Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chadhoward (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 9 January 2011 (→‎Proposal – adding Naming of the controversy section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.

Name of the article: Climategate

I think a number of editors have noted that with even Nature calling the incident 'Climategate' in its editorial, it's probably time to reconsider the name of this article. Wikipedia's title, "Climate Research Unit email controversy," is confusing and vague, because the controversy is about more than the CRU, and it's about more than emails. We evidently made up this name "Climate Research Unit email controversy", and we have refused to use the name that nearly everyone else is using. Further, googling suggests that very few have copied us. I don't believe our title is representative of reliable sources and we seem to be clearly taking sides with the few scientists involved who don't like the name "Climategate". That's not consistent with NPOV. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature didn't call it climategate here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Nature did call it Climategate in quotes here and without quotes here and here and here. The only reason for our absurd article title is the bias of the editors who control it. But don't fight it, Alex--there's a redirect for people who logically enough search for a Wikipedia article on Climategate. The title serves to clearly mark the bias, so it's well to leave it alone. --Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That comment seems to be made in extreme bad faith, and bad taste. People have been topic banned for less. I suggest a review of WP:TPG, especially WP:TPNO, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions. Please feel free to remove it, along with this response. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read some of the comments given further down? WP:TPNO states "such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist.". Read then this comment: "idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE" … ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)". Hopefully you will react here? I agree with you that we should try not to name calling anybody. It just distort the environment. Is it bad faith to counter a not true statement with four sources? And the current title is biased compared to our policies as I've noted below. Nsaa (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm against "Climategate" as it's pretty obviously a pejorative misnomer used to mislead people; however, I'm more than ready to agree that consensus can change. Perhaps if this topic hasn't been RfCed recently, you should simply RfC the issue. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)One of the main people in the case is Michael E. Mann at the Pennsylvania State University with for example this much quoted email: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[6]. The Climategate area covers much more than CRU and emails "Altogether there were five inquiries or investigations, conducted by, respectively, The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Oxburgh panel, the Independent Climate Change Emails Review under Sir Muir Russell, Penn State University and the InterAcademy Council. The first three were established in the UK and focused on scientists at the CRU. The fourth was focused on Michael Mann of Penn State University, a major correspondent in the Climategate archive. The fifth was commissioned by the IPCC itself as a review of its policies and procedures." [7]. This tells us that it has been official inquiries into Penn state and Michael Mann, and inquiries done by UN into it's methods and work related to the Climategate incident. Emails is not correct either, even if we just takes a look at the article today. and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. … When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents[8]. And Washington Post at 21 November 2009: University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents [9]. The current article name fails on every part except controversy (many sources has used Climategate controversy, so this could be a middle way that covers the article area and is used in secondary sources (WP:V). Now even Nature directly talks about the Climategate name (not use it as some has claimed earlier by lazy journalist), where they state that: "most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate." and "Take the name Climategate itself. The 'gate' suffix, now routinely applied to the most mundane controversies, is as trite as it is predictable. At the height of the controversy, senior figures called for journalists not to use the word, which they argued lent false seriousness to far-fetched claims of research skulduggery and corruption. That reaction alone helps to explain the sluggish response of the science establishment a year ago to the allegations made against their colleagues and their profession. One lesson that must be taken from Climategate is that scientists do not get to define the terms by which others see them and their place in society. This journal has already warned that climate scientists have to accept that they are in a street fight. They should expect a few low blows. The key is to learn which punches to roll with and which to block and counter."[10]([11]). It's time to move it to Climategate now. Nsaa (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale essentially relies on opinion pieces to drive the name of the article. I don't think that's good practice. As to the claims that the "area covers much more than CRU and emails": I don't see any evidence for this. Just because investigations are far-afield doesn't mean they aren't related to the e-mails. The claims that the 3000 "other documents" are somehow of interest seems silly to me. Most of the "other documents" were apparently e-mail attachments and subversion controls and very few received any attention or "controversy" at all. This rationale strikes me as strident and seems to come from a fairly antagonistic perspective toward the people "implicated" in the "scandal". The term nipplegate is similar, IMHO. Nipplegate is the term commonly referred to in certain circles, but those circles are too parochial to influence Wikipedia. We should rise above the idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE" and we even should rise above the reactionary responses of science journalists and bloggers to their bluster. This is an article about a controversy surrounding the unauthorized release of data related to e-mails and programming files from CRU. The current title seems to summarize that point. "Climategate" seems to sensationalize it needlessly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces? Ok, so a lot of WP:RS sources that's not opinion pieces uses another description on this subject? No I don't think so … (or have I missed something?). I partly agree that most of the WP:RS sources has dealt with the e-mails. But for example the IPCC review cover other parts like how the process in IPCC works (doesn't is better to say). It has hardly to do directly with the emails. You do what's looks like an stupid comparison with Nipplegate. You claim it's similar. Can you provide one source saying that? Or give an overview like this [12][13] with all main sources covering it? Please? You claim that we should "above the idiocy of web-based climate denialists crowing about "CLIMATEGATE"". Great! I didn't know that Nature was "web-based climate denialists". Thanks for the clarification (Yes Nature uses Climategate). Can you please read the current article again. Ex it says "A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, […] but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.[41] The Investigatory Committee reported on June 4, 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, "[14], so your claim that it "related to e-mails and programming files from CRU." is not correct. Or do MM work for CRU? Maybe I've missed something. Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your post is almost not worth commenting on as it's a whole lot of bluster with little in the way of argument. I will say this: Nipplegate and climategate are similar in that those who think they represent legitimate controversies are political hacks who are generally of the conservative persuasion. Both are essentially manufactured controversies. (Compare Heartland Institute and American Family Association.) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Nice post, Nsaa. I agree with your reasoning, and support the name change. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lying low for awhile, then springing up with this same old song and dance one you think the coast is clear is not gong to happen. If anything, the media hysteria over this incident has subsided to a low background noise these days, so the "-gate" idiocy is even less relevant today. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the debunking of much of the alleged conspiracy and media sensationalizing having died down, a name change seems even less appropriate now than when proposed a month or two ago. BigK HeX (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Climategate" is an inherently POV term, as the appellation of the "-gate" suffix implies that something scandalous occurred. Given that the allegations of a vast climate conspiracy have proven more unfounded with each subsequent inquiry, it seems unwise to use such a loaded term. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the nipplegate comparison is the best comparison. While I could guess what that was, I've never heard that term before. I suspect the term people associate most with the event is 'waldrobe malfunction' although that's obviously not a suitable name for the event. In this of this article, I rarely see the controversy referred to by anything else (sometimes in quotes sometimes not) and I've semi supported a move before however I've also seen it claimed -gate implies some sort of legitimate scandal in the US (in NZ the term so overused it doesn't really, for example corngate) so I'm sympathetic to concerns about such naming it such. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A simple comparison with the original, Watergate, is enough: Five burglars were arrested, facing impeachment a US president resigned, and a government was toppled. At CRU, no-one was arrested, no trials, no convictions, no-one even lost their job, no government was overthrown. There is no comparison, except in the dreams of a few political extremists, who failed to achieve anything much, except to add a little confusion to COP15. COP16 is coming up soon, so even that now makes little difference in their world. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not made the connection to Wategate. Why? It's not our responsibility making original research like this. We should follow our core policies wp:Neutral point of view, wp:No original research and wp:Verifiability (if you're unsure about that, read this signpost Signpost/2008-03-13 Tutorial:_Summary_of_policies). That the current article title (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) fails on every one of these policies. That some people has managed to block the move is a wiki scandal, and it will probably blow in our face (this is my original research). It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that this incident has been named Climategate by nearly every WP:RS source commenting on it. Nsaa (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've not made a connection to Watergate? Where did you think the -gate came from in 'climategate'? Did you think a gap in a fence had something to do with it? You make a connection to Watergate every time you say it. The policy you're looking for is WP:POVTITLE. There's a link there to WP:RNEUTRAL, which uses this very article, and the climategate redirect, as an example of good practice. --Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Please read WP:POVTITLE: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). " (My bolding). This has been established beyond any doubt, so I rest my case. Even through Wikipedia has had it's own homemade name for this incident It has not even been picked up and used by more than a couple of blogs like this Climatic Research Unit email controversy « I Hate Al Gore (probably somewhat critical of the current title) … Nsaa (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVTITLE does not provide enough help to definitively settle this. It states that resolving whether an article title is neutral depends on deciding whether to use a common title (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors).

