Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After more than 180 kb of debate, community consensus on a title for this article is still lacking. The previous RFC (linked in Gerardw's post below) may have been interpreted as yielding consensus in favor of a move, but the discussion under this move request has failed to affirm that conclusion, as opinions in favor and against were about evenly split. WP:RM says that consensus should be achieved in a move request for a page to be moved; I am usually generous in recognizing consensus on contentious move requests, but in this case I am unable to detect any consensus. Ucucha 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is from the FAQ Nigelj keeps citing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - I'm not a fan of the suggested name, but the RfC demonstrates a clear consensus in favour of Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I will say that I am none to impressed to keep seeing this article come up at WP:RM. What are we at 3 times in the last 3 months. Whatever the conclusion, I don't really want to keep seeing this article at WP:RM.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)}

I do not agree to the impression (by Labattblueboy and some others) that the RfC resulted in a clear consensus. There seemed to be no consensus for a week since the RfC started on 9 Feb. The section "Available options according to community" started 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC). That section did contain a poll between one proposed new name and the present one which was favorable to the new one. But it took time less than two days before the present Request for Move here. Many participants here missed to participate there.--Masudako (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• If this is really an issue of naming, GoRight's suggestions are very reasonable. But I think we actually debate the scope of the article, whether its focus should be an "incident" or a "controvesy". Within the choice of "controversy", there is another very big issue of scope, to what extent we should discuss (for instance) IPCC. Within the choice of "incident", there is an issue of naming rather than of scope, whether we should avoid the word "hacking" (either because of the uncertain details about the incident or because of connotation of the term). The debate does not seem to reach consensus. Then, shall we proceed formally as if we just have an issue of naming?--Masudako (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I've said before, why not have two articles, one focused on the incident, the other focused on the controversy? It would be a simple split. Moogwrench (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

proposed addition to the introductory section

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

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

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

• Support I support this proposed addition. Evensong (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I can support addition of introduction, but I oppose the particular plan by TMLutas. The errors of IPCC have little to do with the leaked documents at CRU. I agree that there may be an issue covering both and more. If you want an artcle for the issue, please consider starting a new article. If this were the article with the title "Climategate" now, the shift of scope following that of the word may be justified. But the history that it was called so does not justify the shift.--Masudako (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I do not mean that you can add the problems of IPCC if the title were "Climategate". Inclusion of the issue of IPCC (e.g. errors in the reports of the Working Group 2) implies a much broader definition of "Climategate" than a relatively small controversy about CRU e-mail documents discussed here. It should discuss the role of scientists in the issue of global climate change, and explain the roles of IPCC and CRU appropriately, and what are problems about them. Perhaps the fact is relevant that Tom Wigley, then director of CRU, discussed anthropogenic global warming long before it became a mainstream issue. But you cannot exaggerate to say such thing (just for a funny example) that he created IPCC. --Masudako (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose While I think there's some truth to the statement, it smacks of Original Research and Synthesis. At a minimum, someone proposing the addition of factual information to an article has the duty to supply some references—it's not even worth debating the question with seeing the relevant references. Even if there are some, then we have to debate the scope of this article. As I have noted previously, the media are expanding the scope of the term climategate and this goes in that direction, but we do not have close to a consensus that this article should cover the broader consensus.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pure original research, with absolutely nothing in the body of the article that supports this conflation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Without a solid source I would have to Oppose inclusion. JPatterson (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Adverbs_that_editorialize - i.e. "unusually" large number of corrections. Can someone just split this article already? 1 for hack, 1 for controversy? Moogwrench (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose - unfortunately, the article as stated is about a hacking incident (one which noone can prove happened), so strictly the article should be about this hack and everything else removed. Obviously, the information you suggest should go in an article called "climategate", but for obvious reasons, this is being opposed by POV pushers who don't want wikipedia to explain the scandal. In an ideal world, I would suggest creating one article in which to put all the related "interest" that has come from the release of the emails because otherwise (if it were covered in a neutral way), they'd be dozens of articles. However, creating such a catch-all article whilst beneficial to anyone with a real interest in understanding these events, clearly isn't going to get past the people who want to keep all the smaller bits of climategate out of Wikipedia by saying they are all individually not notable. And, to be honest, the wording sucks - to my mind you should just speak the truth and to hell with the petty politics of the POV pushers, which is why I don't try and edit this article! 88.110.2.122 (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly original research. StuartH (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hacking?

