearly expressed it is in this particular !vote :D Minor4th 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The list of references posted by A Quest for Knowledge shows that "Climategate" is the name used most often in the media for this story. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The most widely used term for this incident is Climategate. It has largely lost its pejorative sense. Please see my comment of 08:47, 26 July 2010. --Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Perennial caterwauling by agenda-driven interests. The current title itself is actually the product of an earlier compromise, so it smacks of bad-faith for one side to renege on that and push for their super-preferred version anew. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For Hipocrite's reasons, which have been my reasons in the past. I haven't found any reason to change my mind. Reliable sources are still, primarily (it seems), putting "Climategate" in scare quotes when they use it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It is worth keeping the current title purely on the basis of compromise (since Climategate redirects here, repeated arguments about the "correct" title are simply not worth the effort). However, my main reason for opposing a rename is that it will be ten or more years before historians are able to accurately record this incident. Naturally a news outlet wants a catchy title with a hint of scandal, but in this kind of area, Wikipedia should be about verified science, and what is verified here is that there is a controversy about Climatic Research Unit emails. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

• From RfC: I'm reluctant to throw my hat in the ring in the climategate area again, but I would support the rename for the reasons GregJackP listed (re Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, The policy is clear that the title used by a consensus of the sources, not a consensus of the editors, the commonly used phrase is used.). Unfortunately, I think all the usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT folks will come out and rattle off thirty policies, some of which apply, some of which don't, then link everyone the the hundreds of archived discussions about this same renaming proposal to the point where the discussion devolves into an unreadable mess of indents and (edit conflict) notes. So to that point, I think SPhilbrick'sHipocrite's_{(my apologies)} idea of waiting for ArbCom might be worth seriously considering. Otherwise, I support the move, and think it's well-reasoned. (Although googleing "climategate" returns the Climatic Research Unit email controversy page which is always a source of a good laugh)

P.S. In the case the page is moved, I think the lede should be changed to Climategate, (formerly dubbed Climatic Research Unit email controversy by Wikipedia) ;-) jheiv ^{talk contribs} 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Saw this in the RFC. "Climategate" is the name given by the right. The current title, while awkward, is neutral. Figureofnine (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this title is correct, follows our naming convention, and neutral. "Climategate" is sensationalist tabloid POV, and untrue based on all the findings. Verbal chat 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how that meets Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for neutrality, per WP:LABEL and per points raised by User:Scjessey. BigK HeX (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how that meets Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what "editors' opinions" are being "imposed"? Thanks, BigK HeX (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually .... further, can you explain the justification for your invocation of that guide, which is applicable "When a subject or topic has a single common name," given a fairly dubious case regarding "Climategate" being representative of a large proportion of the literature -- a case made even more difficult given the WP:NOTNEO policy. BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to explain. Here is the section in full to which GregJackP refers:

When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

We established in Archive 35 that we could find no MSM that did not use the term "Climategate" in its various spellings wrt capitals and hyphen, and wrt to "scare quotes." That's called a single common name in English MSM RS. (We even found it in German, Spanish, and in the English version of Pravda, which said, "...what everyone is calling ‘Climategate’ -- a major scandal involving leaked emails..." (These are new links I've just looked up.) Clearly the incident is globally known as "Climategate."

The editors' opinion being imposed on the title of this article is that we cannot use a word that began as a perjorative. This is contrary to our policy. (In AGF, I'm willing to believe they believe it is still entirely perjorative. This, however, is willful ignorance, given the many, many references supplied here.)

Wrt to WP:NOTNEO policy, it states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." There are endless treatments in secondary sources. --Yopienso (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what Yopienso said. All of the sources call it Climategate, and Wikipedia policy requires us to use that same term. GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "All of the sources call it Climategate"

That certainly is not the case. Not even most of the sources available at this point discussing the controversy use "Climategate" as headline reference. BigK HeX (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like they do, even Nature does The Bering Sea Project: Thoughts on Climategate mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

lol ... "even Nature! _{(in a blog) ... (and with scare quotes, too)}" BigK HeX (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you see scare quotes in the text linked above? No you don`t. And you`ll find a blog on nature is a perfectly reliable source, o and while your over there so a searchm see if it pops up a few times :) mark nutley (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... no scare quotes?? Quoting from your source:

During the last couple of days I asked the principal investigators on board what they thought of

" Climategate ”

Did you even bother to read your own supposed "evidence"? In any case, if you guys want to build the case, then it seems like that should have been the RFC pursued first --- although if it must be done as a sub-branch of this RfC, please find a way to compartmentalize the arguments. But without the supporting editors having reasonably established such a case, the move request here to a POV-loaded neologism is clearly doomed. BigK HeX (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

{Edit clonflict} You will note Nature News, as much under Nature's editorial control as its blog, avoided the term in December, but as early as February were using it not only in the headline but in the body, twice in scare quotes and once without. The Bering Sea blog report published July 20 is featured on this page, and there is a tab to access the Journal. --Yopienso (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So what are they calling it? Because the only hits I get are with "Climategate" as the title, whether it be through Google or LexisNews (which has over 800 hits with Climategate). There are zero using the current title. GregJackP Boomer! 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me for some other "common name." I said that your suggested "common name" is doubtful; I did not say that I had an alternative one to suggest. Personally, I doubt there is one, and so find a WP:NPOV title just fine for now. There is no deadline, and if it seems that a (non-neological) common name is shaking out in the future, we can discuss it far more authoritatively then without corcern for recentism. BigK HeX (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, for the same reason as that we use artist names and not real names when naming articles of pop singers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support After looking at the usage even by those who support AGW it is clear the term has pervaded all groups. The common name has, indeed, shaken out. Collect (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Repeated RfC's on this debate have done nothing but rope in everyone from never-to-be-heard-from-again editors to Jimbo. The amount of time and energy wasted on it is staggering. It is a matter which can only ever be resolved (and even then only briefly) by arbitration which wades through all the prattle before issuing, with some authority, a final decision based on policy, precedent, and analysis.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration doesn't decide things like page naming. You're quite right that the amount of time wasted on this issue is staggering, and that has been entirely the fault of the irreconcilable POV-pushers who have repeatedly brought this up and reject any compromise. The current title was agreed as a compromise to put this issue to bed. Now it's been raked up again by those who don't want any compromise. This is bad-faith editing, quite simply. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree partially with ChrisO. The amount of time spent on this issue is staggering. However, I don't think it has all been wasted. The search for facts to bolster arguments and the review of policies relevant to the question have been enlightening. I do agree with the main point—I don't see ArbCom addressing this issue.--SPhilbrickT 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Current title is apparently a compromise which had strong consensus a mere four months ago. Seems good enough reason to keep it, even if one side were completely in the right. Tsumetai (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise by Jimbo [["Climategate" controversy]]

Jimbo has suggested above that perhaps "Climategate" Controversy would be suitable, any thoughts on this?

