Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Add Richard A. Muller article Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?

Add Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change? The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming by Ian Sample 27.February.2011 ... Richard A. Muller of the Berkeley Earth project (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) is convinced his approach will lead to a better assessment of how much the world is warming. 99.19.43.74 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Related update May 25, 2011 in Scientific American and reprinted "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear. In the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 99.19.43.74 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No possible relevance to this article, even if the editorials were accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid extremist wording such as "no possible" (reference Paul Collier's The Plundered Planet), see excerpt:

Then there is the fiasco of 2009 that saw roughly 1,000 emails from a server at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) find their way on to the internet. The fuss over the messages, inevitably dubbed Climategate, gave Muller's nascent project added impetus. Climate sceptics had already attacked James Hansen, head of the NASA group, for making political statements on climate change while maintaining his role as an objective scientist. The Climategate emails fuelled their protests. "With CRU's credibility undergoing a severe test, it was all the more important to have a new team jump in, do the analysis fresh and address all of the legitimate issues raised by sceptics," says Muller.

99.19.43.74 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. The present article is about a specific battle that was fought in the war against science. The idea that the war can be ended by removing any of the remaining scientific doubts is at best naïve, as it completely ignores the motivations of this war and the techniques used in it. The similar war against science related to the smoking / lung cancer connection also did not end when the remaining scientific doubts were removed. It ended when spreading doubt about the science was no longer effective in preventing action by politicians. In any case, your article is related to the war, not to the battle. Hans Adler 04:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this is about a "war against science" is probably incapable of NPOV editing 86.182.195.34 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How does knowledge of a subject make one incapable of NPOV editing? The war tobacco industry vs. science is very well documented in scholarly literature such as this due to the fact that the tobacco industry had to release a lot of formerly secret strategy documents. They knew they were wrong, and they knew they were going to lose. They just wanted to postpone anti-smoking laws as long as possible to maximise their profit.

The strategies applied to postpone effective action against global warming were very much the same initially, although of course they have since been refined further. Initially some of the same bogus research institutes such as The Heartland Institute were engaged in both. See also the all-round 'expert' Fred Singer. This second war has also been documented in some scholarly sources, although there are no smoking guns yet as no internal documents were released due to legal discovery. Hans Adler 22:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For some further reading, see Merchants of Doubt, Eric Pooley's "The Climate War" (see Politics of global warming (United States)), Requiem for a Species, and watch The Age of Stupid, for starters ... 99.181.129.104 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"no smoking guns yet"? The whole point about these emails is that they suggested distortion of peer review processes both in journals and IPCC reports, hiding data which might cast doubt on the relationship between tree rings and temperature, and refusal to provide data to those seeking to understand and replicate analyses with attempts to undermine environmental Freedom of Information requests by deleting correspondence. 86.182.195.34 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, numerous reliable sources conclude no smoking guns, the whole point about the emails is that they've been quote-mined to suggest the misdemeanours you list. Misuse of private correspondence by those attacking science is a common theme. . . dave souza, talk 07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This might be of interest: The Republican War on Science. 99.181.141.251 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Does the book mention climategate? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear a response to IP user 86.182.195.34. 99.190.81.244 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This German language wp page may be of interest Mr. Rubin ---> de:Benutzer:Dudenfreund/Dudenfreund’s Law seen on Talk:350.org/Archive_3. 99.190.81.244 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Arthur Rubin's use of the phrase "No possible relevance" was inappropriate too strong. However, having read the article, the reference to the "Climategate" issue is tangential; partially explains some aspects of Muller's impetus, but doesn't shed any light on the article in any useful way. I see no section on fallout (other than political fallout) but even if there were, this is too minor a connection to deserve mention.--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Arthur, the above IP has been spamming that and similar links about Dr. Muller all over wikipedia climatespace. It's exasperating to explain over and over why the linked article isn't relevant enough for a given article when it's been simultaneously suggested at four different articles.... at best (not pun intended) it's really only relevant in Dr. Muller's own article... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How is the term climatespace related to the denialosphere, as seen on ManBearPig ("a common reference in the Denialosphere", Climate change denial)? 99.181.157.254 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"We are being completely knocked apart in the press"

[WP:BLP violations removed; please note that the onus is on the person restoring content that has been challenged to demonstrate that it is BLP-compliant, something that was not done when this was restored] [unsigned note added by Guettarda, 07:21, 18 July 2011]

• Note: see this diff for the material G. objects to. I think he's being silly, and the thread won't make any sense to third-parties without this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For the article, once it settles down a bit. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a combination of hearsay from a dubious character, and synthesis by Pete: the Graun article doesn't seem to make any mention of the CRU controversy. No doubt Pete will find blogs making a great deal of it, but this looks like a coatrack here. Much better sourcing needed for any addition to the article, and the arrest looks completely irrelevant. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RS story on Wallis & CG/UEA: Ex-News of the World man advised UEA over ‘climategate’, EDP-24, Norfolk July 16, 2011

OK, so add it to the Neil Wallis article, where it might, just possibly, be relevant. But I have warned you repeatedly about using Wikipedia to smear people you disagree with. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Guetterda, please hold the wild accusations. Fixed a broken ref, cited the rest. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wild accusations"? The material you added was totally unsourced. You had three sources, none of which even vaguely supported your claims. And saying that there was a broken link in the material I removed is utterly false. You have a long history of engaging in unsourced smears against living people here. And please stop misspelling my user name. Just stop it with the BLP violations, stop it with the false accusations and lay off the rudeness. Guettarda (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And, by the way, it's still a dodgy source. The source it's taken from may be reliable enough to use as a source for Wallis' words, but an interview with someone who has been charged with a crime (and is thus, by definition, a dodgy source for factual information) is not good enough for a BLP. We have higher standards for accusations against living people, not lower ones. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This still looks like a smear, based on nothing but a local paper's interest in trying to find some reference to its area in a national scandal. There needs to be evidence that this is significant to the controversy as a whole: uni hires pr agency after hacking seems to about the sum of it, and that's hardly very significant news. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty well established that UEA did in fact use Neil Wallis as a PR consultant, and there is nothing controversial about adding that fact to the article, perhaps as part of the Responses/University of East Anglia section. There is nothing unusual or sinister about a large organisation obtaining PR help, and it's in no sense a smear to say that they did, or to name the individual they used. Obviously we shouldn't use this article to speculate about the allegations that are flying around his other activities. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not controversial in any way or form - the question is.... as always .... is it relevant? Or is this just a news-bite that gets interest because of another not related controversy. Wallis is (imho) not interesting here, but probably is elsewhere. Considering all the more relevant stuff that can't make the threshold of relevance, this one doesn't even merit interest (again imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Are we really planning on adding coverage of every piece of work all the people involved in the News of the World scandal ever did? And dotting all over Wikipedia in the articles about the other organisations they worked for? It sounds like a massive attempt at original synthesis to me. The statement that this man once did did some PR work for UEA, and is now involved in the NOTW story, did not (as far as we know from the sources) affect either the causes or the outcomes of the UEA hacking controversy. I wonder if the journalists trying to associate these two stories here, are going through all the items on the CV of every arrested NOTW worker with the same enthusiasm? I think it's an attempt at some kind of guilt-by-association smear, myself. Let some RS show some actual outcome or result of the association before it is notable enough to include, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As is usual with breaking news, we should wait for details and analyses to appear in RS's before adding this to the article, I think.

Still, it's an interesting development, no? Particularly as the Outside Organisation is apparently known for spreading disinformation, and conducting "covert ops." One wonders why UEA would hire such a group. I would imagine that FOIA requests will follow. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Still, it's an interesting development, no?" - certainly not - unless we're substituting for a discussion forum. You are very much speculating and projecting personal POV - I suggest that you keep this at home - or on the various blogs that you frequent :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Pete, your smear is showing. Speculation and an attempt to link the uni with unsavoury characters such as Cameron simply shows that you're trying to spread disinformation. The blunt and not terribly significant fact is that they engaged a PR firm after being chastised in the press for poor PR. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Dave, I strongly object to your accusation that I am "smearing" CRU. OO's reputation -- and staff (some now arrested) -- are what they are. Anyway, let's wait to see what develops, eh? I promise not to call it "Outside-gate" ;-] Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, let's wait to see what develops, eh? Excellent idea! Eventually, we will probably want to include some mention of this under Section 3.1. There is no rush to do this, but on the contrary, every indication we should wait for things to settle out. Certainly it's noteworthy that the UEA hired a PR man. Care must be taken not to add more than due weight to it.

Just a reminder: WP reflects what the mainstream media reports. This by the hometown paper would be an appropriate RS, but I think we should wait at least a week to insert it. One sentence noting the engagement of a PR professional with a hyperlink to Neil Wallis would suffice. Meanwhile, a flurry of editing at the Wallis page would be expected and acceptable. His arrest has nothing to do with the CRU, at least not as far as anyone knows at present. Yopienso (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own point there, Yopienso. His arrest has nothing to do with the CRU. What else makes associating the two suddenly notable? Unless we have RSs explicitly stating the influence whatever got Neil Wallis arrested had on the CRU e-mail controversy, we have nothing to say here. --Nigelj (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

@Yopienso yes, we reflect what the media reports, but not blindly nor completely, or we'd simply be a mirror site. We select what to include, using judgement. --SPhilbrickT 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nigel and Sphilbrick: Maybe you read too quickly what I wrote.