Answer A5 above conflicts with the neutrality claimed as a Wikipedia objective in answer A1. It also presupposes guilt rather than innocence as is the tradition in the US and much of the western world. Given that an "inquiry" does not mean a crime has occurred, I propose the title of this article be changed to "Climatic Research Unit email incident." That title is neutral on the controversial subject of whether, or not, hacking has occurred. It also welcomes the many points for and against the charge of "hacking" in the body of the article. Or, for consistancy, since an investigation is about to be opened on the entire Climate Change topic [12] Wikipedia could always change the title of the Global Warming article to "Global Warming Fraud" since investigations immediately confer legitimacy to a charge here. --138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite the earlier atempts at censorship, it's clear the very title of this article is biased. --138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is virtually certain that unauthorized access to computer files occurred. Some people use the word "hacking" to mean just that. (A possible exception is that the unauthorized access was technically very easy and only social institutions such as employment contracts were barriers. Even if the case at UEA was like that, the breaking of RealClimate site does not seem so.) We have a real issue here, however, that is whether or not Wikipedia should join the people who use the word "hacking".--Masudako (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing 'virtually certain' is that the computer files being made publicly available was unauthorized. How they were accessed is still pure speculation. CRU had been upgrading their network and server security in the months preceding the disclosure. In the course of that process, they likely authorized database access to a number of third party individuals. If one of them copied it and sent it to a buddy in russia or turkey to be sorted through and posted online, the information would not have been hacked, it simply would have been stolen. Or if, in the course of those security upgrades, the data briefly became accessible to an intern who happened to be looking for a personal file and he copied it and sent it somewhere, it would still be an issue of theft, not hacking. Even if it is one day proven they had been legitimately hacked, such use of the term in an encyclopedia article's title is just gawdy.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the speculation, but it's not really useful. Most reliable sources say "hacking", and have done so consistently since the story came to light. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Minority Report