• Support mark nutley (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reject Jimbo did not say this. Hipocrite (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Further, now that he has said it, Oppose. It is disruptive to lose, try again, lose, try again, lose, try again, lose, try again, lose, and then immediately try again. I reiterate - the current title is fine. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things, Mark. ChrisO (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ChrisO, I'm aking you to behave more civilly in this discussion. I absolutely did suggest that 'Climategate' controversy should be considered. There is generally universal agreement that all media is using the word Climategate to describe this incident, but also noted that they generally use it in scare quotes. My proposal seeks to satisfy those who think we shouldn't endorse the title, and those who point out that it is by far, and without question, what the incident is called worldwide.
  • I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me or with others, but rudely calling 'bollocks' in a non-factual manner is not appropriate. You have additionally claimed, point blank, that "This discussion is not about NPOV at all", referring to your opponents as a POV-pushing faction. The problem is, that, too, simply doesn't fit the facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes he did Ok, so would you support a change to 'Climategate' controversy? If your objection is that reliable sources are using the scare quotes, doesn't it neatly resolve everyone's issues with the current title?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC) care to rephrase your statement? mark nutley (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand, Jimbo - you think it would be "suitable" for this article to be the only use of "scare quotes," throughout the entire encyclopedia - or are you saying there are other articles that use "scare quotes?" If there are, what articles are they? Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I have no idea if other articles use them or not. We have articles with non-English letters in the title, see Stanisław Lem and we have many articles with punctuation in the title. If the correct name of this incident, as many have argued, is 'Climategate' controversy (including scare quotes) then that's a powerful argument for using it as the title of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, as our own article on scare quotes points out, "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." They're simply not appropriate for an article title and I can't think of a single other example of any other article on Wikipedia which uses them. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I see I was mistaken about you not making this proposal - I had missed your earlier comment. Apologies to Marknutley for wrongly suggesting that he had invented it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - guys, it would help if you actually read the comments. MN directly quoted Jimbo, from here. Jimbo also said that "Climategate is obviously the correct title. It is the overwhelming choice used by virtually all media. It is an accurate, non-POV-pushing description of the event, because the event was in fact a scandal." GregJackP Boomer! 12:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The best objection to the use of "Climategate" in the title, despite it being by far the most commonly used name by all kinds of media, left, right, and center, across multiple languages, is that those media use it most often in scare quotes. This proposal is designed to acknowledge the reality of what this event is called in the media, while at the same time not endorsing the name in a POV way. We are merely following the sources with this name, rather than making up our own unique title in complete contravention of all Wikipedia tradition and norms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Could you link another article with "scare quotes" in the title? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Look on the content page. There is page after page of article titles and redirects with double and single quote marks. GregJackP Boomer! 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Link one article that uses scare-quotes. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass. It is within policy and I've pointed you to plenty of examples. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed every one of your comments on this page. None of them link to a single article that uses "scare quotes." I respect your right to dodge my question, but you must be aware that you are, in fact, dodging it. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps we're failing to communicate. I am not refering to an external article, but to a wikipedia article that uses scare quotes in the title. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you probably just don't understand my above comment about the content page. Look here, here, here, etc. The Wikipedia contents page. You might also consider striking your comment that Jimbo had not said that - it shows a lack of good faith in MN's post. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't understand your comment about the content page - I didn't even know that existed. Thanks. Could you point out which of those you think is a scare quote? I'm having a hard time finding even one. Most are quotations, redirects and proper-names. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange you can`t find one, the first i saw is this "300" mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, mark, that's the proper name of a pinball machine - not a use of scare quotes - ""300" (the exact machine name includes the quotation marks) is a pinball machine produced by Gottlieb with a bowling theme." Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well is there a policy against it? And please fix your comment above which implys i lied thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose still fails WP:WASTEOFTIME, and appeal to spurious authority is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Jimbo and my arguments presented here.[48] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing wrong with the current title. Tsumetai (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. There's little point in proposing a compromise if it isn't going to stick. Don't forget the current title was a compromise -- if we change it to "'Climategate' controversy" we'll be back arguing about a move to "Climategate" in weeks to months anyway. "'Climategate' controversy" is preferable to "Climategate", but so is the current title. I don't think quotation marks are common in article titles either, but I might be wrong about that. Either way, constantly playing musical chairs with the title isn't the best way to improve the article. StuartH (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. Wikipedia is continuously and incrementally evolving and even small improvements are for the best. Or should we accept to do nothing because something is not going to be perfect?91.153.115.15 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not a compromise suggestion, it is actually worse than before, as it actually incorporates the scare quotes into the article title. What a godawful proposal. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we're going that way, it should be "so-called climategate xxx" or "the not-climategate xxx". Scare quotes are widely misunderstood - see, for example, The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, "the manufactured controversy called climategate by those pushing it" is probably a more accurate paraphrase. Not terribly inaccurate, but not really a good article title. Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - (almost?) every occurrence of scare quotes in the contents page above is a redirect to a non-quoted name.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Make that Strong oppose, per Wikispan's reminder below that other things were dubbed "Climategate" before this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"IPad" was used years before Apple released their tablet device, but that doesn't mean that the iPad article can't be named "iPad". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Tarc. Also, would create a truly awful precedent. Frankly, I am sick and tired of this. This title is already a compromise. Wikipedia should be a shining beacon of common sense, not a cesspool of ignorance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Awful idea. Figureofnine (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as POV neologism, per WP:NOTNEO and WP:LABEL but most importantly WP:NPOV, taking into account also a failure to establish a case for an existing common name [my own research on Google news shows that over half of sources in the popular media do not even contain the word "Climategate"]. BigK HeX (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see a single example that has been provided here where a POV neologism has been taken as the acceptable "common name" within months of its inception --- pretty much every example given shows cases where the term has filtered even to textbooks. Also, I'd speculate that a precedent like this would set off a shitstorm throughout a host of articles -- [[Birther movement]], Deepwater Horizon oil spill ==> [[BP Disaster]], etc. ad nauseum. BigK HeX (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, given the persistent pushing here, the Birther movement example comes as a surprise. Haven't checked the talk page history there. . . dave souza, talk 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as worse than the existing compromise, this is clearly a neologism and is still developing news to the extent that the various claims have been rebutted, with the FOIA issue is still under examination by the ICO. I've not chipped in previously as in my opinion it's premature until we're clearer about this manufactured scandal, and unlike some promoting fringe views I've been trying to avoid this topic area, making only minor comments and corrections. Rushing at this while Arbcom is still trying to sort out the rather hurried RfAr is just disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- as a compromise, but my preference is Climategate for the reasons articulated in the last vote. Minor4th 16:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as per reasons given by Jimbo, whoever he is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I may change my mind if in 12 months time, when enough water has passed under the bridge, it is considered to be the most commonly used name. However—and this point bears repeating—Global Warming opponents had applied the name 'Climategate' to other controversies before the unauthorised leak of materials from the University of East Anglia. No doubt if all climate scientist were exposed as secret communist agents tomorrow the same name will pop up yet again. Wikispan (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support if this is another of those incremental steps in naming the article after what historians will always refer to it as. Whether the 'scandal' aspect of the -gate suffix refers to the actual acquisition/release of the emails or the fallout that resulted can remain ambiguous.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds fair, per WP:NAME. Some of those arguing against this name change might be reminded of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Most people are aware of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names, but nowhere is there built a convincing case that there exists a recognized "common name." BigK HeX (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't an argument, it's a wikipedia policy. Try to respect it while the article's on probation.