When a topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should use that name as our article title, even if that common name includes non-neutral words [or phrases] that Wikipedia normally avoids (examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). That section goes on to say that it is also acceptable to create articles with a descriptive title. In that case, it is best to choose a title that does not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject (lifted from that page with a few modifications).

It is my opinion that "Climategate" easily is the best for the former criteria and "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" fits the latter criteria better. I don't really have an issue with either title, but I question whether it is beneficial to spend so much time discussing this, as it only seems to be leading to bad feelings. NW (Talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NW, I don't think that's an accurate representation of what POVTITLE says. After your quoted sentence, it continues:

In such cases [i.e. where a single common name exists], the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.

It is implied that we are only meant to create descriptive titles when common names don't exist. That's not the case here. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then did you follow the link to WP:RNEUTRAL? It gives two examples of good practice with regard to neutrality, and this is one of them. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Common" is a relative term. I'd argue that no name for this obscure and boring saga is common because it's not of any historical relevance yet and it is unclear whether our recent focus on it and the sources that use the colloquial term for the event are going to have any lasting impact on the ultimate narrative. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Nothing at RNEUTRAL is relevant to the discussion because our subject has a single common name, viz. Climategate. POVTITLE asks us: Does the article have a single common name as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources? Nsaa and others have demonstrated beyond any doubt that it does. RNEUTRAL would become relevant if our subject did not have a single common name. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SA, it is wishful thinking that Climategate is going to be forgotten. Climategate will be remembered for as long as there are climate change skeptics to keep reminding people about it. But if you want to believe that somehow this scandal is going to be forgotten I can't stop you. But I can bet with you that we'll be having the same discussion about this article title every three months or so until it is changed. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you proved my point with "as long as there are climate change skeptics to keep reminding people about it". I agree with you about interminable discussion being likely, but that's par for the course on Wikipedia and not a basis for changing the name. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: There is clearly no consensus for a move and I find the arguments for not moving stronger than any commonname arguments. There are many other "-gate" redirects and this is how "climategate" will stay. I also second the discretionary sanction suggested by User:NuclearWarfare and further discussion should be prohibited for 6 months as superfluous discussion in an area of conflict only leads to drama. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climategate — I'm opening this just so we can get the matter settled. After this move request, further discussion of the title of the article is forbidden for at least 6 months. NW (Talk) 17:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Those sources which give it a name all call it "Climategate", although many sources don't give it a name nor think it's worthy of notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME, in part. Since many sources, including the most reliable ones, don't give it a name, it is up to Wikipedia to follow WP:NAME to give the least sensationalized name possible. Compare nipplegate. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state "Since many sources, including the most relialbe ones, don't give it a name, it is up to Wikipedia to follow WP:NAME to give the least sensationalized name possible."[15]. Again I assume WP:AGF I polity ask for sources that support this claim No one has given a single source for this. The sources given above has shown that this controversy has been covered as Climategate in "the most reliable ones". Do you have reliable sources that has covered this controversy without naming it or telling that Climategate is the name for this? Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I discount the editorials you use to support your claim explicitly. Above, I cited an extremely recent article in Nature about this subject that explicitly does not use the term "Climategate" (the second comment in the above thread). My point is that the sources which use "Climategate" are essentially climate-denialist opinion-based sources or sources that are responding to the ravings of denialists. When cooler heads prevail, the incident isn't named anything succinctly because it is, as we have all agreed, a giant mishmash. jps (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, again WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments "I discount the editorials you use" and "My point is that the sources which use "Climategate" are essentially climate-denialist opinion-based sources or sources that are responding to the ravings of denialists.".Nature uses Climategate as shown for the third time on this discussion page in the latest month. Please read my latest post below [16]. Editorials says something about what the stance is in Nature. Editors manage the publishing of articles, and when they states and uses Climategate as the name it could not be better. But this is again a sidetrack