This has gone far afield of discussion related to article improvement. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY links to all .gov sites from antony`s site :) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I have removed your promotional link to a problematic blog with respect to BLP issues - the report you refer to is located at [13]. I don't see how this is related to improving this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I replaced it, it is not against policy to link to a blog in talk, this helps the artilce as it is about this very thing, do not edit my posts or i will bring an RFE aganist you mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite – what is the basis for claiming BLP issues? While the blog post says “some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles “, which could potentially be a BLP issue if it were made up, the actual report says, “scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles” so it isn’t the case that the blog post is misstating the findings/ I confess I haven’t thoroughly read all text, but if there are BLP issues, please point them out. Otherwise, I think the reversion is unwarranted. SPhilbrickT 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The blog is peppered with BLP violations. Perhpaps not this article, but certainly multiple other ones, and absolutly the cesspool comment section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Last warning, stop editing my posts, this is a useful source for those who wish to discuss the findings of the commite to add to the article mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Mark, the link I posted is a useful resource. The link you posted is spam. How many reverts do you have at this talk page, now? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Based on what I’ve observed at various talk pages, the rules for what are acceptable links in Talk are looser than what are acceptable in an article, im particular, links to blogs, where they contain some information very relevant to the article, even though they might not be an acceptable cite for the article itelf, are often permitted. if that is contrary to policy, I’d like someone to point out the policy (I am aware that BLP violations are not allowed in talk, but that’s not the issue here). I do not believe the reversion of Mark’s link here is warranted.SPhilbrickT 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The blog posting above is a link to the report I directly linked to, some advertising, some links to copyvios, and a bunch of worthless comments. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Marks link is useful as the blog entry is short intro to the 84 page report. Saves time, leave it alone.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing and/or proposing improvements to the article. While some latitude can be afforded, linking to a highly-partisan skeptical blog that is trumpeting a largely meaningless "report" by skeptical politicians is inappropriate. Mark should've been pleased when Hipocrite found a more legitimate link that would seem less agenda-driven, but instead he chose to react in a disgraceful manner. Not good behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I think this post is highly objectionable. I agree that this page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the CRU incident, and the link is specifically discussing a Senate report on the incident. It couldn’t possibly be more on topic. Linking to a blog is not (AFAIK) verboten in a talk page. Linking to skeptics should be a positive, not a negative, if one is interested in hearing all viewpoints before making informed decisions. Calling it “highly partisan” is an opinion, but not one that helps advance the discussion. Calling a Senate Report “meaningless” is very tendentious. What evidence do you have that it is “meaningless” None offered. Mark’ actions were regrettable, and I don’t agree with them, but the decision to revert a link to a highly relevant site is inappropriate. While this is not a blog, it is actually bad manners to deep-link rather than give the credit to the place you found the information, so in the blog world, Hipocrite’s choice would be considered bad form. yes, ir ealize this is not a blog, but the concept of courtesy applies here as well.SPhilbrickT 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC) FTR, I disagree with some of the Senate report’s key findings, but disagreeing with policy recommendations of even with factual finding is far different than labeling a Senate Report “meaningless”.. I hope Scjessy will reconsider and refactor intemperate remarks. I don’t know that it is possible to refactor edit summaries, but I urge Mark to use more civil language.SPhilbrickT 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Absolutely not. The report is totally meaningless. It's from the Senate Minority. It has no teeth. It has no consequences. It does absolutely nothing except rally the science-denying troops. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You must be using a new definition of "meaningless". Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Mark has apologized for his remarks. Your's, however, seem quite pointy and indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which is what we are now, as a community, attempting to downplay. Perhaps you too could offer an apology for your own remarks which are definitely not in line with promoting a collegial atmosphere on these pages. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Not going to happen. Your claim against me is utterly ridiculous, and my remarks were accurate and appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Well, no they're not. (An argument in your style, i.e. by contradiction). Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Also, since when does something have to come from the party in power in a government to have notability or meaning in Wikipedia? We just report what is going on, not the party line of whoever is in power, right? Moogwrench (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This "report" has all the value of a press conference. It changes nothing at all, and there is certainly nothing in it applicable to this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) C'mon! Construct an argument! Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC) It is not even from the party not in power. It is a Senate Committee minority "report", in reality not much more than the opinion of Senator Inhofe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Doh! The very first sentence in the "Background" section, starts off with something that we know is incorrect.... "On October 12, 2009, email correspondence and other information belonging to the University of East Anglia‘s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were given to a reporter with the BBC network" - not a very good sign. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) What, exactly, are you quibbling about here? See [14] which states: "The first leak occurred after 9 October, when one of the BBC's regional weathermen, Paul Hudson, wrote an article arguing that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures. On 12 October he was forwarded a "chain of emails", including some which subsequently appeared in the hacked documents. Last night the BBC confirmed Hudson had been forwarded emails written by two of the scientists, but refused to disclose the source." And see [15] which includes the following positions of the BBC: "Stories are decided on merit. What started as a blog on the weather website had touched on an important point that views about climate change are hotly contested. BBC News strives to report on a range of views and stories on climate change, and felt that the information Paul Hudson used in his blog was also worthy of coverage on the news website. His story ran in a section of the news website where people interested in climate change and environment would expect to see such stories. Paul Hudson is a BBC Climate correspondent for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. He's also a weather presenter for Look North." and "Your first point: we don't recognise the question – news is news and, as we have already said, it was worthy of coverage. The second point you make: we regularly use correspondents from the English regions to cover stories of national interest. Paul Hudson is a BBC climate correspondent for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. He works for BBC news in the same way that other correspondents work for BBC News." These clearly seem to confirm that the story in question was a news story and that the BBC considers him a climate correspondent. So he write a story, it was obviously reviewed and deemed newsworthy, and he works for the BBC as a climate correspondent. So what's incorrect about the statement you quoted? Is there something that has come out subsequent to these articles that contradicts this? --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Think I sorta lean towards sPhil's POV here. While Nutley was probably trying to make a point, probably wasn't right to tamper with his posts. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC) His posts were never tampered with, except once, when I replaced his link with a link to the actual report, which he promptly reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC) @ nickct, no i was not trying to make a point, the blog post has a nice condensed version of the report, it gives people a good overview of the senate`s findings. That is the only reason i linked to it, so people could get an idea of what happened and if it could be worked into this article. @ Hippocrite His posts were never tampered with, except once, when I replaced his link with a link to the actual report dude, that is tamering mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The blog post is the press release, copied word for word from [16]. "except once," means that once I "tampered" with your post to replace your link to a blog with a link to a reliable source. The other times I either removed your post entirely and rewrote it under my signature with my words, or removed your post without comment, or collapsed the entire section. Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) @Nutley - "no i was not trying to make a point," being familiar with some of your previous work, forgive me if I take your denial with a pinch of salt. @Hipo - If you edited Nutley's post in a way that he considers "tampering", you tampered with his post. Best avoid editting others' posts unless you 100% sure they will believe it's in good faith. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I assume the assumption of good faith. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (chuckle)... I think we both know that one went out the window with this debate a long time ago. Sad, but true...... NickCT (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) If you don't believe that MarkNutley will be assuming good faith, you have an obligation to request he be stopped from violating fundamental principles. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) @ NickCT, consider yourself forgiven :), @ Hipocrite, if you are asked not to edit anothers posts but continue to do so then were is the good faith to come from? mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Mark, you continue to state as fact that I edited your post multiple times. That fact is not accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I am counting 5 times i had to revert you, that¬s multiple dude mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Let's see. this is one of your reverts. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) What here you accuse me of spamming? Not really assuming good faith there are you? mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Mark, I believe strongly that you are being honest, and that you think the encyclopedia, and yes, the world, are improved by your spamming of this blog post. That you are wrong doesn't mean you are not being honest, or trying to damage the encyclopedia. On the other hand, Mark, you've accused me of pretty much every wrongful thing possible. The difference in approach is that I'm assuming that you are misguided but with good intentions, but you are assuming that I'm an asshole with a cause. You'll have to change that thinking, and I'd very much like to repeat that I only edited your post once - I collapsed it, removed it, I rewrote it under my own signature, but I only edited it once. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I suggest to Hipocrite that his repeated references to spamming are unhelpful and that he should drop the whole issue. This is especially true in light of that fact that several other uninvolved editors have already agreed that Mark's link was fine and that it provided additional value to the editors here (i.e. a summary of the report to which you, yourself, linked). Please find something more useful to argue over, or better yet please try to be less argumentative (directed at both). --GoRight (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You accuse me of "repeated references to spamming." In reviewing this page, here are the times I used spam unprompted - "The link you posted is spam." I did not repeat this reference untill Mark asked me to justify my statement that the link he posted was spam. I'm perfectly willing to drop the whole issue, but I'm going to get the last word in - Mark accused me of editing his post more than once - this was an error on his part - I edited his post only once. I tried to find other solutions with him - even though he was cursing up a storm at me the entire time. To this moment, I've been nothing but civil with him, yet he continues to accuse me of assuming bad faith. So, I can either drop the issue with lastwordism right here, or Mark could up and apologize, again, for being unable to assume my good faith, or we could keep going. I never stated his link didn't add value - I stated that another link added value without subtracting more value, and attempted to replace his mediocre link with a better link. I'm not accepting, at this time, mushymouthed "everyone is bad," conclusions, when the fact is that one editor was impecibly civil and tried multiple solutions while the other, to put it bluntly, didn't. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This conversation no longer bares relevance to the article. To your user pages please gentlemen. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I concur with NickCT - both have aired their points, let's move on, and to the extent wrongs need to be righted, let's take them to the user talk pages.--SPhilbrickT 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