There's a fairly unkempt list of reliable sources that use the term 'climategate' here: User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_Climategate. You might also try searching google for climategate and then searching it for Climatic Research Unit email controversy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what's policy? WP:AGF. And, if you bothered to follow the discussion, I've already mentioned my own investigations into the matter. Moreover, I commented about the use of scare quotes such as those which exist throughout the example RS's provided. In any case, trying to suggest that a long list of a months-old neologism within media sources on its own (especially when even those examples are riddled with scare quotes) is supposedly a full case would be a dubious idea, at best. BigK HeX (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your invocation of scare quotes has no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline as far as I know. But if there is one, please cite it. Otherwise, you're just making up rules that don't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy is the same one that started this thread: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names

The basis is common English, specifically in this case (and merely repeating what I've already posted), that scare quotes imply contempt towards a loaded POV label and also usually imply that a name is not recognized as settled.

If the name is not settled, then Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names is irrelevant as there is no recognized "common name." BigK HeX (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? You stated above that "over half" of the sources don't mention Climategate. What do they mention? Excuse me if I don't just accept that statement at face value. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... the overwhelming number of "oppose" votes is pretty good evidence that you guys haven't built a convincing case that there exists a definitive "common name". As I've already said, even the supposedly analogous examples offered so far have been poor ["Boston Massacre", etc], since those examples are long-standing labels that have filtered even to textbooks. BigK HeX (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn' clear. I'm not asking about the !vote count, I was asking what were the other article titles you found. The reason I ask is that the overwhelming (95-98%) of the source titles I have found refer to it as Climategate, and not just on Google. Lexis news has over 800 hits for Climategate. Based on my research, that is the commonly used title by the sources. I'm asking for two reasons - 1st, if I'm wrong on what the sources are, I'll admit it; and 2nd, to make sure it isn't WP:IMADETHATUP. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've already suggested, it would likely be prudent for the supporting editors to actually set up a space and try to put together a case that involves more than a list, which by itself is largely meaningless. If you guys get that going, I'd likely be interested in participating there. BigK HeX (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK, all we are asking is that you share what titles you found to be in use. You know, like the Climategate scientists were asked to do. Not sharing it and stonewalling cost them dearly in public credibilty, and we're likely to see the same. Just give us the search terms and we can verify your claims. As it stands now, our checks indicate that your claims are insupportable, and that Climategate is the common name used by sources. You don't have to answer of course, but not answering doesn't help your argument. GregJackP Boomer! 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Scare quotes in a title? I think this is one of those compromises that would make everyone unhappy, and it really doesn't address any of the underlying issues, it's just an arbitrary point between two arbitrary positions. Gamaliel (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Gamaliel, Wikispan, etc. Trying to overturn a compromise so soon after it was reached sets a bad precedent. People will be less willing to compromise and give ground in the future if they believe the result will just be a starting point for another push. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I commented above, but I'll make my vote official now. We have a compromise - the current title. It was supported by Jimbo and other editors who are now pushing for "Climategate". '"Climategate" controversy' isn't a compromise - it's a foot in the door for when "Climategate" gets pushed again in a matter of weeks. Some have actually made that clear in their "Support" reasoning. StuartH (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See salami tactics for what's going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that seems a lot like [[Psychological projection

|projection]]. GregJackP Boomer! 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose However, "Climategate" fake scandal would be about right. (-; Seriously though, this name change would not be an improvement. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement. 'Scare quotes' shouldn't be used, per above. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Without the scare quotes, it wouldn't be a compromise at all. So you aren't actually supporting the compromise, just reiterating your original position. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Six months on "Climategate" (with the scare quotes!) is clearly the settled choice of the name in the sources, and we should be guided by that, not by personal opinions on the suitability of the name. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  "Climategate" is a pejorative created by a commenter on an anti-science blog. The scare quotes allow a lazy media to use this clearly inappropriate term, but many respectable news organs eschew this term. Scare quotes are simply not appropriate components of a Wikipedia page title. And "-gate" suffixes aren't appropriate either (despite the best efforts of agenda-driven editors to "fix" the guidelines to suit their cause). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are three big problems with this. First, we simply do not use scare quotes in articles. As others have said, this would be a horrible precedent. Second, this does not in any way get away from the main issue - the use of a pejorative POV nickname. As has been pointed out numerous times, article titles are meant to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality - that's written into WP:NPOV as a requirement. Adopting a partisan, pejorative POV nickname meant to convey the impression of wrongdoing is contrary to every principal of NPOV, especially as those involved in this affair have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Wikipedia has a long-standing approach of avoiding the use of such nicknames. Third, using scare quotes is itself an expression of POV. Scare quotes are used to express disagreement with a term. The use of scare quotes in an article title for any purpose is a violation of POV in itself, as it expresses an editorial disagreement with the term or phrase being scare-quoted. I am frankly very surprised indeed that Jimbo has suggested this, as it completely undermines the principles that he's put forward for years. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Climategate is a pejorative term and the scare quotes are a bit much. The current title seems much more neutral. AniMate 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The terms "Climategate" and "the so-called Climategate scandal" refer to the interpretation put on the episode by climate change deniers. The episode had significance for them because they wrongly believed that it would show that global warming was a hoax. The event itself would never have received as much attention had the subject matter not had the same political significance. Unfortunately no generally accepted term for the incident has developed and probably never will. TFD (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Jimbo and WP:google "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" =4,930 results, "climategate" =3,210,000 results.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

section break

Well it appears this title shall not garner a consensus, Shall we try for just plain old climategate controversy then? mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious even to you that any title that includes "Climategate" is not going to go anywhere. Give it up - this endless relitigation of an issue that was closed some time ago is just plain disruptive. I would have thought that, from your point of view, it would be inadvisable to cause further needless disruption only a few days before an arbitration case involving you is going to be decided. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not seriously contemplating a third move proposal in less than a week, are you?? BigK HeX (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

These are the sorts of tactics that were seen in the Obama-related articles a year ago, which necessitated some lengthy topic bans. Hopefully the pending ArbCom case on this topic will respond the same, as threatening yet another RfC on the heels of this one is pure disruption. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes heaven forbid we actually follow policy and use the same name the sources use. I have yet to see a reason within policy which says this name can`t be used. And the POV pushers are those who remove the term from article content, also against policy mark nutley (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus did not side with you on two recent proposals, and so your solution is to push for a third? I think there's a word for that...