Certainly it's noteworthy that the UEA hired a PR man. Care must be taken not to add more than due weight to it. . . One sentence noting the engagement of a PR professional with a hyperlink to Neil Wallis would suffice.

I do not think any mention of Wallis's arrest belongs in this article. I do think the fact that he was hired to help remedy the UAE's PR problem should be briefly mentioned. Yopienso (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the arguments here seem to be against a quite different proposal, which it's not clear to me that anyone is actually making. We already comment on UEA's PR problems, and the appointment of PR professionals are obviously relevant in this context. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't mention Wallis at the moment, and never have in the past. What makes him notable enough to mention now? Ahh, the fact that he's been arrested. That's the synthetic smear that I don't like - even if, as of this proposal, we expect people to click his link (Easter-egg style) to make the connection in their own heads. It's a step along the way to explicit synthesis, it's unnecessary and it's totally unsupported by RSs. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution: Don't name Wallis, but Outside Organization. Or don't even name them, just note something along this line: "Realizing there was a public image and communications problem, the University hired a public relations professional." Sourced then to the Norfolk paper or the Welwyn Hatfield Times. The reason we haven't mentioned this before is because we didn't know it. Anyone can see that the hiring of a PR firm is part of the response from UEA. I repeat that undue weight should not be given this bit of information. Yopienso (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a smear Tillman? You throw up the most tenuous of connections here, but edit war to remove very reliably sourced criticism from articles about "skeptics". Your agenda-driven editing is incredibly transparent and has stepped into the real of disruption. Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't deserve inclusion in the article at this time. The arrest is titillating, but no identified relationship to CRU. If some evidence turns up that Outside spread information, then it would be relevant, but at the moment, that isn't close to being established.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• As the one who brought this up, I'd still recommend holding off a bit longer, to let more details emerge. Though Guettarda's idea of adding a bit to Neil Wallis now, seems appropriate. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more details, in a (probably) RS: The Climategate Hacking Scandal Link. Interesting reading. I'm not familiar with the Energy Tribune (redirect to its editor), but it seems respectable. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You've just shot yourself in the foot. This is the last line of the article:

Hat tip to: Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit for this story.

Yopienso (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve McIntyre bringing the story to their attention doesn't necessarily make it or the publication unreliable. I'm sure even Time and Sixty Minutes will listen to tips. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. ET's reporter seems to have done some independent reporting and fact-checking as well. And McIntyre has been quoted or credited in a wide range of MSM pubs. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if ET is a reliable source. It's a self-published web opinion "journal". From their self-description:

Our motto is “Leading the debate. Beating the Street.” We publish on the Web to help you understand the key issues in the energy sector and to help you make money in the energy business. We believe our news and analysis, combined with our various stock lists and indices, will allow you to do just that. We publish because we have strongly held beliefs about energy. Here are a few of them:

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tags

I'm not sure the specific neutrality tag in the lede is necessary, as the article has an overall neutrality tag. The rest of the removals are due to Virditas's unique interpretation of the sourced material in the text, and should not be done without a clear consensus. Alternatively, the offending statements should be removed. There was no consensus that V's interpretation was clear or warranted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Arthur. Article still needs work! -- and has the problems mentioned above, in Talk. Note that mention of editors names in subheads is discouraged. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin and Tillman appear to both misunderstand the relevant policies and guidelines and the use of maintenance tags. I do not see any justification for the current use of tags that Tillman added back into the article[6] and furthermore, I expect an explanation here, in this section, explaining why Tillman added them back. What I see here is a misuse of the maintenance tag system in order to hold the article hostage to a minority, fringe POV that is not supported by the mainstream sources. In other words, the so-called "dispute" that Arthur Rubin and Tillman claim they see, does not in fact exist. This continuing misuse of maintenance tags to push a POV is not acceptable practice and I will remove them again in 24 hours if an adequate explanation for their use is not offered. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm confused as to where the discussion is about the multiple tags you have just restored into the article. Is the problem that you want to add Richard A. Muller's article Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change? or do you want to globalize the media coverage section per my suggestion of 19 June 2011? Perhaps you want more information on the ICO ruling, or is it that you've changed you mind about holding off a bit longer on Wallis's arrest? It is not possible to engage in realistic discussion unless you are more specific regarding the current disputes you personally have with the wording of the article with regard to the four sections on this discussion page. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Tag 101 - While I haven't explored the tag guidelines in quite some time, it is (was?) recommended that any tag be associated with a clearly delineated talk section established to resolve a specific dispute to consensus agreement. Works pretty well too. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On my part, it's quite simple. The first statement provides an odd POV; it implies that only climate sceptics were those breaking the story in the blogosphere, and that they felt it represented a global warming conspiracy. Specific sources are needed for both, as the text of the article is not adequate to support the conclusion without further synthesis. I suspect sources exist for the first one, but not for the second. One could make a case that some people (including climate sceptics) found evidence of a global warming conspiracy, but even that requires further synthesis. (It's possible that some sources in the article support that, but the present text of the article does not.)

The second tagged statement, "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists," is not supported by the text of the article, so a citation is needed. I don't doubt that some journalists raised such concerns, but we don't have evidence in the text of the article, and I, for one, cannot see any possible support for it being a general consensus of journalists.

I actually don't see an active discussion on the matter, but I certainly don't see (in the talk page history) a consensus that the text should remain. I think Tillman may have been wrong in reinstating the tags, rather than removing the unsourced material entirely.

Probably the best result consistent with the existing sources would be to make the first sentence read:

• The story first broke with climate sceptics in the blogosphere, with some alleging the correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy.[ref][ref]

I suspect "most" would be accurate, but is inherently impossible to confirm, and "all" or "almost all" would be just false. However, the followup sentence, "According to sceptics, the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics," really says all that needs to be said about the global warming conspiracy. Appending [2] to support that, in addition to [3], and removing the global warming conspiracy clause entirely from the lede (but leaving it in "See also"), might even be a better resolution.

The second tagged sentence just has no source, and would be undue weight in the lede if it did have a source, so should be removed.

I'm probably not going to make either change, because of the 1RR restriction, but a sensible editor, who has not yet edited today, would be welcome to do so. On second thought, only Tillman had a revert.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please reduce your "wall of text" down to half of its size and separate your points by bullets and signature so that I may directly target each and every claim you've made without having my points lost in your wall of text. I can address each and every one of your claims, but I know you will engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you did before, so I want it to be very clear that your claims have been addressed and the dispute has been resolved. As it stands, you are ignoring the sources in use and making bad edits, including removing properly summarized content per WP:LEAD that is already sourced in the body. If you don't refactor, I will refactor your comments for you. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, since you are unable to reasonably refactor your comment into a brief statement that illustrates your concerns, in order to quickly work towards resolution, I will do it for you. In summary, the reason you support a variety of maintenance tags in this article boils down to the fact that you personally dispute (without any sources supporting your position) the following factual statements:

1. The story first broke in the blogosphere, with climate sceptics alleging that the email correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy.
2. Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientist

In addition to your personal dispute (sans sources) over the two statements listed above you made a recent edit that removed the term "global warming conspiracy" from statement 1 and placed it in a see also section.[7] Your edit is against best practice. On Wikipedia, we move links from the see also section into the body of an article. In any case, your reasons for supporting maintenance tags and removing and changing factual information is not supported by the sources. Statement 1 is still fully sourced in this version of the article prior to your most recent edit, and contains many more supporting sources throughout the article. It is an established fact that the story first broke in the blogosphere (Hickman & Randerson 2009; Epstein et al. 2011;) with climate sceptics alleging that the email correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy. (Efstathiou & Morales 2009; Somaiya 2010; and about a dozen other reliable sources all previously offered in the archives) Statement 2 is a summary of the media reception section, and is fully sourced. (NYT 2010; Begley 2010; Brainard 2010a; Brainard 2010b; Conason 2010; Brainard received secondary source coverage in Conason and in issue 14 of Earth Island Journal for Autumn 2010; Non-journalists, such as Weart raises the same concerns in Freedman 2009, as does publicist Royce in Häne & Strebel 2010)

In conclusion, I don't see any valid dispute here, and I can show comment after comment, thread after thread, diff after diff of Mr. Rubin acknowledging these sources in the talk page archives, but continuing to ignore them, making up excuse after excuse. Seen in this light, Mr. Rubin's repeated claims that these statements are "odd" or "unsourced" are a documented case of disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and deserving of sanction. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The first disputed clause wasn't sourced as a clause, although a carefully written separate sentence might be justified by the sources given. I don't consider the separate statement necessary, as specific accusations of a conspiracy are contained in the next sentence. Perhaps a simple change from "scientists manipulating" to "scientists conspiring to manipulate" would resolve the concerns of those who want "conspire" in the lede.
2. As for "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists", that doesn't appear in the body. Even if the two clauses (separated by "while") were be sourced in the body, the connection would also require a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, you have not shown how the "clause" is disputed in any way, nor have you looked at a single reference. Showing up here and saying "I dispute this" isn't helpful and doesn't improve the encyclopedia. You claimed that the first statement represents an "odd POV" which means you don't like it. You then said "it implies that only climate sceptics were those breaking the story in the blogosphere, and that they felt it represented a global warming conspiracacy" which doesn't mean anything at all. The sources overwhelmingly support the statement, but you removed it because it is at odds with your fringe POV. That is not acceptable.