as far as I see it. Our main responsibilities is to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (please read the old signpost(SPV#Tutorial:_Summary_of_policies 2008-03-13) stating this quit clearly.). Our current name breaks 1,2, and probably 3 by breaking 1 and 2. Nsaa (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't discount the editorials because "I don't like them". I discount them because they are editorials. As someone who reads Nature rather frequently, I can tell you that "Nature" doesn't exist as a monolithic personality to take a "stance" on anything and we certainly shouldn't take their use of a term in editorials as smoking gun evidence for naming. The applicable policy is not WP:V, WP:OR, nor WP:NPOV. It's WP:NAME, and I think there are stronger arguments for declaring that this proposed name is not enough in common usage to justify invoking the "common name, but pejorative e.g. Boston Massacre" clause. jps (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - most sources which use the term use it in quotes. It's not a "-gate scandal", it's not a scandal at all, so using the term without quotes is highly misleading. It is, to quote Mr Popo "the thing without a name". Since it doesn't really have a name, we should stick with a descriptive title. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "-gate scandal"...so using the term without quotes is highly misleading.
Here's the first 3 "highly misleading" non-WP Google hits in a search for "Watergate" (no quotes used)..."Watergate"and "Watergate" and "Watergate". Wikipedia is out-of-step with an overwhelming prevailing reference in the popular culture. Fix it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fix what? Are you saying that Watergate scandal should be moved to Watergate? If so, I think you are in the wrong place. If not, I have no idea what you're trying to say. In any case, the Watergate scandal is so named because it stemmed from a break-in at the Watergate complex...so "Watergate scandal" is actually a descriptive name, much like this one. And, incidentally, Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal. The point is that this was an entirely manufactured controversy, not a scandal (apart from the hacking, email theft, misrepresentation of the content of the email, false accusations of misdeeds, etc.) Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a scandal? Maybe not, but it's a controversy named Climategate by "the most reliable ones". Please check out my post above and the references given [17]. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The most reliable ones"? Seriously, I'm sick of your palpably false claims. One editorial in Nature. That's one source. Except, of course, that it was an opinion piece. In the main article, the term "climategate" was not used. And given that you replied to the post in which SA linked to that article, it would appear that you are aware of this fact. So...despite the fact that you know what you're saying is false, you still make the claim. As NW outlined above, it's possible to make reasonable arguments either way. Making palpably false claims is unhelpful, and strikes me as disruptive editing. So please stop. Guettarda (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, Yopienso above has showed that Nature has referred to it as Climategate four times, in articles entitled Closing the Climategate (18 November 2010), Lessons from Climategate (9 September 2010), Climategate closed (Nature Geoscience 3, 509 (2010), Editorial) and "Climategate" scientist speaks out (16 February 2010). Eventually, this article's title is going to be Climategate and sooner or later you're going to have to accept it. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to in any way demean your ability to predict the future Alex, but how does that make Nsaa's use of misrepresentation acceptable? Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please retract the last part of the comment. It's not acceptable. Way beyond acceptable. Nature uses Climategate as pointed out in the comment above again (Closing the Climategate (18 November 2010) doi:10.1038/468345a, Lessons from Climategate (9 September 2010) doi:10.1038/467157a, Climategate closed (Nature Geoscience 3, 509 (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo937 and 'Climategate' scientist speaks out doi:10.1038/news.2010.71). And if you still haven't seen the lists that was made for approx., you have not read the above discussions. Please see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Climategate_usage and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_Climategate (among them The IndependentClimategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics New scientist: Climategate scientist questioned in Parliament (2 March 2010 by Fred Pearce) and other liberal leaning media with whats look like a strong stance in support of the AGW pro camp etc.). Some recent sources (liberal and main ones yes: BBC Climategate: Sceptic sorry for UEA staff in scandal (15 November 2010), The Guardian Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming (8 July 2010), Climategate: No whitewash, but CRU scientists are far from squeaky clean (7 July 2010) etc.). Nsaa (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, per WP:COMMONNAME. Originally the most common name was "climategate" (i.e., with quotes), but in recent months the quotes have been removed in many significant sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per DesSmogBlog. I think there's a message there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The obvious choice. What's sad is that Wikipedia is used by the lazy media people and not calling it Climategate here has caused some media to refer to it by the Wikipedia name. That can't be in the spirit of Wikipedia? If there is a rule for "no original research" the should be a ban for "making shit up to impress the world".91.153.115.15 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Redirects here anyway. Just a delay and indirect deny tactic, more Obscurantism / Climate change denial by other means than the Merchants of Doubt. 