In any case, I'm pretty sure at this point enough nerves have been grated that an RfC for a third move will be followed pretty quickly by an RfC for User Conduct citing disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea what your on about, my one proposal is still ongoing up above. This compromise was Jimbo`s idea not mine, i am not doing a third RFC s this one is still running mark nutley (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to attempt that defense if an RFC/USER is started, but I (and I'm sure many others) would consider each of these issues brought to a !vote, as a separate request for comment. By my count, there have been two already. Personally, I'd consider it pretty blatantly disruptive for anyone to start a third on the heels of the last two. BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until after ArbCom announces its proposed decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy based reasons for not using Climategate

I see plenty of reasons within policy to use the term climatgate for this article, but have not seen any actual policy based reasons for it`s exclusion. Lets see the arguments within policy against using what the sources use please mark nutley (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been adressed about a million times. The word "Climategate" is not used by a consensus of the sources. When used, it is nearly always placed in "scare quotes" to "indicate that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase itself) ... or that the writer feels it is a misnomer." Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: This 'scare quotes' objection has absolutely no basis in any policy or guideline that I am aware of. Can you please point us to which policy or guideline says that we should use the most common name except when sometimes used in quotes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say what you say I said. I said what I said, no more, no less. "The word "Climategate" is not used by a consensus of the sources." Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so what are they using then? mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of turns of phrase. How is that relevent? When there's no consensus of the sources for proper names for events which incorporate non-neutral terms , we instead use a descriptive title, like the one we reached a compromise on the last time we had this little back-and-forth. With that, I consider this section closed, and will not respond again. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So none then, there are no other phrases being used other than climategate, so there is in fact a consensus of sources over the name, thanks for agreeing mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Policy-based reasons are generally given above when a person enters their oppose point-of-view, many citing WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEO, etc...in general words if not always citing our favorite wiki-acronyms. No one is obligated to make some sort of meta-argument within this section to explain their RfC point of view to your satisfaction, when their justification can clearly be read above. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• MN, your behavior here resembles rather blatant WP:IDHT, and is certainly not productive. BigK HeX (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Virginia fraud investigation about Michael Mann as a result of the Climategate emails

Unless there is an objection, I will be adding this to the Other Responses section of the article.

On May 4, 2010, it was reported that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had initiated a Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Virginia Code §8.01-216.1. et seq.) investigation into the activities of Mann while he was a professor and researcher at the University of Virginia.(fn1)(fn2) On April 23, 2010, Cuccinelli served a demand that the university produce all available documents and correspondence of Mann, based on the possibility of fraud in the administration of four federal grants and one state grant.(fn2) The university's Faculty Senate has condemned the action and the "potential threat of legal prosecution."(fn2) The university has refused to produce the documents,(fn3) and in early July, Cuccinelli responded to the university's petition in the Albemarle County Circuit Court.(fn4)(fn5) The investigation is focused partially on whether Mann's Hockey Stick graph and other research "fraudulently manipulated data was used to win government funding and/or submitted in an effort to claim payment in government funded grants."(fn6) Mann has claimed the investigation is vindictive.(fn6)

fn1. "Va. AG investigates Climategate scientist". United Press International. May 4, 2010. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
fn2. "Science subpoenaed". Nature. 465. Nature Publishing Group: 135–136. 2010. doi:10.1038/465135b.
fn3. "UVA challenges Ken Cuccinelli's motives in climate research case". Richmond Times Dispatch. July 21, 2010. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
fn4. Helderman, Rosalind (July 13, 2010). "Cuccinelli uses court filing to dispute Mann climate research". Washington, DC: Washington Post Virginia Politics blog. Retrieved July 26, 2010. (editorial control over contents exercised by Washington Post)
fn5. Brief in Opposition to Petition, The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia v. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, No. CL10000398-00, July 13, 2010

fn6. O'Dell, Larry (July 13, 2010). "Va AG: Academic freedom no bar to climate probe". Lebanon Daily News. Retrieved July 26, 2010.

Comments are welcome, and please let me know if there are any objections to the sources, as I have about 100 to choose from. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you really have 100 reliable sources about it, it might merit its own, separate article. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this will do for now. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Already in Cuccinelli's bio, and in Mann's. Belongs in both of them. Doesn't merit more than a sentence here - the investigation by Penn State is a little peripheral. Cuccinelli's fishing expedition is a bit more of a stretch. Much as he may deserve it, it's inappropriate to use this article to mock Cuccinelli. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - the investigation is a direct result of the Climategate scandal and belongs in other responses. Irrespective of the wisdom of it, it is an investigation by a governmental body into possible misconduct that arose out of the scandal. GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a significant part of the controversy, and unlikely to become one. WP:NOT#NEWS. And there is nothing new in Cuccinelli's posturing except for some minor political wrangling. If anything comes of it, we can consider where to put it. Now it's just undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are a hundred sources for it as stated above then i don`t think undue wil cut it mate mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the number of sources is not a good indicator for weight if they are low-quality or local papers or just agency reprints. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, so are you saying that with the VA AG's Office stating "The revelations of Climate-gate indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions," that it's not related to Climategate? Or is it that you think that there should be a separate article? GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused. I thought I was replying to your (identical?) suggestion over at Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. But note that I did not say anything about relationships at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GregJack, if you decide to do a separate article on it, please draft it in your userspace or offline first before posting a completed, final version to mainspace. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This proposal would give a megaphone to a political stunt by a far-right ideologue. Read his bio. Not a good idea. Figureofnine (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't take sides on these topics, we just report what the sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we are not just reporting what the sources are saying. See WP:IINFO. We summarise, organise, and select what we present. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cuccinelli has also sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its determination that greenhouse gases are harmful." Sounds like a plot for a wonderful comedy film. Should play well in Peoria. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(@Cla68) That's an interesting point, because the proposed text actually doesn't report what the sources are saying. It just reiterates Cuccinelli's press release. Looking only at the sources listed by GregJackP (I haven't done my own search), they consistently tell a different story. Nature calls Mann an "internationally respected climate scientist", describes Cuccinelli's actions as a "witch hunt", compares them to the tobacco industry's effort to bog down honest scientists with vexatious litigation (noting that "climate-change deniers have adopted similar strategies with alacrity and, unfortunately, considerable success"), and speculates that Cuccinelli is motivated by a desire to pander to far-right political constituencies. WSLS focuses mostly on UVa's response, which accuses Cuccinelli of chilling honest scientific inquiry and academic freedom. The Washington Post blog and Lebanon Daily News similarly provide more context (including UVa's response) that is missing from GregJackP's proposed text. All of these sources clearly and prominently establish that Cuccinelli is a climate-change skeptic, and frame his investigation in that context. All of this is in the sources, but not in GregJackP's proposed text, so I don't see how we're honoring NPOV or "reporting what the sources are saying". MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant that we don't determine when or when not to write an article based on the perceived motivations of the people involved. If the majority of the sources are saying that it is a politically-motivated publicity stunt, then the article or section in this article can reflect that. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember, it was an investigation by a US Congressional committee which produced the North and Wegman reports which upheld many, if not most, of McIntyre's and McKitrick's findings on issues with MBH98 and 99. So, government inquiries into research conduct by scientists is not necessarily something of minor importance. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate - New York Times – "endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body." NAS inquiries into science are significant, witch hunts into use of state funding are merely reminders of the acts of political proponents of the minority view among governments. Worth mentioning briefly as politics, without distorting the clear scientific consensus view. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