As for the second statement, your comments disputing it sound like the response was written by a random word generator. The "two clauses" as you refer to them, explicitly summarize the main points of the media reception section, and the "connection" as you put it, is fully sourced as well. Arthur, have you read a single source in this article? Do you even know the name of this article? I'm going to restore the first statement and the edits you removed because they are supported by the sources cited and not a single thing about them is disputed. However, I'm going to modify the second statement to bring it more inline with the media reception section. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, can you explain why you reverted me in your latest edit?[8]. Your edit summary does not make any sense. I just provided you with the sources that you claim don't exist. Did you read them? They are already in the article and the lead summarizes the media section. I've named them for you above, with the last name and year of publication. I've also provided additional sources that support the material. Can you please explain why you reverted my edits after your request for sources was fulfilled? I also don't understand why this article has maintenance tags in the header. Looking at the page history, you appear to have made a series of blanket reverts over and over again for the past several months for no known reason. Could you please explain your behavior here? While you are at it, could you also provide good sources supporting your view of this dispute? As you have been reminded here in the past, we don't edit articles based on our personal beliefs or POV. We edit based on the sources. I should not have to tell someone who had been here since 2005, nor an admin for that matter, that ignoring a discussion and continuing to blanket revert with false edit summaries and misleading edits (as Nigel observes below) is extremely bizarre. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your "sources" do not support the statements as given without some WP:SYNTHESIS.

The first set of sources can be said to support (1) That the leaks were first discussed on climate sceptic blogs, which I consider reasonably close to discussed by climate sceptics in the blogosphere. (2) (Some) sceptics considered them evidence of conspiracy. Only one of the 3 sources you provided matched our definition of global warming conspiracy. However, the next sentence specified the conspiracy more precisely than even "global warming conspiracy"; that "the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics".

Even if you believe the statement about the global warming conspiracy to be sourced, it's not necessary.

As for the second, that's a partial summary of the second half of the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Media reception" section, except that he's not a "journalist". (The rest of the first paragraph was also summarized in the lede.) There are no other comments in the "Media reception" section about lack of coverage of the "exoneration", and no comments outside of the first paragraph which relate to "sensationalism". Your version of the lede makes no mention of "the climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause" and "raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere".

The lede should summarize the article, not selected paragraphs of the article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, I'm afraid your comments are not acceptable. First, you claim the content is not sourced, even though we have had this discussion many times and you've been provided with the sources here and in the article. At that point, you move the goal posts and say that even if is sourced, it isn't necessary, falling back to you old nonsensical statements. As you have been reminded, we write from the sources, not based on what you personally think is necessary. You then claim that the term "global warming conspiracy" means something different. When it is pointed out that there is zero evidence for your claim, and the sources clearly call it one and the same, you then fall back on claiming it is unsourced again. There appears to be either a serious competency issue on your end or a deliberate pattern of obfuscation, distortion, and deception. You've been repeatedly asked to review the sources, yet you refuse. I suppose I will once again have to quote them word for word for you in this section. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is still no evidence for global warming conspiracy in the references you've given. However, even if there were evidence, it's not necessary, as the detailed conspiracy is given with specific references in the next sentence, so a rational person who really wants global warming conspiracy shouldn't object to my revision.

And, I suppose, Tillman and I were wrong to tag "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists" as requiring a citation; it's merely undue weight. I suppose, to be fair, the preceding sentence should also be removed, as also summarizing a selected part of the article. If we are going summarize a section of the article, we should summarize the entire section.

I was going to say that your arguments were nonsense, but they merely require nonstandard interpretations of the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the suggestions of Nigelj below (and my original recommendation above) I will respond in subsections devoted to each issue. Viriditas (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy

Section in progress

1. The story first broke in the blogosphere, with climate sceptics alleging that the email correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy.

Promotion of early sensationalised allegations while minimizing later coverage

1. Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists

This statement currently refers to concerns raised by journalist Curtis Brainard at CJR[9] and journalist Howard Kurtz at CNN[10] as they appear in the media reception section of this article. There are also additional sources that can be added: Brainard's concerns are also covered in the secondary source, Earth Island Journal (Autumn 2010). Coverage of the same concerns raised by Brainard and Kurtz were published in an article by journalist David R. Baker in the San Francisco Chronicle[11] and by political journalist Joe Conason in Salon.[12] Journalist Sharon Begley talked about the implications of the concerns,[13] while Swiss journalists Justin Häne and Etienne Strebel published straight observations by Bill Royce mirroring the same concerns raised by Brainard, Kurtz, Baker, and Conason.[14] Viriditas (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The mainstream media is either bemoaning the alleged hacking, or beating itself up for "sensationalizing" the scandal. This is pretty typical of what coverage has been all along. The actual issues raised by the e-mail are apparently too trivial to bother with. Kauffner (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have separated your comment from the above section as it does not address the topic. To recap, Arthur Rubin claims the material he removed was unsourced. I have shown in the above, that it was in fact sourced all along and more sources can be found supporting it. I am awaiting Arthur Rubin's reply on this matter as intend to restore it to the lead as a significant summary of concerns raised by journalists and other commentators. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, there are adequate references for the second clause ("minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists"), and the general connection, but not for the first clause ("Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations") there is only marginal support for "journalists", and no support for "sensationalised". I apologize for not noticing the parts of the last paragraph of the section which present the same comments as parts of the first paragraph. Paragraphs describing similar views should be adjacent. There are also {{undue}} considerations, as the second paragraph of the section is given no weight in the lede, and the third paragraph little weight. But I was wrong to say the statement was not substantially supported in the text of the article.

Arthur, as myself and others have reminded you, we aren't interested in your "thinking about it". We are interested in what the sources say and how we best represent them. Your continual moving of the goal posts tells me you don't have a valid reason for removing this or any other material. Again, we go with the sources, not what you think about the topic. What do the sources say? Please answer that question. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You've now properly edited the section to match the lede. As the sources you removed arguably do not belong in that section, the sentence appears to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Although I'm convinced that you are (probably unconsciously) selecting only sources which support your point of view as to what actually happened, there is no longer an anomaly as to that sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Header tags

The additions of the {{POV}} tag in April 2011 and {{disputed}} tag in May 2011 are not related to the specific tagged sections in the lede, and were never resolved. If the tags are removed, so should the disputed material. Now, I don't remember exactly what the disputed material was, but it covered most of the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, are you admitting that you've been adding back the maintenance tags over the last few days for no reason at all? If you can't defend the use of the maintenance tags, then please do not add them. Your comment that the maintenance tags aren't related to the sections in the lede is more of your absurd goal post moving. In this thread, you responded at 22:50, 19 July directly to JakeInJoisey who requested a discussion about the maintenance tags. You gave your reasons, and now, you are moving the goal posts again saying that those reason had nothing to do with the tagging? I have to ask, are there multiple people using the "Arthur Rubin" account? Because, you obviously aren't paying attention to what you are writing. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The header tags were about different issues than the individual tags in the lede. You've justified most of the second disputed section in the lede, but none of the first. I'll have to research further the concerns which led to the header tags, but the concerns were only resolved in your opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. The factual accuracy and integrity of the sources is sound. You haven't disputed a single thing. When I have time, I would be happy to hold your hand and show you, but considering I've done this already in previous discussions only to have you show up here and say IDIDNTHEARTHAT tells me you are wasting my time. If you can't provide a single reason justifying the maintenance tags, then they get removed. They don't get added because you think you might be able to invent a reason given enough time. This is beyond ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read through the April-May discussions; Alex made some POV claims which were supported by a few editors, and only opposed by V. However, as I'm not sure the same POV claims still apply, I'm not going to restore the tags to the header. On the other hand, if Pete or Alex is willing to provide evidence that the same claims still apply, I would oppose removal of the tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, that is not how we use maintenance tags. You have now admitted several times that you don't know why the maintenance tags are in the article and yet you keep adding them in the hopes that you can discover their purpose. If you cannot provide a reason, then the tags must be removed. We don't edit by proxy for unexplained reasons or for reasons that have yet to be explained. Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary

Could someone explain this edit to me? It appears from the edit summary that some disputed material, along with tags, is being removed in the middle of a discussion about the material and the tags (going on above). However, when you look at the edit, the sentences 'The story first broke with climate sceptics in the blogosphere. According to sceptics, the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics' have been rearranged, but not removed, and the tags that follow, {POV-statement|date=June 2011}{Syn|date=June 2011}, remain. Further down, the sentence 'According to sceptics, the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics', which was not tagged, has been removed. A third sentence and its tags were removed. Aren't there rules about edit summaries that say one thing accompanying edits that also do others? Are there guidelines about adding dispute tags, starting discussions, and not moving the goalposts around by altering and removing the disputed text soon after the discussion starts? I only ask because I am finding the logic in this increasingly hard to follow, and I am trying to follow it. --Nigelj (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the tags in question a few minutes ago. They only relate to global warming conspiracy. The "wall of text" reference, in addition to not supporting the statement, was not written in a form I expected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How is that an answer to the question asked by Nigelj? From where I stand, you made up a bunch of nonsense, invented an edit summary, and made edits that had nothing to do with anything but supported your own personal POV. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate skeptic at one time redirected to Climate change denial, and currently redirects to Global warming controversy. 99.181.156.173 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That happens to be misleading. Climate skeptic redirected, for a short period of time, to Climate change denial, and currently redirects to the relatively stable Global warming controversy, with some supporting List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of climate skeptics currently redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Move forward

I think we should deal with sentences and passages one at a time, not three at a time. For each disputed part, there should be a new section. People should quote from the most relevant source or two, not just list them, ten or twelve at a time, by author and date (that's too much for mere mortals to read to justify one sentence). Then we can all discuss weight and relevance, once the integrity of the text has been publicly verified here. --Nigelj (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I will do that above. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup external links section

The external links section requires serious cleanup. I don't see how links to old sources like "The Great Climategate Debate" are helpful or needed. We probably don't even need an external links section, but for now, it should contain only the most important links, such as links to the multiple reports exonerating the scientists. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that link. Video of actual testimony before the House of Commons, and any other testimony leading to reports, seems appropriate, but a debate? However, I'm not going to use one of my 3RRs to remove the link (as you known, removal of content is considered a "revert" for the purpose of 3RR, if not necessarily 1RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Investigation of theft

The article says only "The investigation is as yet unresolved." It may be too early for Wikipedia purposes, but see this recent article about a number of possible connections to the Murdoch hacking empire. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been drawn to my attention that the Daily Kos has commented on this, still very much in the realm of speculation imo. . dave souza, talk 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, James Murdoch wrote an op-ed in Dec. 2009 arguing for climate legislation and green energy.[15] That conflicts with the memo sent out by Fox around the same time[16] and their promotion of climategate. RS agree that Fox pushed the climategate/scientists as criminals/global warming is a hoax line more than any other news outlet. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see "We are being completely knocked apart in the press", upthread. Early days, as Dave remarked. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean energy is a conservative cause by James Murdoch in the 4.December.2009 Washington Post (Politico (newspaper) referenced directly) 99.112.214.186 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Romm recently wrote a highly speculative piece trying to link the Murdoch scandals to the CRU hacking, based on the fact that a corrupt Murdoch associate worked for the Metropolitan Police and was later hired by the University of East Anglia as a PR flack. This is highly unlikely to gain traction, but if and when it does then it should be covered, albeit very cautiously. --TS 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the main subjects of the Olbermann piece on Daily Kos linked by dave souza up above at 21:42. It provides one explanation of why an investigation never happened but doesn't shed any light on the hacking. There are enough good sources at this point to add some of this Wallis-related material to a section about the investigation. Although Sean Hoare, the primary whistleblower, was conveniently found dead the day after the police commissioner resigned and a day before the parliament began their hearings, Hoare did mention in various sources that there were other private investigators and players who had more information and were waiting in the wings. The number of coincidences here cannot go unnoticed. That the Murdoch empire was able to infiltrate the British government isn't all that surprising. The U.S. government has been under corporate control for five decades. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I love Keith Olbermann and even now I can't just click a link on the MSNBC site to see his show I still never miss an episode. However this is very obscure stuff (I'm also for my sins a Joe Romm fan and I saw it at Climate Progress first). This link doesn't seriously compromise the Met's involvement to the extent that it will get past most journalists' bullshit filters. If and when it does (and sorry Joe, sorry Keith, sorry Kostas, it isn't there yet) then it will be all over, because if we had the proverbial smoking gun this would be a huge story. We don't and the journalists don't so they're interested, some of them, but they're waiting for that smoke.

Coincidences, conspiracy theories and whatnot: meh, we've had enough of those, most of them coming from the poisonous nasties who were out to deny the science. But the same kind of reasoning coming from anybody else is still just as bad. --TS 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Still not seeing it, eh? Murdoch's empire doesn't publish "huge stories", they create them. That's the essence of a manufactured controversy, and it is the central core of the allegations in the phone hacking scandal. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the investigation of the hacked emails? Remember all those corporations that were hacked by Anonymous? The U.S. government tracked the hackers down and arrested them. It must not be a priority for the British government to track down the climategate hackers, and it is just a coincidence that Murdoch employees working with the police discouraged the investigation. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If this wasn't by an obvious regular I would close this per WP:FORUM, and my intent is to do that if we can't redirect this discussion towards the article. --TS 03:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. While you're at it, you may want to contact the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica, as their article on "The Environment", which includes a section on climategate, has been infiltrated by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and we don't stand for that nonsense here. You know that. That's why we have a verifiability policy and a neutral point of view. --TS 03:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This article should mention that the covertly funded Global Warming Policy Foundation was founded days after the hacking at UEA, and its sole purpose appears to be centered around publishing criticism of the investigation into the hacking. It's amazing how fast they were able to form that organization after the hacking took place. Almost a miracle, even. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede revisions and "global warming conspiracy"

I removed this assertion once again -- please see extensive discussion upthread. Please don't ropen this!

Also, my recollection is that Dellingpole credited someone at WUWT with coining the term "Climategate" -- a minor point, and I don't think this needs to be in the lede anyway. I also CE'd to supply a neutral description of Dellingpole. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, the sources support the addition of GWC and there hasn't been any evidence-based discussion on its removal by you and Arthur, only "I don't like it", and that won't fly. Also, you and Arthur have been repeatedly reminded that we don't edit based on your personal "recollection", so I'm astonished that you are once again appealing to your memory rather than the sources in the article. Is there a good reason you and Arthur don't use sources? For the record, Dellingpole describes himself as a libertarian conservative, and that is as neutral as you can get. Additionally, regardless of what you remember, the sources credit him with coining the term. Please don't make me remind you to rely on the sources again, and please don't remove sourced material without a very good reason. Unless you have something valuable to add based on actual reliable sources, I will be reverting your edits in the next few hours. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The current conspiracy bit is at least defensible, but it's drawn from a column (by Ravi Somaiya [17]), so needs to be clearly identified as his opinion, if we keep it. WP:Weight -- do we really want an obscure columnist in the lede? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, it is properly attributed to Newsweek. That's just one of the references that appears in the article. You know perfectly well and you've been reminded again and again that the observation is widely supported, including Efstathiou (2009), Pearce (2009), Venkatraman (2010), Goertzel (2010), and Winterton (2010), among many others. This is not just Somaiya's opinion. Further, it should only say global warming conspiracy, and the quote should be removed. For some reason that you and Arthur have never been able to communicate, the both of you keep removing the link and reference to the term. Why? I think I deserve an explanation as to why you and Arthur dispute the use of this term when the sources support it. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

V., you might want to reread the voluminous previous discussions on this topic, and then ask yourself why your proposed addition of global warming conspiracy has not (iirc) attracted support from other editors . We can't always keep going in circles here.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not how we edit articles or use the talk page, Tillman. Feel free to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you have some free time. If you object to material in the article, then you need to briefly explain your objection. If you can't do that, then you have no business removing or arguing for the removal of material. As I just finished explaining to you above, the addition of the term global warming conspiracy to describe the allegations and claims made by so-called "climate skeptics" (really deniers hiding under that fake term) is fully sourced, with only a few samples including Efstathiou (2009), Pearce (2009), Venkatraman (2010), Goertzel (2010), and Winterton (2010), Somaiya and many others. If you can show something wrong with these sources then do so, however, the fact that the allegations and claims are referred to as a "global warming conspiracy" is not in dispute by any source. Unless you can show such a dispute, or find something wrong with the term, then you have no business removing the material. The climate change literature is in agreement that climate skeptics/contrarians/deniers make use of conspiracy theories as a foundation of their rhetoric, and we that in the manufactured controversy at hand, and the highest quality sources confirm it. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who coined "climategate"?

Reliable sources generally give credit to libertarian conservative blogger James Delingpole for coining the term "climategate". There is at least one source that claims Andrew Bolt coined it, but Delingpole and Bolt published their respective articles on the subject on the same day, although without a timestamp from Dellingpole[18] it's not at all clear if Bolt was taking his lead from Delingpole or someone else. I say someone else because Tillman is partly correct, in that Delingpole admits he got the idea from a comment made by an anonymous blogger.[19] However, this is true with most things, in that the person who gets credit for something often draws on the ideas of others for inspiration. Nevertheless, Delingpole receives the credit for coining and popularizing the term per Booker et al. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- you have it wrong. See this article, which links to a summary of a MA thesis on the topic, and has a very detailed timeline. Just as I recalled, D. picked it up from WUWT.