99.155.152.87 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great that you have so many WP:RS sourcing supporting your claims about "Just a delay and indirect deny tactic, more Obscurantism / Climate change denial" (I've not seen one, not even the latest Nature article cited in discussions above. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I find the term personally offensive and an affront to scientists everywhere. However, the term is clearly in widespread (although not nearly universal) use in the popular media. It's also apparent that the use of the "-gate" suffix is much more easy-come, easy-go outside the USA from reading the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I would weak-support a rename of the article to "Climategate" so as to indicate that the use of the name is not universally accepted. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looking back at the so-called controversy, we see a manufactured smear campaign promoted by bloggers and opinion writers with a political agenda to oppose climate science and climate scientists by any means necessary, including dragging their names, reputation and expertise through the mud before a single investigation was ever conducted. After report after report exonerated the people involved and showed that it was a lot of hot air intended to disrupt the climate conference and poison the well, except for a few sources, very few retractions were made, with the smearing continuing as it has always continued since the climate denial movement began in the 1980s. There is little difference here between the organized birthers screaming about a birth certificate and the bloggers screeching about FOIA, yet because Wikipedia attracts an unusual number of fringe views, we are told that we must cover this topic from the POV of these same people, rather than the NPOV we hold out like a candle in the darkness of deceit and ignorance, in the blackness of misinformation raining down on us from the mainstream media, tabloids, and opinion after uninformed opinion. We know now that there never was a "climategate"; rather there was a release of emails and documents, and subsequent investigations that upheld the science and the reputations of those involved. Changing this title is an attempt to deliberately ignore the facts and the outcome, and to continue to smear the innocent victims after these smears have been disproved. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...we are told that we must cover this topic from the POV of these same people, rather than the NPOV we hold out like a candle in the darkness of deceit and ignorance, in the blackness of misinformation raining down on us from the mainstream media, tabloids, and opinion after uninformed opinion.
So much for basing "...arguments on article title policy...". Could there be a more succint demonstration of ambivalence to the guidance offered by WP:TRUTH? Your rhetoric should be posted there as an example of precisely how not to support a position in this project. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position is based on the facts as I know them, and references to policies and guidelines can be found embedded in my prose. Your contribution history shows that since 2005, you've spent 46% of your time on talk pages,[18] an unusually high percentage, with less than 20% of your edits to articles. And when we look at the articles you've chosen to spend your time on,[19] it appears that you have spent the last five years on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing fringe views and a partisan political agenda. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Please find another website. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The name climategate is not value neutral, it carries an inuendo of deciet and malpractise. It would be a partisan move to rename the article at this stage and it would be seen as a vote for climate change deniers by Wikipedia, and as such used as a propoganda tool. Climategate redirects here and is mentiioned as an alternative name in the first sentence. There can be no confusion as to what the article is about. Leave it as it is. Lumos3 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per policy on avoiding "gate" names. Plus the scandal has turned out to centre on how the documents were released rather than the actions of climate scientists. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The coining of the term 'climategate' was a clear partisan attempt to link scientists' work in an English university to the American scandal that led to the downfall of president Nixon. As we say in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, "The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name [in this case 'climate' itself!] to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal ... the term may 'suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up'." We recognise the term with a redirect and a mention and brief explanation in the first line, but there is no need to legitimise it any further, especially considering that all investigations have found all the scientists innocent of any misconduct, and all their scientific work stands unchanged. --Nigelj (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Does anyone know why it is that every time I click the 'edit' button on this section I get told You tried to edit a section that does not exist. Because there is no section 17, there is no place to save your edit. Sections may have been removed after you loaded the page; try to purge the page or bypass your browser cache. I am sure there is a good reason for it, and now that I've pointed out the problem, I trust that the 7 days response time will be extended accordingly, to accommodate all those editors who likely tried to say something but were unable to. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, it works now is passed a query string of 'section=13'. My bad? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the complete answer, but I can give you a partial answer. When you click on an edit button next to a section, say "Media Reception" it doesn't literally execute the command to edit the Media Reception section. Instead, it executes a command to edit section number N, which almost always is the section number associated with the section you want. However, certain changes, such as deleting a section, can leave the section numbering off-kilter for a short time. When that happens, the edit number is connected to a nonexistent section, and you'll get the error. I don't know what action fixes it (maybe just trying again in such a way that it doesn't try to reuse what it has in cache, but it is usually OK in short order.--SPhilbrickT 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
It's likely that you were looking at a cached version of this page when you tried to edit. Clicking on the "edit" link went to a URL that didn't exist. I'm pretty sure this is what happened because your previous post to this page was done before a bot archive which changes the section numbering. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Incidentally, this problem can, occasionally, result unintentional reverts. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Climategate" is pejorative, POV and judgmental. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting twice? Loss of 15 yards, unsportsmanlike conduct. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, and we don't "count" them. This is based on strength of arguments, not numbers. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's not a vote, but I've struck the bolded part as a duplicate nevertheless, for greater clarity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mistake, sorry. Just didn't remember that I had already voted. Struck out completely. Thanks FuturePerfect for headsup. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, many opposes above have not shown a single WP:RS-source covering their analysis of the Climategate-name. They're just telling us their ::WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ORIGINAL analysis. I don't say that it's wrong. I just see no reliable sources covering it like it's told. It has been established beyond any doubt that the name of this controversy is Climategate. Just let us again quote "one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals" Nature that says "most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate."[20][21] (my bolding). Nsaa (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spelling this out, Nsaa. I think we need to go to a formal renaming process (where?) with a neutral admin as arbitrator, as there are too many doctrinaire naysayers here to ever resolve the issue -- even though it's crystal-clear in the Real World. If Nature agrees.... well, a stronger bastion of pro-AGW alarmism in the scientific community would be hard to imagine. And the current, absurdly OR name continues to make WP a laughingstock. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to restrict your comments to the proposed move rather than giving your views on other editors and their votes. This is a formal move request, forum shopping is not a better approach. --Nigelj (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise that the statement you bolded is (a) an expression of opinion, not of fact, (b) was made in an opinion piece, not an actual news or research communication, and (c) was a prediction about the future made by someone who is not accredited with the Psychic's Guild? More to the point, "will be known as" is not the same as "will generally be known as"...it's probably reasonable to predict that a certain segment with a vested interest in presenting this as a scandal will continue to use that term. Just like some people will continue to use the term "nipplegate", despite the fact that almost everyone else has forgotten about the incident, let alone that it was sensationalised into some sort of a great scandal. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, by the way, remember that MBH 1998 was also published in Nature, and unlike this opinion piece, that was actually peer reviewed. So if Nature is to be taken as infallible here, then surely would take it as infallible there? Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editorial says something about what Nature has as an editorial stance (i.e. a fact in that regard). So we can say that Nature says that ... (my bolding above). See our article Editorial that states "be supposed to reflect the opinion of the periodical.". Maybe this statement needs a {{cn}}? Nsaa (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "scare quotes" argument doesn't pass the smell test. Contemporary media/cultural constructs are commonly noted within quotes...as is "Watergate" to this day. As pointed out to Guetterda above, here's the the first 3 Google hits in a search for "Watergate" (no quotes used)...all three enclosing "Watergate"and "Watergate" and "Watergate" in "scare quotes". JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your nose is malfunctioning. Those quotes are (1) ' "watergate" is shorthand for this tumultuous time...' Here, the quotes are used to show that the sentence is about the word "watergate", not the events now called watergate. (2) ' "Watergate" is a general term used to describe a complex ...' again, talking about the term. (3) exactly the same phrase as (2), from a different page of the same website. Your whole argument is based on a mistaken understanding of how those punctuation marks work in the pages at those three links. They aren't scare quotes, they're sense-and-reference quotes. Please review Sense and reference.
You don't even bother to address my point about the 'dubbed "X" ' construct. My vote is unchanged. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Small insertion