off topic

It's a shameful, politically-motivated witch hunt that has nothing to do with this article, and it's a dishonorable attempt to impede the working of climate science. The barbarians are at the gates. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC) As the CRU has discovered, as long as scientists' research is at least partially funded with taxpayer revenue, they are going to have to get used to having the government, and some of the taxpayers themselves, looking over their shoulders. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC) "NASA reports that global average temperature from January to June also was the hottest on record. Average temperature for the 12 months ending last March was the highest since record-keeping began, the federal space agency said. That record was broken again the following month - and yet again in May...On Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders announced they were abandoning efforts to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation before the August recess - which means the bill probably is dead until after the mid-term elections in November...The ramifications of that failure will linger for years to come. While China is gearing up to make record investments in clean energy, the United States is going nowhere."[49] Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to Cla68 and Viriditas: please don't use this talk page for general exchange of opinions about matters unrelated to improving the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can't agree with the depiction of Wikipedia as a stenography service for the most extreme elements in American political life, herein engaged in a politically motivated witch hunt. I'm not saying don't report it, but one sentence is more than enough. Figureofnine (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the theft of data from the CRU, or the fauxtroversy that followed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm a new user and that this is a highly.... volatile... subject matter. However, it seems to me that while Cuccinelli's actions are highly pertinent to the broader global warming controversy, they are only tangentially related to the CRU incident. Both his EPA lawsuit and FATA investigation were prompted, according to Cuccinelli, by the "Climategate" emails. So perhaps it makes sense to have a sentence or two about it here.

As a result of the CRU incident, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli sued the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent the implementation of the regulation of carbon emission in February, 2010. . Furthermore, in April, Cuccinelli launched an investigation into possible fraud by Michael Mann while he was a professor at the University of Virginia, also in response to this incident.

Does this sound like a reasonable and fair statement, and appropriate to the relevance to this article? Being too new, I can't edit the article myself... Also, there is probably a better reference available for the second statement. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that for the time being, provided the basis for the fraud investigation is mentioned, i.e., that the alledged fraud involves 5 taxpayer-funded grants of just under US$500,000. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's better than the absurd original proposal. There needs to be some kind of response from the accused parties. Figureofnine (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two arguments against expanding it substantially more than I have already suggested. 1.) The more information included, the more likely the opposing viewpoint is going to want to counter that information, and thus the paragraph length and breadth will spiral out of control. 2.) Cuccinelli's legal actions are only tangentially related to Climategate. Statements about Michael Mann's grant size from the American government or arguments from an American university are not relevant to leaked emails from a UK university (although they are all relevant to a separate article on the subject matter, which should be linked to from here).Sailsbystars (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it belong in the Cuccinelli article, not this one. By response, I mean something like this.[50]. Just a sentence. Figureofnine (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than (1) cluttering up this article, (2) coatracking some other article or (3) having some random individual create a POV-laden pile of junk that's fit only for AfD, I decided that the best option here was for a moderate, experienced, middle-of-the-road editor - i.e. me - to create a properly sourced, neutrally worded article on this subject. It's something I've been thinking of doing for a while, as there are more than enough sources to cover it and it does raise some significant issues. See Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation for the results. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I accept that the title is a bit of a mouthful, so let's just call it Cuccinelligate, shall we? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good, NPOV description of the topic to me. It appears to me that UVa has a good chance of getting Cuccinelli's petition dismissed on legal grounds. If that occurs, we'll have to decide whether to keep the article or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV... again

Several editors have been repeatedly adding back in a contentious POV tag with the summary "see talk", and despite being prompted for it here, no-one has actually articulated the concerns (the closest is complaining about a copyvio). This is bordering on disruptive editing, and an abuse of the NPOV resolution process. You're supposed to add the tag after you state your concerns, not to repeatedly revert the tag back in without fronting up with your concerns. A dispute that doesn't exist logically cannot be resolved, so I repeat -- what are the issues; how can we solve them? StuartH (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Do you see the huge discussion about the POV of the article title above this thread? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's the title, the wrong tag is being used (should be POV-title). But the taggers are not talking about the article title.

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

This has not been done. Also, if it's the title, it's another example of why forum shopping it as an RfC is a bad idea - a tag about a proposed page move would be more appropriate given a rename is proposed. But seeing as the rename being proposed is far more POV than the current one, maybe not. StuartH (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's more than the title, the entire article reads like a UAE talking points memo. Keep in mind that several editors, such as me, are trying not to spend too much time on this article because ArbCom asked us not to. Please don't use attempts to comply with ArbCom's request as an excuse to say that POV issues have been solved A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. It doesn't matter why you can't explain your concerns (ArbCom or otherwise), if you can't, don't add the tag. (And once again, what does the United Arab Emirates have to do with this?)StuartH (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is up to you to explain that all POV disputes have been resolved. Can you please demonstrate that this burden of proof has been met? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