The thesis might be a worthwhile resource, assuming we think its a RS.

Why don't you also address why you think this should be in the lede? It's getting pretty big.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the sources you just linked, and I'm not seeing what I have wrong. Can you specify? Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience -- several busy days in RL! I CEd to credit D. with popularizing CG, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I've had to remove it because it introduces alliteration, which is a big no-no. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox coverage notable? Six investigations? Consensus unchanged?

Is there some particular reason to single out Fox's coverage? Removed as arguably a borderline NPOV problem, though I left the ref there. And these Wall of Text ref-farms in the lede are getting ridiculous! On my screen, footnote #7 is now 9 column inches long!! Good grief.

I tagged the "6 committees" bit as dubious -- didn't we decide to go with the 4 principal ones? Which are the other 2? List of the six??

Note that the "scientific consensus that global warming is occuring" is misleading, as none of the CG investigations actually addressed this. It is true that lots of RS opinions re this were published, but the fact that all of these are op-ed stuff (arguably, spin) needs to be addressed. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not understanding your objection nor your removal of this material.

1. It is an established fact that the "climategate" controversy was covered more by and promoted almost exclusively by right-wing, conservative media outlets, with Fox News leading the pack. This isn't a matter of dispute. In fact, several conservative news outlets made it a matter of pride to note that only Fox was promoting the story for the first several weeks after it broke, playing into ye olde Fox effect news cycle that we know so well as true and tried: blogger break a a non-story, usually manufactured; Fox covers it and bloggers complain that other news outlets are ignoring it; mainstream media outlets begin covering it; it is later found out, weeks to months later, that the subject was completely manufactured. This has happened so many times now, that one would expect you to be familiar with it. In any case, the reliable sources on both sides of the political spectrum indicate that Fox News was instrumental in promoting the story. If you have good sources that contradict this fact, you are welcome to remove it, but you can't keep removing material that you personally disagree with due to your POV. We edit based on the sources, not on you memory of the event, nor on your beliefs. Please remember this. A NPOV problem exists when there is a disparity between the sources and the topic. When news sources on the left and right both agree that Fox News was the leader on reporting this story, there is no dispute. Although I have access to many more sources that support this material, it is, as the footnotes indicate, currently supported by Mooney & Kirshenbaum 2010; Boslough 2010; and Goldenberg 2010. I will add more right now.
2. As for the six committees, that is completely sourced, and I encourage you to do the research. Please refrain from adding any more maintenance tags until you have a reason to add them. When you add a tag and say "didn't we decide to go with the 4 principal ones" you are admitting that you are editing from your personal memory and not from the sources. I've repeatedly asked you not to do this. If you had bothered to read the source at the end of the paragraph of that statement, you would notice footnote 11: "The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US)." When you ask "what are the other two" you are indicating that you are not reading the sources in the article. Please stop removing material because you don't have time to review the sources. Feel free to review our policy on WP:V and become familiar with it.
3. The statement that the "scientific consensus that global warming is occurring" is not misleading in the slightest, and the sources in the current article as well as many other sources, directly address this fact in relation to this topic. This is because the entire manufactured controversy of "climategate" was designed to cast doubt and uncertainty on this statement, and this effort has been shown to have failed completely and that is exactly what the sources say. We cite the sources and they are not "op-ed's" in the slightest, they are straight news stories published by the highest-quality sources.
4. Tillman, if you don't have time to do the research or read the sources, then please don't remove material. I have repeatedly asked you to stop doing this. If you have any further questions, direct them specifically to a particular source or statement and then please find sources of your own that you feel present a different view on the matter. I'm going to restore the previous version of the article because you have removed reliably sourced material once again for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

V, I see you restored the clause beginning "one of the research centres that constructs various global..." to the lede. Why do you think we need this? CRU is wikilinked -- this just looks like excess clutter to me. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And now I see Arthur Rubin has tag-temed and removed it for no rational reason.[20] This is not "excess clutter", Tillman. This is how we write articles. Please familiarize yourself with the fundamental concepts of WP:BETTER, WP:AUDIENCE, WP:TECHNICAL, WP:SUMMARY, WP:LEAD. When we write articles, we write them from not from the perspective of editors who know the subject, but from the viewpoint of readers who are seeing this article for the very first time. In this example, you and Arthur have violated the trust between editors and readers by disinforming them of the subject. You and Arthur argue that the lead should say

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

instead of this:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), one of the research centres that constructs various global temperature and precipitation analyses.

Good article writing dictates that we explain the subject, including introductory material that would help contribute to the basic understanding of a technical topic. You and Arthur have both removed this information, in violation of our most basic writing guidelines. As editors, our task is to use the lead section to introduce the topic, (WP:BETTER) and make our articles acessible. Per WP:AUDIENCE:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully.

Per WP:OBVIOUS we want to convey who the CRU is (a research centre) and what they do as an organization (construct global temperature and precipitation analyses). Further, per WP:LEAD, this information is important enough to explain and include: "where uncommon terms [Climatic Research Unit] are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." That is exactly what was done per best practices and you and Arthur Rubin had no good reason for removing it. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your "six committees" reply above is unresponsive. Again, please list them. Body of the article lists the four official investigations, as I indicated above. Please avoid adding material to the lede that isn't already in the body of the article -- please see WP:Lead. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you define "unresponsive" as directly answering your question with the information you specifically requested, then I suggest you need a new dictionary. Why have you asked me to "list them" when I did that above at 22:10, 27 July 2011 in direct response to your previous request and I showed you where they could be found listed in the footnote. So, once again, you are asking the same question even after the answer has been provided? The body of the article only lists four, Tillman, and as the talk archives show, I've repeatedly asked for help expanding the section. Perhaps you will now do some research and help expand that section? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, your reply above fairly reeks of condescension -- which is something I and other editors have asked you to avoid. Please read (and heed) WP:Civility. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been perfectly civil, Mr. Tillman. Please acknowledge that questions have been answered instead of ignoring my answers and asking the same question over and over again. Am I being clear, Mr. Tillman?

1. You asked for the names of the six committees at 21:02, 27 July 2011.[21]
2. I responded with the names of the six committees sometime after 22:10, 27 July 2011, responding with, "If you had bothered to read the source at the end of the paragraph of that statement, you would notice footnote 11: "The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US)." When you ask "what are the other two" you are indicating that you are not reading the sources in the article. Please stop removing material because you don't have time to review the sources. Feel free to review our policy on WP:V and become familiar with it."[22]
3. You responded saying my response was "unresponsive" and requested that I list them again at 18:51, 28 July 2011.

Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies re asking twice for the 6 committees.

Nevertheless, the last two two aren't in the body of the article, and as has been pointed out to you many times, it's poor practice to add material to the lede that's not yet in the article.

As for your comments re ID'ing CRU, do you really suppose any of our readers don't know how to click on a link? And please cease your repeated accusations of "tag-teaming:, which are false, against WP:AGF policy, and tiresome. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is completely wrong. You and others keep repeating that false claim, but it has been repeatedly pointed out here that the WP:LEAD guideline allows for "specific facts [which] will often appear only in the lead...This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text", and that is what we have here. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of maintance tags

Arthur Rubin has once again placed a maintenance tag on this article without using the talk page. The template instructions (On the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag.) and the template itself (Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.) clearly require, as with all maintenance templates, that the user discuss their rationale on the talk page. Per template instructions and best practice, I have repeatedly asked Arthur Rubin to use the talk page whenever he adds a maintenance tag.[23] JakeInJoisey also recently reiterated this point[24] and Arthur Rubin responded to it,[25] indicating that Arthur Rubin has read and understood best practices. Even so, Arthur Rubin has now added a {{content}} tag for no known reason.[26] It appears once again, that Arthur Rubin is deliberately disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide more detailed information in a bit, but you've violated WP:BRD, by reverting my reversion of your modifications in the guise of "copyediting", and we had a consensus that "hacked" could only be referenced by sources with real knowledge, which means only the police reports, as using UEA would be a violation of WP:SPS. Unless you want to provide evidence that the consensus has changed, your edit adding "hacked" (twice) to the lede is a violation of that consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't rely on primary sources like police reports to write Wikipedia articles, so you're mistaken. The vast majority of secondary sources refer to this as a hacking and it's not in any serious dispute by anyone. If you can't provide a simple rationale for your use of the template (per template instructions) then you have no business adding it. You've been repeatedly told to use the talk page to discuss your edits. I don't have to wait hours to days for you to make something up. What part of "on the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag" isn't making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the rationale for the tag?