What is the point of this addition? It is not very good grammar, does not follow from what was there, and is out of temporal sequence. The section roughly proceeds from the early responses to later ones, and this ends the section by taking us right back to Dec 09, with relatively meaningless stabs that do not relate to the previous statements. It's time to update long sections like this by reducing our repetition of uninformed comments from the first few weeks and replacing them with more considered and scholarly recent summaries. This is a step in the opposite direction. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Pearce is a respected journalist from one of the UK's most respected newspapers and he did a big investigation into the Climategate affair. If you're asking why a paragraph or even a whole section is not devoted to his Climategate investigation then I'd say you have a good point. It shouldn't be tacked onto the end of this paragraph. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not by the front door, then by the back?

This isn't going to fly. Respect the quite firm "-gate" opposition in the requested move above and don't try to get it in by other means, please. This was an entirely not-good faith edit. Tarc (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal – adding Naming of the controversy section

There has been a lot of discussion about the naming of this controversy and as far as I see we need probably a section that describe what reliable sources has said about this matter. Hopefully more people can add and adjust the proposed text so we can get something the community accept.

What the media has dubbed the controversy

In an editorial one year after the public release of the documents, on of the most prestigious scientific journals Nature states that “the affair will be forever known as Climategate” stating that senior climate scientists cannot manage the naming of this controversy.[1]

Analysis by FactCheck stated that sceptics who allege that the documents show fabrication of evidence of man-made global warming "are portraying the affair as a major scandal: 'Climategate'."[2]

Writing in Time, Bryan Walsh reported that the controversy was dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of global warming, with "obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up", while advocates of action on climate change dubbed it "Swifthack" in reference to the 2004 "Swiftboating" campaign against US Presidential candidate John Kerry, characterising it as "an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change."[3] Los Angeles Times entertainment and pop culture writer Patrick Goldstein attributes the origin of the term "Climategate" to the Wall Street Journal.[4] Daily Telegraph commentator Christopher Booker attributes the origin of the term to his colleague, James Delingpole.[5] Delingpole, on the other hand, said that "The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on Watts Up With That site (Anthony Watts' blog)".[6] The comment was "Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?"[6][7]

[…]