For a POV dispute to be resolved, it must be articulated. The policy explicitly states that this must be done by whoever adds the tag. At the moment, all we have is a chain of "see talk" and "the whole article is POV". The taggers have been repeatedly asked to articulate their concerns, but instead they just add the tag back in without commenting. As one of the taggers, you have an opportunity to do so here. StuartH (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you're expecting, Stuart. Academics colluding to cover up an entirely made up "scientific phenomenon," (man-made global warming,) is analogous to Congressmen and CEOs of bankrupt companies voting themselves a nice, hefty pay raise every year.97.125.26.246 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is a perfect example of what I mean about denial crowd not being happy until we have a libelous mirror of Conservapedia. But still no articulation of the POV concerns. In fact, the tag was added by Hipocrite, who accepts that the original dispute had been resolved. Therefore the tag should clearly go until a new dispute is raised according to the NPOV dispute process. StuartH (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that several editors, such as me, are trying not to spend too much time on this article because ArbCom asked us not to. - this is spurious. Firstly, because arbcomm didn't - one arb made a passing request, which is clearly void as it is being ignored. Second, if you're going to be good and comply then please do - don't fail to comply and then try to trumpet your virtue. And the tag is pointless. Your objections now seem to have spread to "the entire article" yet you make no attempt to improve it. If you aren't going to help, then please stop reverting the tag until you *are* prepared to help William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is up to you to explain that all POV disputes have been resolved"? Where did that come from, AQFN? Please quote the policy or guideline that says that. --Nigelj (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: I'm going to assume good faith that you're not going to WikiLawyer about exact verbiage so to answer your question, it's right there in the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Has the dispute been resolved? Obviously not if editors are still discussing the POV issues of this article. Another thing to keep in mind is that when editors argue about whether a NPOV dispute exists, that usually means that it does, and you should leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asked what the dispute is. We can't resolve a dispute that doesn't exist. The tag is a 'last resort', and should serve as a platform for improving the article, but it is instead being used as an IDONTLIKEIT badge. If the concerns are raised, we can address them. If they have already been raised, it should be simple to point to where the 'specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons' are discussed. The original dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the tagger (Hipocrite). Anyone adding the tag back in without raising a new dispute is engaging in disruptive editing. StuartH (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your question has been answered numerous times. Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. The entire article is POV, and we're addressing it from the top down, starting with the title. The tag should stay until the issues have been addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy is clear. It's not valid to say "the entire article is POV", you must state (for the I've-forgottenth time) the specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Titles aren't directly covered by the tag, but there is a requested move discussion that should run its course and the only relevance to the NPOV guidelines is that there are people pushing for the current title to be changed to a POV one. The only suggestion that the current title is POV is from Kittybrewster, who is yet to raise it as an official NPOV dispute, and is yet to add the tag. If that is done, and the other requirements are met, we can discuss it. Same as any dispute. We're going round in circles with all the "see talk", "I can't tell you because ArbCom told me not to" and "Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you", but we can stop going around in circles if someone just states what the problem is. StuartH (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The stubborn resistance to read this very talk page and the stubborn insistence that editors constantly repeat all the POV issues in this article is both tendentious and disruptive. But off the top of my head, the following POV issues that have been discussed in the last couple weeks or so: 1) Article title, 2) Article image, 3) Overuse of primary sources, 4) Undue weight given to UAE's position, 5) No Lack of use of the word "scandal" in the entire article, 6) Lack of use of the word "Climategate" in the article. Again, that's off the top of my head. I might have missed a few. Arguably the POV dispute in this article is probably the biggest POV dispute in all of Wikipedia right now. Are editors seriously going to insist that there is no a POV dispute? I mean, seriously? Is this what we've come to?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that the article should be perpetually tagged so long as all 6 points are not resolved in a way that is satisfactory to you? (This is a serious question.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not every single one. But to argue that there isn't a POV dispute when obviously there is one is both tendentious and disruptive. I hope that ArbCom is watching this page and will examine the conduct of every editor who's falsely claiming that there isn't a POV dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, was it really that difficult? It seems most of your points relate to the current article not pushing a POV when you think it should (scandal/climategate/etc., all words to avoid), not using a copyvio image, undue weight being given to an Arab federation which isn't mentioned in the article (sorry to push the point, but you keep making the same mistake, even when pointed out to you), and the title (which is currently being discussed... but is currently neutral). And the only remotely valid point - an overuse of primary sources - can be resolved if specific cases are pointed to. Note that primary sources are not disallowed, and this is a case where some level of reference to the primary sources (particularly the reports) is appropriate. If there's interpretation or analysis being taken from primary sources, that should be resolved. So we're getting somewhere, and we would get further with more specific examples and a description of what it would take to satisfy you. StuartH (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I found that answering all the WP:ICANTHEARYOU objections to be quite difficult, but I think I've finally pulled it off - at least partially. The answers to these questions are all over this talk page and the talk page archives, but it doesn't help when people don't bother reading them. As for the rest of your post, this too has already been answered multiple times, but most recently here.[51] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, I'm confused.

1. I accept that there is some dispute over the title, obviously.
2. What's PoV about the image? What image would work better?
3. Not a PoV prolem, it's a different tag ({tl|primarysources}}
4. Where is undue weight given to the UAE, exactly? What would you remove to lessen their weight?
5. Scandal appears in the Media reception section, though that's about how it was a manufactured scandal. Where have people attempted to add the word scandal to the article and had that rejected?
6. The word "Climategate" appears in the info box, in the first sentence, in the Other responses section twice and in the Media reception section twice. How many times does it need to appear to not have a "lack of use?" Where else does it need using? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the image, I believe he's talking about the deleted copyvio. If so, that's not an actionable issue, so it's fair to ignore it. With respect to the UAE - again, I assume he means UEA, not the Emirates, although the fact that this error has been pointed out twice suggests to me that AQFK isn't actually reading the responses to his comments. That, coupled with the fact that two of his complaints are factually untrue (No use of the word "scandal" in the entire article and Lack of use of the word "Climategate" in the article) suggests to me that none of his complaints are serious. He's just continuing to be disruptive. Ignore him. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is clearly a scandal. When we discussed Yale's "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust", I noted that they use the term, "Climategate" 24 times in report compared to our article which only uses it once. They also call Climategate a scandal 10 times in their report compared to our article which only uses it once. In fact, they plainly state that "Climategate [is] an international scandal". BTW, spelling flames are lame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? You clearly didn't internalize it. You write "our article which only uses it once." But it dosen't - and I listed the uses in my list. Please respond to my points, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this confirms my suspicions. Nothing in his/her reply to suggest that AQFK has read anything Hip or I said. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it and I would appreciate it if you actually address what I am saying and not what you imagine I am saying. Again, I'm trying to honor ArbCom's request and not spend too much time on this article until they announce their proposed decision. Admittedly, when I saw ChrisO threatening editors on Friday, that piqued my curiosity so I have spent some time on that one. Then yesterday, someone opened an RfC on the article title. Personally I think the RfC was premature and never should have been made, but it's out of my hands. So the RfC was placed and I've spent way too much time and effort on this article to not respond. In the course of these discussions, someone wanted a list of POV issues, and I provided one based on my recollection of what's been discussed in the past couple weeks or so. Nothing more; nothing less. So, if you're expecting me to discuss six different issues at once, no, I'm not going to do that when I didn't even want to be involved in the first two. Personally, I'd rather everyone just sit tight until ArbCom announces their proposed decision. Is that clear now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you read the responses, would you be so kind as to address the issues raised? That would be much appreciated. If you aren't willing to address these issues, there's no way to move forward on your concerns. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. We do it one at a time. Like it or not, someone filed an RfC and I am participating in that discussion. But for editors to claim that there's not a POV dispute is patently absurd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be phrased "...there is no legitimate POV dispute", if that helps to clarify matters for you. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there's a legitimate POV dispute per all the reasons already given multiple times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you put "'Climategate' controversy" into wp search it redirects here, i.e. moot at best, diversionary resource-wasting tactics, ultimately inefficient. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over POV tag

Please follow not only the WP pillars, but the conventions of civility generally accepted by adults in today's society. OK, the tag is presently off. Please leave it off until a list is given here that justifies reattaching it. It doesn't have to be a long list. It could even be one good reason. Current discussion precludes using a disagreement about the title. Forget about that for now. Example:

Tagging article POV because:

1. [A specific statement]

2. [Omission of a specific statement]

--Yopienso (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No position on this tag, but typically an edit war over an NPOV tag, especially one that has more than two participants on the side of trying to add it, indicates that there is a legitimate question about whether the article is NPOV and further edit warring should cease, with the tag in place, until the matter is resolved and there is a clear consensus that there is not an NPOV issue. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with this. Unfortunately, this is a case of a NPOV tag being slapped on as a badge of shame because a minority of editors supporting a fringe point of view disagrees with the neutral positions taken in the article. They seek to shoehorn their fringe viewpoints into the article and are forced to rely on the tactic of wikilawyering. This is not a dispute about the neutrality of the article, but rather it is a dissatisfaction with the neutrality of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The article is not neutral, from the title to the last period. It has nothing to do with a so-called badge of shame, it has to do with the suppression of all other viewpoints. Just because some of the scientists don't agree with the herd does not mean that their views are fringe. By that thought process, Columbus would have never come to the Americas (because the scientific consensus at the time was that the world was flat), etc. The article is not neutral, it espouses a POV, and any attempt to resolve it is disputed to the point of filibuster. GregJackP Boomer! 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm always amazed how often Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q15 comes in handy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, GregJackP... What point-of-view do you feel is overrepresented or underrepresented? Do you believe, say, that the article contains disproportionately opinions of those who believe the inquiries properly investigated the incident, and not enough of those who did not? Or do your concerns lie elsewhere? Anyone else, feel free to opine? - DGaw (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the section Irving's biography of Columbus in our article Myth of the Flat Earth is also POV because it doesn't give your position about Columbus (a known false popular misconception, as the article explains) equal or better validity than the historical truth? What are you going to do about it? Put a POV tag on that article too?

This looks like a clear case of conspiracy theory/ignorance pushing to me. Hans Adler 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans. Understood. Which could mean that it is, in fact, a clear case of conspiracy theory/ignorance pushing. Or it could mean that you agree with a point-of-view that's being advanced, and therefore don't perceive a problem. Hence my question to those who believe the article is taking a non-neutral position: what position do you believe it's taking?

I think it's also worth noting that this particular article is not about climate change per se, which I presume is the subject about which you believe ignorance is being expressed. It's about the CRU incident, about which the truth of falsehood of AGW is largely irrelevant. - DGaw (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - DGaw (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Commodum ex iniuria sua nemo habere debet. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pace!  :) - DGaw (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys must be Celtic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how long the Columbus myth was going to be allowed to stand.... BigK HeX (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Whatever. It certainly seems very appropriate when someone pushes the ridiculous meme of a conspiracy of scientists to invent global warming with reference to another, equally discredited meme, that is similarly repeated by the media and a large number of non-experts including some pseudo-experts as if it was credible. Hans Adler 21:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article is not neutral "from the title to the last period" makes my case for me. Despite hundreds of editors contributing thousands of man hours to the article, you claim it's all no good. That's a stunning admission of bad faith on your part, so what right do you have to question my good faith? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of 'fringe.' Also, bad example. Columbus was indeed a bit of a crank. Tsumetai (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey: Huh? What? Who are you accusing of supporting a fringe viewpoint? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think it would be blindingly obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we even have very many skeptical editors left? Most were topic banned months ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, if you add the POV badge, it needs to be a temporary measure to improve the article, and the concerns need to be stated on the talk page. The concerns which led to the first addition of the tag were resolved, but other editors were acting tendentiously and disruptively with drive-by tagging without backing up the tagging, despite being repeatedly prompted. There's a persistent fringe on global warming articles who would not be happy with anything short of a Conservapedia mirror, so if the fringe being upset about the current neutrality is taken as grounds for a POV badge, it's going to stay indefinitely and never improve the article.

Take the current title - it's a neutral compromise and has been the subject of repeated attempts to change it to a non-neutral title since last year. Those attempts have repeatedly failed, and there's another attempt currently taking place which looks destined for failure just like the others. Since the "Climategate"rs aren't getting their way, they're just adding the tag to say "I don't like it" because their efforts have been consistently and repeatedly rejected. The only way they will be satisfied is with a proposal that the community has rejected, so the tag is inappropriate here.

On the other hand, concerns have finally been raised by AQFK. They're wholly without merit and still not entirely specific, but at least we can talk about them now. StuartH (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? They've been raised all over this talk page and the talk page archives. You just weren't reading them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I wasn't aware that using a simple analogy would go right over y'alls heads. I also thought I was at Wikipedia, not Citizendium, but whatever. As for the Latinphiles among us, consider Rident stolidi verba Latina and Supprime tuum stultiloquium - but for those of y'all that speak Texian, you can put your boots in the oven, but that ain't gonna make 'em biscuits. In any event, to those that don't see a vast conspiracy behind every bush, DGaw is correct - this is about the scandal, not the science. GregJackP Boomer! 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then explain why every source favoring the climate denialist fringe inevitably attacks the science? I don't think anyone seriously buys the argument that this is "about the scandal, not the science". This manufactured "scandal" is solely devoted to attacking the science, and hiding behind cover claims that this is about a "scandal". That doesn't wash. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All 3 reviews (4 if you count Penn) were about the scandal, not the science. (Note that by "scandal" I refer to the brouhaha/row/uproar/media coverage without implying wrongdoing on the part of the CRU. As we know, some wrongdoing regarding FOI was found, but no fraud was found.) --Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Jones writing an email advocating destroying information subject to an FOIA request "manufacturing" a scandal? What Jones proposed was a crime in the U.K. - granted he lucked out due to the statute of limitations, but you cannot withhold information. Nothing manufactured there - he did it himself. Yet there is next to nothing in the current article that covers that in a neutral way. GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever it is that feels the article is POV, please list using numbered bullets, your objects below and we can discuss them one-by-one. I'll start with the first one. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Title should be "Climategate" because that is the term most often used in the media- This may be true, but the majority opinions in the most recent RfCs on the issue (above) rejected that title. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Insufficient use of the word "Climategate".
3. Insufficient use of the word "scandal".
4. Undue weight being given to the University of East Anglia's position.
5. Insufficient coverage of the initial allegations and undue weight on the scientists being cleared.
6. Insufficient coverage of allegations that the investigations weren't truly independent.
7. Over-use of POV terms like "deniers" and "sceptics." I'm striking "deniers" because neither it nor "denier" is used at all, according to my page search tool. --Yopienso (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Over-use of primary sources.
9. Insufficient weight given to the opinion that the emails may have been stolen by an insider, not hacked from the outside.