Arthur Rubin, why have you permanently placed a {{content}} tag at the top of this article without any explanation? You said at 08:32, 24 July 2011 that you would give more detailed information, but you have not. I think it is clear that the only reason you placed this tag was to edit war. Please explain why you added this tag or I will remove it. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The rationale is the three sections below. You have made unjustified edits, or edits against consensus, in too many places for me to adjust without probably violating 1RR accidentally. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, we make edits based on the sources, not on what an editor said a year ago in an archived discussion. Is any of this making sense to you? If you have current and reliable sources to offer, please provide them. I'm ready and willing to look at them. But, you need to understand, we don't write articles based on what Wikipedia editors think; we write based on the sources, primarily secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but there was a consensus that certain types of "reliable" sources were not reliable for the purpose of "hacked" vs. "leaked". That consenus does not automatically change because of new sources. As for the rest of your wall of text replies to my concerns, your interpretation of many of the sources does not agree with mine. I wouldn't go so far as to say that your interpretation is necessarily WP:OR, but you have not provided sources for that interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To Viriditas: I believe that Arthur Rubin has this page on his watchlist. (Correct me if I am wrong, Arthur.) Therefor it is unnecessary for you to put "Talkback" templates on Arthur's talk page, and impolite given that he banned you from his talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To JRSpriggs: As long as Arthur Rubin continues to post on my talk page[27] then he will receive notices from me on his talk page. Up until his last edit to my talk page, I have respected his wishes. However, hypocrisy will not be tolerated. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Nigelj, I opened separate sections for each dispute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What dispute? You haven't expressed any dispute based on any sources. You just keep replying with "I don't like it because I think the facts are different, but by the way, I don't have any sources to support my personal opinion". That's not a dispute, that's disruptive editing. Stop it. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your sources do not support your point of view. Please read them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What POV might that be, Arthur? Which sources are you referring to here? Notice, you will never give specifics because there are none. All you are doing is holding this article hostage to your discredited POV which is not supported by the sources. The page history shows that you continue to edit this article based not on the sources, but on your POV. Your latest edits removed an explanation of the CRU from the lead for no reason whatsoever, an explanation that is provided for our readers not for our editors. You have not used the talk page to explain your edits, once again. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hacked

Previous consensus, to avoid inclusion of reliable sources which stated that the data was almost certainly released by a person with legitimate access to the data, was that only reliable sources with actual knowledge could be used for that datum. This means police reports only, and possibly the person who actually uploaded the data. Any statement from or authorized by UEA, or quoting UEA, is not reliable for "hacked" vs. "leaked". If you want to revisit that consensus, go ahead, but be assured that the reliable sources which question "hacked" will also be added to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We never use primary sources like police reports to write Wikipedia articles, as they are subject to interpretation. We rely on secondary sources to avoid editorial bias, like the kind you are displaying above. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this matter. The majority of secondary sources describe the breach as a hacking. Whether taken literally or figuratively, the concept is the same. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 37#RFC: Speculation on the source of the data leak. That seems to be the last consensus on "hacked" vs. "leaked". Since then, you have edit-warred to insert "hacked", and at least 3 editors have opposed the change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not actually pointing me to a discussion from almost a year ago, are you? Yes, in fact you are. Amazing. Well, Arthur, feel free to start here, as Karatzogianni documented the source coverage of climategate as a hack. She even collected and named the sources in that paper. Please do not point me to another old discussion from a year ago. Please make an effort to start doing actual research and reading the sources. Wikipedia editors cannot write articles based on primary sources, it is that simple. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That (and a discussion at WP:RSN) reflect a consensus as to what sources should be used. A new secondary source, without actual knowledge, is still not allowed by that consensus, unless you want to try to establish a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you aren't making any sense. We don't point to discussions from a year ago when we're writing about a topic that has changed greatly during that time, and consensus does and can change. I've provided you with the Karatzogiann 2010 source which is one of the most comprehensive sources about the hacking that I've ever seen, and it even summarizes the sources that appeared in the news. I'm sorry, did you have a single source to offer me in return? No, you didn't. Don't point me to an erroneous discussion from a year ago that misinterprets policies and guidelines. The majority of secondary sources refer to this as a hack. We go with the secondary sources when we write articles on Wikipedia. What we don't do, is interpret primary sources in order to push a POV. I would expect you to know this by now, Arthur. Your suggestion that we rely on a police report that we now know has been tainted by the Neil Wallis allegations is simply outrageous. It's like you inhabit an alternative reality or something. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You have presented absolutely no evidence that the Wikipedia consensus has changed. I agree that (probably) the majority of secondary sources that refer to it as a "hack" or a "leak" refer to it as a "hack". (There are too many to count them all, an we recognize that a google search is not the way to determine the number of sources.) That is not enough for us to say in the editorial voice that it is a hack. If the police report is tainted, then all that we have is uninformed speculation. The Wired article said that almost all reported hacks are, in fact, leaks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't appeal to informal, erroneous discussions from a year ago when we edit articles that have changed significantly in terms of sources, evidence, and scope. Allegations against the scientists were dismissed. Sources such as Karatzogiann 2010 have documented the media coverage of the hacking since that time. Please review it. We certainly don't rely on old police reports that have been superseded by good secondary source coverage. Feel free to review the source I've linked to here and compose a reply. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's neither "informal" nor "erroneous", and it didn't seem to depend on the content of sources, only modifying the general rule as to which sources are reliable for the purpose of "hack" vs. "leak". Your new sources, although probably "reliable" under the old definition, are not reliable under the new definition. If you want to try to restore the standard definition of "reliable", go ahead, but it requires a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. We use the talk page to discuss how to improve an article. We don't hold up discussion or improvement by asking people to read an informal discussion from a year ago about issues that have drastically changed since that time. Nor do we rely on primary sources, especially when we are dealing with controversial subjects. Is there a particular secondary source you would like to point me to that reflects your viewpoint? Please give me the URL or name and date of publication and I'll review it. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If of interest, "Hacked" is a vague term as far as wp in general is concerned, See Hacker (term), Hacker (computer security), and Hacking disamb. page for starters. For a potential more specific term, not per references, see Cracking, such as Software cracking. 99.119.131.65 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring the interjection of the IP, for the moment) On the contrary, the apparent consensus as to what type of sources are allowable for "hacked" v. "leaked" is not automatically changed by new sources in either category, only by a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire incident is classified as a "hacking" in the majority of secondary sources. We don't need to appeal to literal definitions of the word, primary police reports, or old, archived discussions from a year ago to understand this fact. All we need to do is look at the reliable secondary sources, the very sources we use to write Wikipedia articles. Now, if you have an actual objection to using the word "hacking" or "hack", then please summarize your concerns so I may address them. Please do not appeal to a discussion from a year ago, but enunciate your concerns here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we still arguing about this? It was a hacking. Some people speculated that it wasn't a hacking but absolutely no evidence to support that view ever emerged. Some media sources deferred to the potentiality that it was--I don't know what, a controlled but covert release of information?--but it wasn't. It was a hacking. We should stop pretending there is a controversy over this. No, we should have done that over a year ago. Now we should stop pretending that a good faith case can be made that there is a controversy over this. --TS 03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, Arthur presumes to say that there is consensus for the view that 'Any statement from or authorized by UEA, or quoting UEA, is not reliable for "hacked" vs. "leaked".' Absolutely not. There was never anything even close to consensus for that bizarre notion. UAE should know. UEA doesn't have to speculate. When placed against handwaving and speculation, statements of fact based on actual knowledge are authoritative.

I can understand why some people might have felt that statements by UEA should be treated with suspicion. Somehow some people had got the idea that this crime was one in which the victim was to blame. Well those days are gone. The victim was innocent. The criminals have still not been found. They are those who selectively copied material from UEA servers without authorization, with malicious intent. --TS 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There had been agreement to that effect; UEA may have (had) knowledge, but they also have in interest in establishing it was a hack. To the extent UEA statements are considered "self-published", they are not reliable, as they are clearly unduly self-serving. I see evidence of consensus and policy support for that, and no evidence that the consensus has changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"UAE should know. UEA doesn't have to speculate." Short of an identification of the leaker/hacker, with corroborating details, who can say with authority what happened? Has the UAE released this information? If not, the UAE administrators' 'because I say so' isn't proof of anything.