References
  1. ^ "Closing the Climategate". Editorial. Nature_(journal). 2010-11-17. doi:10.1038/468345a. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. Retrieved 2010-11-18. most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate […] One lesson that must be taken from Climategate is that scientists do not get to define the terms by which others see them and their place in society.
  2. ^ ""Climategate"". FactCheck.org. 2009-12-10. Archived from the original on 2010-12-01. Retrieved 2009-12-29. Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate."
  3. ^ Walsh, Bryan (2009-12-07). "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". Time Magazine. Archived from the original on 2010-12-01. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
  4. ^ Goldstein, Patrick (2010-01-05). "'Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire Conservatives are blind to the 3-D blockbuster's charms". LA Times. Archived from the original on 2010-01-06. Retrieved 2010-01-06. and scientists who allegedly suppressed climate change data that called into question their claims about global warming (a flap the WSJ dubbed "Climategate")
  5. ^ Booker, Christopher (2009-10-29). "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation". Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2010-01-06. Retrieved 2010-01-06. A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)
  6. ^ a b Delingpole, James (2009-11-29). "Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name". Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2010-01-07. Retrieved 2010-01-07. The person who really coined it was a commenter called "Bulldust" on the Watts Up With That site. He wrote: Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?
  7. ^ Watts, Anthony (2009-11-19). "Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released". Watts Up With That?. Archived from the original on 2010-01-07. Retrieved 2010-01-07. Bulldust (15:52:36) : Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?

Is this ok to add? What needs to be changed to be acceptable? Nsaa (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you think? Look at the authors of the references - Dellingpole, Watts, Booker... Then there's the fact that it's nonsense: As a whois request shows, climategate.com was registered on 05 Jan 2008. Someone's been planning this for a long time before the e-mails became public. When we have scholarly reviews of the actual facts (maybe after the police track down the perpetrators, they have been tried, and there has been some time to review the transcripts), we will have something to write about. These do not count as encyclopedic sources for factual matters. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets remove everything except the Nature-based section then. Ok? For most people it may be very interesting to know where the concept was created as described by WP:RS sources (yeah you hate them, but they're still WP:RS). Your assertion about that we need "scholarly reviews of the actual facts" to write about this as I've done above. Then we need to remove some 99.999 % of whats written in Wikipedia. Nsaa (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting your whois request about climategate.com and "Creation Date: 05-jan-2008". Do we have any WP:RS sources covering this and where it can directly be linked to this controversy? Many people have requested domain names long before they get know. For example, maybe they know about the Wikipedia Hanno graph[22][23][24] or this pulled report [25] and other stuff some taught could be a climategate scandal. This is off course just speculation by you and me so we can't say anything without WP:RS sources. The sources given above is all WP:RS and it's not up to us deciding if it's true or not. We should tell what's known per wp:rs-sources. If you read it you see that even these sources tells different stories about the origin. Both can be true or false. Its not up to us to decide. We should tell what different sources say about it. what I see is that it exist different meanings about the origin of the concept, and we should attribute who says what (we do: "Los Angeles Times entertainment and pop culture writer Patrick Goldstein attributes the origin of the term "Climategate" to the Wall Street Journal", "Christopher Booker attributes the origin of the term to his colleague, James Delingpole." and "Delingpole, on the other hand, said that "The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on Watts Up With That site (Anthony Watts' blog)".". The last one is indirectly backed up by our reference to the blog where it stands (this is the most questionable reference as far as I see, but since it's just support another WP:RS source and what it says it should be ok. It would be great to incorporate the registering of climategate.com! Do we have sources for this that do a connection directly to this controversy (as I've tried to explain, this could just be prior speculation from the registrar that something in the future will explode)? Nsaa (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prior domain registry has to be assumed a coincidence absent strong evidence to the contrary. People constantly register dot-com domains they think might be useful for any reason at all; adding "gate" to any word might suggest scandal but also suggests a gateway to information on that topic. Other long-registered domains waiting for their moment in the sun include cloudgate, stormgate, hatgate, ballgate, foodgate, econgate, and oilgate.com. Means nothing. --Blogjack (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone's looking for other sources, the Economist calls it climategate, the New Yorker calls it climategate, the Atlantic calls it climategate, and the Economist calls it climategate again. Note that none of those sources use quotes around the term. It's just what the event is called outside of Wikipedia. Chadhoward (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&oldid=406796270"