US Government Reaction to the Incident

Greeting. I'd like to see a new section on US Government's Reaction, to follow UK Government Reaction. The following text could be a start: "Republicans on the Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have released a report titled, "‘Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN's IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC's flawed science impacts the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes. " Source here. [17]

Others are welcome to add stuff from democrats if they wish, to balance it out. I see no reason to hide that fact that US senators can't agree on issues. Request to others: stick to topic please. Thanks Sirwells (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A minority report from a Senate committee amounts to even less weight/importance than a dissenting Supreme Court opinion. The losing side of a debate doesn't get equal prominence to the majority opinion. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc. What evidence do you have that those who believe "the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles" are on the losing side of a debate? Sirwells (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The majority POV is that some of these scientists may have engaged in sloppy, unethical and/or illegal behavior. This is NOT an article about AGW despite what both warring factions might have you believe. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the article is about, despite your numerous attempts to move it in that direction. But besides that, neither of the above two comments actually address what I said; a minority report of a senate committee is barely a ripple in the political pond. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My numerous attempts? I'm just trying to follow WP:NPOV. Whether this 'helps' or 'hurts' one (or both!) sides of the AGW debate is not my problem, quite frankly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, perhaps you are getting hung up on the word "minority". In politics, you call it a "minority" report because the staff members who released it belong to the party who currently holds the minority of senate seats. A situation which changes frequently. It doesn't mean the report itself represents the "minority" opinion in the context that you are used to. I'd like to ask you again what evidence you have that thier views are on the losing side of a debate, or somehow a fringe viewpoint, as you seem to be implying. You ignored my question the first time. Do have any evidence, or are you expecting us to just take your word for it? Thanks. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the US system, my understanding is that the Republicans aren't in power, so this should properly be described as the opposition party reaction. The government reaction has been to announce new measures to further improve the already open access to climate data and methods – this was reported in The Guardian, perhaps one or two US publications noted it. . .dave souza, talk 08:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially Inhofe's blog dressed up nice. It's not the opinion of the US government or the US senate or even the republican caucus in the senate. It is certainly not reliable for anything but its authors opinions, and its hardly notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This can be very much regarded as a fringe faction (supported by lobbyists from the energy industry) of the minority party. I am unclear as to why this is being discussed again, when it was debated in the previous section. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the last discussion of it became a name-calling routine rather than a discussion (as is typical of discussions on this article).--64.244.99.100 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm against anything but maybe passing mention of the "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy". I'd call it barely notable on the basis that it's an obviously partisan POV report. Wikipedia shouldn't really be a mouthpiece for this kind of thing.

Additionally, as Scj noted, this thing has been given significant consideration now, I suggest we cease considering it and move on to better things. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More on the Scandal

Which now seems a relatively benign term to refer to the incident. The world is passing you all by, at warp speed. Here, Mojib Latif, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University and no skeptic of AGW, was interviewed on the German public TV station ZDF, where he had harsh words for the IPCC, referring to its some of its activities as "A Fraud on the Public" [[18]] The station ZDF sandwiches its interview of Dr Latif with segments on the substantive problems in the IPCC, including the issue of economic catastrophe losses. Dr. Latif comments on the misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in very strong terms, and a reviewer whose first language is German translates [[19]]: "This is a very obvious fraud, on the public and on the colleague in question. One has to categorically reject such a thing and we must now try, should such things really have happened, to make sure they don’t happen again next time." And then says "On a sliding scale of words referring to matters of dishonesty, 'Betrug' is the strongest and most serious accusation, used in the sense of criminal deception. As even in Germany libel cases are no longer quite so rare, using this word can be quite risky." The word "betrug" (fraud) (at 3:17 on the tape) is shown to refer to:

IPCC's treatment of climate scientist Dr Roger Pielke Jr and -

its misstatements (CLIMATE CHANGE 2007) on:

Himalayan glaciers disappearing

40% of Amazon forests burning

african agriculture diminishing

hurricanes increasing

sea level rising

population water stress increasing

with reference to the costs involved - €300,000,000 - which are described as "keine peanuts" (not trifling).

The narrator images the title of an op-ed in Nature "IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?" [Nature 463, 730-732 (11 Feb 2010)] in which he highlights and zooms the words "scrap it". My German is worse than rudimentary, so German speakers, please add corrections and amplifications.