—WWoods (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no logic in doubting the UEA statements. The data and the servers belonged to UEA. Either the owners of the data and servers (UAE management) authorised the release of the data, or it was hacked by someone who was not the legal owner. They say it was hacked by someone other than them. What would be their motivation to release the data purposely, but covertly, and then pretend in public statements that someone else hacked it? There may be some doubt as to the extent of inside knowledge and/or local vs. remote access to the network that the hacker team had, but I don't see the logic in believing the most remote chance that it was a covert authorised release of data by the management of UAE. Most importantly, where are the reliable sources that support this bizarre hypothesis explicitly? If there are none, we do not need to include it in the wording of the article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, who in the News of the World phone hacking case is arguing that some of the victims 'leaked' their own voicemails to the press reporters? --Nigelj (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To Nigelj: In this case, I think that "leaked" would mean that someone (a whistle-blower) inside CRU thought that they were doing something wrong and wanted to inform the public, but did not want to incur the wrath of his colleagues for doing so. Consequently, he collected and released the information secretly. I would guess that this is more likely than an outsider gaining remote access to CRU's computers (hacking) and stealing the information, simply because it requires much less skill and the insider would have knowledge of where to look for the embarrassing information. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why (and how) would this putative person inside CRU then hack into a server of the RealClimate website and upload a copy of the data there? And put the cryptic comment onto McIntyre's Climate Audit website: "A miracle has happened"? When the upload onto RealClimate was taken down, the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia. These do not sound like the behaviours of a CRU scientist who believes their colleagues are "doing something wrong". These are the actions of a hacker. If they had to break into a CRU server, overcoming its security features, in order to get to colleagues' personal e-mails and load them onto RealClimate's and the Tomsk server, that is still hacking. Where are the reliable sources that support any part of this story of the well-meaning CRU person who has legitimate authority to do all this, and innocently wants to inform the public of wrongdoing? My point is that this is a meaningless fantasy, unsupported by all the reported facts, and therefore not worthy of air-time in a Wikipedia article. If I'm wrong, please give me a link to the reliable source of this story. --Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's about the size of it. The notion that an unsupported hypothesis should remain in the article has been persistent. This was a hacking and we shouldn't continue to pander to the notion that it was a whistleblowing or a covert authorized release or anything else somebody might wish it to be. --TS 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I quite agree. The unsupported hypothesis that the CRU (backup) server was hacked shouldn't remain in the article.... </sarcasm>. Seriously, the majority of the reliable sources say it was hacked, but a number (2, I believe) said it looked like (sorry about the grammar) an inside job. We should list both views in the body. The prior consensus that only "knowledgeable" reliable sources should be used leaves none usable; originally only the police report and secondary sources reporting the police report would have qualified, and, considering the police scandal .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to primary sources as if we rely on them to write Wikipedia articles. We don't. We rely on the secondary. There does not seem to be any evidence of an "inside job" at all. If you have sources to the contrary, please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If we do not rely on primary sources there is no more solid evidence that it was a hack than it was a leak. Where is your evidence given in a secondary source that it was a hack. Not a secondary source simply calling it a hack. But presenting solid physical evidence of a hacking. To this date we don't even have IP logs that show an unauthorized person accessing the severs. There is no evidence either way.Bigred58 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{od|8}} OK, I think we're drifting into la-la land a bit here. The statements that it was a hack are cited to sources including the following (and yes, a reliable, informed and/or scholarly secondary source calling it a 'hack' is exactly what we need - server IP logs would be very much a primary source, and at one extreme of un-usability here. Another example of an unusable source would be a private blog or an uninformed opinion from a self-professed 'expert' who has done no research and had no involvement).

• "Climategate broke in November, when a cache of e-mails was hacked from a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)" Pooley, Eric (2010). The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. Hyperion Books. ISBN 140132326X;
• "Hundreds of private emails and documents [...] have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today." Hickman, Leo; Randerson, James (20 November 2009). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists" (The Guardian).
• Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". WashingtonPost.com (Washington Post).
• Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". NYTimes.com (New York Times)
• Arthur, Charles (5 February 2010). "Hacking into the mind of the CRU climate change hacker". London: The Guardian
• etc

Some reliable sources clearly state that the data was hacked and/or stolen and go on to use the word leaked as well. That is mostly just people using similar words to avoid repetition, in good writing style. Once the hacking (of several servers - the source and several destinations) and the illegality is established, there is no need to stick to the same word. Where is the reliable source that establishes that this was a legal and authorised transaction by someone who had the right to copy this data from its CRU source onto each of the destinations where it was initially posted? Without this, we go with the known reliable sources. Just quote a few lines and give author, title, date, URL - the usual stuff for a reference to a RS, not a whole argument, please. --Nigelj (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a straw man -- nobody thinks the release was authorized. However, I've yet to see that it's been determined whether it was the work of an insider or outsider, much less who specifically did it. It's not unprecedented for a disgruntled employee to release information. You've perhaps heard of WikiLeaks?

—WWoods (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Climate sceptics

The addition of the clause "a group opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change" is both unnecessary and inaccurate (climate sceptics is not a "group"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate skeptics, sceptics, denialists, etc. are in fact treated as a group, because they are all opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change. Do you have sources saying otherwise? Furthermore, it is necessary, because the term "climate skeptic" is inherently misleading. All climate scientists are skeptics, whereas the term "climate skeptic" implies that those who deny the evidence for anthropogenic climate change are somehow taking a wait and see attitude, a higher ground of sorts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've even transcribed an interview with a climate skeptic in the archives of this talk page just to follow their argument and the entire thing consists of moving one goal post after another, denying the evidence, and promoting alternative discredited theories. It's climate denial with lipstick. It is important, necessary, and accurate to state that the "climate skeptic" in its natural habitat is at odds with the scientific consensus to avoid any unintended misinterpretation of the term. I've got sources, what about you? Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling them a group is ungrammatical. You can rewrite the sentence to make them a group, but it's still unnecessary. Just click on climate sceptic, and you should be able to see what we think they are. If they're defined as something else here, we shouldn't link to climate sceptic. Furthermore, climate sceptic and climate denialists are different concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually throwing trivial objections at me again? Why did you add a {{content}} tag to this article, Arthur? Obviously, you realize of course, that the content maintenance tag has nothing to do with any of your objections. You do realize that, don't you? Please remove it immediately. Only climate denialists claim climate sceptics are defined differently, and they do so to try and reinvent their image. So tell me, Arthur, what is a climate sceptic, and what source are you using to support your definition? <crickets> Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article climate sceptic redirects to global warming controversy, and our article climate denial redirects to climate change denial. As for the source, there is no possible source which would make the clause both correct and necessary, and have the link climate sceptic be appropriate. This is not a matter of sources, but of simple logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. You've fixed the grammar. There is still no possible source which makes the clause correct and necessary, and have the link climate sceptic be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I only changed it because you were harassing me. The original wording was accurate according to the literature.[28] Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We write articles for the general reader who may not be familiar with the jargon. What is a climate skeptic? In order to help the reader along, it is best practice to briefly illustrate a concept. While we could certainly write, "Climate sceptics alleged that the emails revealed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics", that leaves the general reader wondering what is a climate sceptic? By adding, "Climate sceptics, who challenge the scientific consensus on climate change" or some variant thereof, we are prompting the reader with information about the subject under discussion to help them understand the topic. As for your wild and crazy claim that "there is still no possible source which makes the clause correct", there are probably several hundred sources available. Here's one that actually asked climate sceptics what they believe. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote. There is no possible source which makes the clause correct, necessary, and have a link to climate sceptic. (In fact, there is no possible source which has the clause correct and necessary, and no possible source which has the clause correct and link to climate sceptic, but I originally only meant all three were not possible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What you consider "necessary" is not under discussion. We write from the sources, and we are expected to use them judiciously with attention to accuracy. That is the only thing necessary here. Again, what is a climate skeptic? Please answer the questions with sources. If you can't provide them, I'll de-link the term. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial currently. 99.181.157.254 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

List of climate skeptics currently redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. 99.181.157.254 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate denial earlier today redirected to Climate change denial but now gives a list to choose from ... the dark magic of wp-land. 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Of interest to the "skeptic vs. denier" ... see Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 27#Add article Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers by David Brin in the current issue of Skeptic (U.S. magazine) Vol.15 Number 4. ... Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers by David Brin in Skeptic (U.S. magazine) Vol.15 Number 4. The article differentiates between a reasonable earnest authentic skeptic and a Denialist (Michael Specter "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives" ISBN 978-1594202308 Publisher: Penguin Press HC, The October 29, 2009). 99.155.159.131 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is one from earlier: "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" by John Cook in the Chicago Tribune, and [22] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 99.109.124.167 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Brin has his article (or at least an article with the same title ;-) up on his website: http://www.davidbrin.com/climate2.htm --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thank you Stephan Schulz.  :-) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Stephan. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting article. However, it supports a different distinction between "sceptic" and "denier". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Different" how, exactly? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can explain it to you, with your limited knowledge of English, and my virtually nonexistent knowledge of your native language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Inarticulate answer Art. It doesn't sound like you can explain it to the general public; with references, please ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess is English is not Art's language of origin, that is why he has excessive pride in it. Just sayin' ... 99.181.135.177 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that #BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science independent report by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, p. 67 onwards discusses "putting the mind‐set, and the tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into context.
  They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism, for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided with evidence. A denialist is not." . . . dave souza, talk 09:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Linkage of Manufactured controversy