Might as well move some of the concerns from above down here. I haven't moved the WP:NFCC and WP:PRIMARY ones, since those aren't related to the POV discussion. We'll let it play out for a bit, and hopefully give each concern its own section to discuss further. StuartH (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Added a couple more. GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

StuartH:[52] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the POV tag is justified until these concerns are resolved. I'll readd and ask that it not be removed until they are. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how the current title counts as a POV issue. I think I understand why people want it changed, but the current title is about as neutral as they come. Could somebody who feels this is a legitimate POV issue explain exactly what POV the current title favours? Tsumetai (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

People who want it changed don't want a neutral title. They want a title that reflects their own POV. This is all they have left after the fauxtroversy failed spectacularly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal"

Without opening a fifth simultaneous title discussion, let's start addressing the concerns. It's pretty ridiculous that insufficient use of non-neutral terms to avoid is being used as grounds for tagging the article as POV. The tag is supposed to be about disputing the neutrality of an article, not objecting to its neutrality. "Climategate" has been used a number of times, but it is a loaded term that must be used with caution because it implies wrongdoing. Same with scandal. It is only used once in the article, and it is attributed to the party using the term, as it should be. If the issue is that we're not being biased, this one just has no prospect of resolution. StuartH (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would those who believe that the term is used insufficiently in the article now give their reasons why? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLETEST,WP:GOOGLEHITS "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" =4,930 results, "climategate" =3,210,000 results.--Duchamps_comb MFA 08:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The incident is not called a scandal even once in the article, except in a dismissing way: manufactured scandal, yet in the MSM we find it called a scandal:

• The Eastern Daily Press (Norfolk's newspaper)
• The Sunday Times
• The Telegraph
• The Liverpool Echo
• The Scotsman
• Nature News
• The Boston Globe
• The Washington Post
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The Los Angeles Times
• Il Tempo
• Etc.

This is not a "Google list", nor an exhaustive one; there are many more. All these links take you to an article in which the headline or body or both call the incident a scandal, and in several cases, the "Climategate scandal." (You may find using page search a help in finding the word if it isn't in the headline or lede.) It would seem that avoiding the word scandal is not, in fact, neutral, but POV in suppressing what the MSM calls it.

I looked and did not find the word "scandal" used in The Guardian, the Yorkshire Evening Press, the NYT, or the Miami Herald. --Yopienso (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all of those sources are either outdated or slanted opinion pieces. Please find more current, reliable sources for use in this article. We don't write articles from the POV of outdated sources. For a good example of an article that had to change not just its focus after the incident and event concluded, but also the title, see the history of Balloon boy hoax. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, we have our own policies and usage guides. In particular, WP:LABEL says that contentious labels should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So they should always come with in-text attribution, and if they're not widely used, they shouldn't be used at all. With several sources managing to avoid the term for good reason, we also need to consider exactly what we gain by littering the article with pejorative "climategate! climategate! scandal! scandal! climategate! scandal!" edits. "Scandal" has neutral equivalents such as "controversy"; "climategate" can be used as an in-text attribution where relevant, but doesn't need to appear in every sentence. Again, this, like most of the concerns isn't a dispute about the article being neutral, it's a complaint about it being neutral. StuartH (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that not to accurately describe it as a scandal is not neutral. Even Jimbo states it is a scandal, "It is absolutely implausible to say that no aspect of this incident is or has been described as a scandal. It is a scandal, if anything ever was." Yet that word doesn't appear in the article but once, and then in a dismissive way. It is the term used by the media thousands of times. GregJackP Boomer! 10:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw man. It's not that it has never been described as a scandal, it's that our policies dictate that we not describe it as such. StuartH (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true. See Watergate scandal, Lewinsky scandal, United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Black Sox Scandal, BALCO Scandal, etc. Wikipedia policy does not require that we censor what it is called in the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. May I ask, how is this article a scandal in the same way as the articles you've listed above? A brief reply should suffice. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't even apply. That essay is about notability in keep/delete discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly applies, and OSE reasoning can be used in any discussion and is not limited to AfD. "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" are also arguments to avoid in many other Wikipedia discussions, as they are usually fallacious at their core. GregJackP has argued that because other articles exist which have scandal in their titles, this one should as well, otherwise we are guilty of censorship. I then asked him to explain the similarities in the articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it did apply (which it doesn't), that doesn't give you free reign to just invoke it without justification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question. How is the topic of this article like Watergate scandal, Lewinsky scandal, United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Black Sox Scandal, and BALCO Scandal? Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they were all scandals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are six scandals listed above, four of which are political, and two sports-related. CRU does not seem to fit that pattern. There's no sex, no betting, and no political parties warring against each other. So, where does this article fit? We have a hacking or theft of e-mails, and then a public posting of those e-mails, and then an unprecedented, coordinated and sustained attack against climate scientists in the media just before the major climate conference at Copenhagen. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that when someone says "here are some articles called scandals, what makes this article like those?" for someone to respond "This article is about scandal," I am hard pressed to continue to assume good faith. Perhaps you should stop responding, Viriditas? Unless those who would like the PoV tag to remain present specific and actionable changes to the article, perhaps those of us who want it removed should just wait a few weeks and then say "you've had a few weeks to propose specific and actionable changes, or to make specific changes to fix the article - you've done neither. We are removing the tag." Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe we should start noting those that are climate scandal deniers. Read some of the 60,000 GHits for the "Climategate scandal" - only someone with their head in the sand would not describe this as a scandal. Why were there multiple investigations into the scandal launched? GregJackP Boomer! 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Google bombing isn't evidence for anything. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you say the hacked CRU e-mail was a scandal in the same way, as say the resignation of Shirley Sherrod? Newsweek called that manufactured controversy a scandal (with scare quotes)[53] yet the word isn't used once in the article. Why not? What about the manufactured controversy leading to the resignation of Van Jones? Was that a scandal, too? Isn't it interesting that this incident began with shrill calls for the resignation of Phil Jones? Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is worse. As noted above, evidence of criminal activity was found in Climategate, while none was found in the Sherrod case. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this covered in the current article? Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sufficiently. GregJackP Boomer! 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Explain how it should be covered. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP is flat-out wrong. Evidence of "criminal activity" was not found. The Deputy Information Commissioner said that the emails were "prima facie" [i.e. at first sight] evidence of a breach of the Freedom of Information Act. No further investigation took place and no determination was ever made of whether the emails actually showed that any breach had taken place. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a simple breach of FOIA constitutes criminal activity anyway. Tsumetai (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. The process is as follows: the ICO first investigates a complaint, and "Where the ICO is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with any of the requirements of part I of FOIA or parts 2 and 3 of the EIR it may serve that authority with an enforcement notice." If the enforcement notice is ignored, it can certify that fact to a court for the court to deal with as contempt of court. See its enforcement policy here. No investigation took place in this case because the statutory six-month cut-off point for enforcement action had already passed. Because of that, there was no enforcement notice issued, and obviously no court proceeding. Legal action is only taken after an enforcement notice is issued and only after the target persistently refuses to comply with the enforcement notice. That is a very, very rare event (in fact, I can't think of any cases of it happening). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, hacking the email server may have been a criminal act. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)