And, of course, I await your withering dismissal of a blog reference. Oiler99 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proposal to improve the article in there somewhere, or is this just another example of Wikipedia being used as an organ for propaganda? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oiler99- I think your posting really belongs on the talk page of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not here. This article is about the CRU, not the IPCC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this pertains to the naming of the article and the proposal to split off the scandal component (which has been contested) from the hacking/liberation component. It has clearly become reasonable, if not decorous, to rename the scandal component Climategate, for reasons that have been adumbrated many times before. The current title, as has been noted, is a subject of jest. Oiler99 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU is not mentioned in the ZDF report, and neither are the hacked documents and email. This is entirely unrelated. The PrisonPlanet analysis is, of course, without any value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't whether CRU is mentioned, but whether "ClimateGate" was mentioned. I didn't listen to the whole piece, but I didn't hear it. --SPhilbrickT 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did hear it through - and it doesn't. Watching it again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In which case I concur with CurtisSwain - while I've noted the concern that the subject matter of the term "ClimateGate" is expanding, and it may cause us to reconsider our coverage, this does not appear to be an example, so for now, it belongs with either IPCC or more naturally Criticism of the IPCC AR4. --SPhilbrickT 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate has been violently resisted as a title to this or any article on the basis of the wiki guideline of not using pejorative words in titles. But - correct me if I'm wrong - this is superseded by the policy of using the common term as long as it doesn't ADD any notion of wrongdoing. Therefore this reference pertains to the IDEA of "Climategate" even - or perhaps especially - if the word itself does not appear. Much the same as discussing the intentional taking of innocent human life without using the word MURDER. Note that the Spanish Wikipedia has the title Climagate[[20]], without abandoning overall support for AGW. This article has already branched far afield from the email incident so that the elements of (perceived) scandal are not adequately described by the title, and should be split off as a separate article under the proper name. Oiler99 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only does "Climategate" fall foul of WP:WTA, because the "-gate" suffix is used almost exclusively to refer to scandal and controversy it violates WP:NPOV as well. You may consider your wrongness corrected. It is deeply troubling that this matter is being continuously raised. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@scjessey, I suspect it's continually raised because the current practice seems tenaciously wrong-headed to some. The WP:WTA clearly states that for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. The term Climategate, as a title, satisfies the wiki policy of using the common term, and does not violate NPOV since it is descriptive only, albeit pedestrian, and does not add an imputation of scandal not previously recognized. Oiler99 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you now talking about the ZDF report (which has no connection at all with the CRU emails or the term Climategate) or about a title for the article dealing with the CRU emails (which has nothing to do with the ZDF report)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Adding "-gate" to anything instantly brands it as somehow "scandalous" or "controversial", and this is not a scandal by any reasonable measure. Furthermore, there is nothing descriptive about the word "Climategate" whatsoever. It suggests some sort of scandal involving "climate", and that's about it - vague ambiguity. I applaud you for coming up with all sorts of interesting new ways to try to get this article titled with this non-neutral term, but you have gone way beyond the level at which this kind of agenda-driven behavior is called disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee - University of East Anglia

"Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee - University of East Anglia (UEA)". Retrieved 2010-02-26. as reported by the Press Association (25 February 2010). "University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-02-26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) provides long overdue clarification. I've tackled the much misreported ICO statement which the ICO has been remarkably coy at releasing to the general public. Other issues will also need to be shown. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I like your wording, but does it need to be repeated 3 times? The lead and one elaboration would be better, I think. Ignignot (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I've trimmed the timeline mention to a reasonable minimum, and focussed the detail in the UK Government section. It'll be interesting to see what happens on Monday. . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that support the language about "prima facie", etc.? The UEA statement reads more like a pleading rather than an objective assessment. Can we stick to reliable sources for the text? As we all agree, there's no deadline. Better to wait for some more reporting on this. Ronnotel (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text on Mann/UPenn

Proposed text

[Rescued from the archives to close and apply.]

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

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

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

Fair enough but if we are going to mention the NAS report we have to talk about, as the committee put it, "what has changed sicne then" (the emails). My version I think follows the logic of the committee if not in the same order presented in the report.JPatterson (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to revise

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

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

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

Permit me to re-revise

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

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

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

Looks good to me. I disagree about it being too long. It's a nuance that is important to capture and that would be difficult to do with less prose. JPatterson (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over then proposal again, I'd suggest one more change. The committee did not actually say that they were unable to reach a finding. So I propose the following:

The committee did not issue a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry- whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter."

Comments? If not, I'll insert that version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nit pick alert - can you change what appears to be a hyphen followed by a space to an em dash? Otherwise, looks fine.--SPhilbrickT 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text reflecting my suggestion:

The committee did not issue a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry—whether Mann had operated within acceptable practices "for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". Noting that the standards of practice vary from discipline to discipline, the committee stated that "In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter."

So applied. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)