If you were trying to say, "highly orchestrated and manufactured controversy, then "manufactured controversy" should not be linked. If the sources say "highly orchestrated" and "a manufactured controversy", then it makes sense to link, although ungrammatical. I'm not sure which way makes more sense, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the latter, of course, and correct. Didn't you look at the sources, Arthur? It is not "ungrammatical", you're just not reading it right. Again, "Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy..." Is this making sense, Arthur? Highly orchestrated and manufactured. I'm sorry, but your trivial objection doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well, but manufactured controversy should not be linked, in that case. That I'll take care of, as it's clearly not a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not agreed to any removal of that link. Manufactured controversy should most certainly be linked and you haven't presented a single reason for removing it. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And you've got them reversed, at least according to the body. Quotes there are "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal" and "manufactured controversy". Now that would be a trivial objection, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(back to the point). You don't need to agree. Because of the <redacted> 1RR rule, you can't revert it, though, although a complete rewrite would probably make more sense, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing "reversed" so you're mistaken. It is properly attributed in the lead and the link was appropriate. If you are inferring that the lead section must be written in the order of the presentation of items in a single section, that's ridiculous, and it sounds like that is what you are saying. Care to explain why you wrote in the edit summary "per talk"? Do you understand that when you unilateral agree to your own proposal that is not "per talk", but "per Arthur Rubin"? I haven't a clue why you removed the link, but I suspect you are wasting my valuable editing time with nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the body, if my quotes are incorrect. You seem unable to edit the body of this article, only to edit the lede. However, I've reverted my unlinking, although there really is no reason for it to be linked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea you had such an extraordinary sense of humor! Well, Arthur, everytime I try to edit this article, whether it is the lead or the body, you revert my edits and bog me down on the talk page with nonsense. I have not only edited the body, many, many times, but I've asked and requested help from you and others with expanding the reporting section and rewriting others. Any chance you'll actually help out? Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science

The BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science incorporates an independent report by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London. From p. 66 onwards this discusses reporting on global warming, and p. 71 specifically describes discussion related to the CRU email controversy. The appendix p. 75 onwards has a detailed analysis of reporting of the Muir Russell findings. A news report in the Graun covers some more general reactions to the review. . . dave souza, talk 11:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a big deal for the BBC. I don't know whether we still have a section on analyses of the media coverage, but I know we did about a year ago when the first critiques started to spill out. It became quite a hot section for a while. The worst of the bad actors have now been removed so perhaps now we can restore, clean up, augment, or otherwise improve that section. --TS 03:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some editorials removed, may belong elsewhere

I've removed the following accounts of comments about the Muir Russell report in editorials. Let's stick to the facts. We have a section for the media coverage.

The Economist said the Muir Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics." The magazine said the recent inquiries "raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere." (ref name="Economist-7-8-10">"Science Behind Closed Doors". The Economist. 8 July 2010. Retrieved 11 July 2010.)

A Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the Muir Russell study as "a 160-page evasion of the real issues." The newspaper said that "the review assumes the validity of the global warming 'consensus' while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic." (ref name="WSJ editorial">"A Climate Absolution? The alarmists still won't separate science from politics". The Wall Street Journal. 16 July 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010.)

We shouldn't be confusing facts with opinions expressed by journalists. Let's put the media coverage, which is itself quite a big part of events, in its place. 18 months ago before the facts were known we could excuse the occasional editor falling back on some bit of editorial. Now we have no such excuse. --TS 04:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. Those should go somewhere. Viriditas insisted that they don't belong in the #Media coverage section (although, I think he was objecting to my including the WSJ editorial countering the misstatements in The Economist editorial). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, could you please briefly explain why "they should go somewhere". Why are they important? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial constitutes notable criticism of the report, although I strongly suspect there's better and more notable criticism in the minority report(s) of that and other investigations. In particular, (a) minority report on the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry seemed quite relevant when I read it last year. The Economist editorial may be needed to balance the WSJ editorial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is notable about the criticism contained in the WSJ editorial? Have other RS referred to it by name? In other words, why should it be included? What does it add of historical value to this topic? Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The opinion that the report has no value seems notable. Even if I'm wrong, you've used editorials to support your position on some of the issues, and those also need to be excised from the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered any of the questions about your comments. Again, why should the WSJ editorial "go somewhere" and why is it important? I have not "used" any editorials to support "my" position anywhere on Wikipedia. What I have done is I have supported a few editorials with secondary sources supporting and bolstering the opinion of an editorial. This appears to be a continuing theme with you, Arthur, such that you are unable to differentiate between an opinion or a position held by an editor and an opinion or position held by a source. We always write from the POV of the latter, never the former. Now, what needs to be "excised" from this article? Please don't engage in holding this article hostage until your "demands" are met. Engage directly in a discussion about how to improve this article. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage section has NPOV problems

I've tagged this section for editing to restore balance & NPOV. It has become (imo) notably slanted from recent edits. At present, a reader would get the impression that the media coverage of the controversy was almost entirely one-sided.

I've started a draft revision, and will post it when time permits. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When I have a moment to spare, I'll remove the tag, unless something more substantial has appeared here by then. --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nighelj. Tillman has repeatedly tagged this article for no reason (and Arthur Rubin as well). As I said some time ago, there appears to be a "campaign" of sorts to keep this article permanently tagged so as to give this topic the appearance of errors, inaccuracies, and bias, when in fact there are none. This has been going on for some time now, and needs to end. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice I didn't restore that tag when I restored the content tag. Although I believe it has problems, I don't have evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. However, you still have not explained why there is a content tag or how it can be removed. For this reason, I maintain that you and Tillman are holding this article hostage to a minority POV against our best practices and policies. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, you have once again added the maintenance tag back in without explaining why. That's not how we use maintenance tags. Please stop holding this article hostage until your demands are met. That's not how we edit articles. Maintenance tags are used to alert editors of problems that can be fixed. There does not seem to be a problem at this time. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas: are you serious? You are (once again) asking our readers to believe that the views of an obscure PR man are more notable than those of one of the USA's two national newspapers? And then complaining about tagging a section with no views presented contrary to your own? Quite remarkable, and revealing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The US only has two national newspapers? Scotland has at least as many! If you're referring to the WSJ article, that opinion piece displays an alarming disregard for fact checking and accuracy, so at best is a questionable source. Historians have noted the part the WSJ played in promoting anti-science disinformation, so it's not surprising. Perhaps you were thinking of another reference? . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image to use in infobox

Viriditas has removed the image of the CRU building from the infobox as it allegedly non-neutral since it implies wrongdoing. I don't really think this is the case, as our article on the Watergate scandal for instance, contains and image of the eponymous complex. However, what would be a good alternative? In V's edit summary, he suggests a news graphic from one of the news stories hyping the "scandal," but a quick search of the worst offenders ::cough::fox::cough:: doesn't really turn up anything useful. So what would a relevant image be? I wondered if a screenshot of a small excerpt of HARRY_READ_ME.TXT might do? I think that the original image of the building is pretty neutral though. Anyway, just thought I would get discussion going.Sailsbystars (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Do you understand that the image used in the Watergate scandal is not comparable to an image of the CRU? The former is of an office building which contained the offices of the Democratic National Committee, offices that were burglarized. In other words, that photo illustrates the scene of a crime. Now, while many might argue that a photo of CRU could be used to illustrate the scene of a crime, the tenor of this article has been to allege that the crime was committed by the CRU. We don't see that kind of usage in the Watergate article. The two cannot be compared. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, say for Watergate it were a picture of the DNC office door instead of the building. Would that also be non-neutral? I really don't see how a picture of an office building implies guilt by association. I asked above and you haven't really answered my question of what you would propose as a good alternate image. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming that the infobox requires an image. My concern is that an image of the CRU doesn't work there due to the nature of the allegations made against them. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a truly bizarre argument. V., are you arguing that the CRU has fallen into such low repute that merely showing a picture of its building is prejudicial?!? Or what? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What an odd reading, Pete. Clearly this manufactured scandal has smeared reputable scientists working at the CRU unit, in contrast to the Watergate complex where attention was on the parties which had temporarily made use of its facilities. There is a danger of making the distinctive CRU building an icon attracting attacks from those fringe opponents of climate science, while the Watergate building seems relatively nondescript. Of course much has been done to reaffirm the high reputation of CRU, and it certainly doesn't seem to have done any harm to the reputation of UEA . dave souza, talk 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Verdict

I put caveats on the verdict; however, further caveats may be necessary. According to the article, (in regard possible violations of section 50 of the FOIA), "[t]he ICO would consider whether the e-mail disclosures indicated that any further action was appropriate to ensure future compliance." Doesn't sound like full exoneration to me. It also reports, in regard the alleged section 77 violations, that the ICO could not investigate, and there's no mention of any of the other committees investigating. Nobody really addressed the question of whether a timely investigation would have uncovered violations of section 77. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The responsibility of any alleged violations of the FOIA have fallen on the university, not on the CRU or its scientists, nor does it reflect on the quality of its research, which is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence. We generally don't edit Wikipedia articles based on editorial interpretations of primary sources because editors are likely to misinterpret them based on their own POV. Please provide good, reliable and current secondary sources reflecting your edits. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming that only CRU and the individual scientists were accused of wrongdoing. If that were the case, my caveats would be sufficient. Even so, the alleged section 50 violation was withdrawn, rather than anyone being "exonerated". We can fail to quote reliable sources to the extent that they are objectively wrong.

And, as well, the "verdict" (and, in fact, all 6 investigations) deal(s) only with wrongdoing, not any questions as to the "quality of ... research", so that clause in your statement is completely irrelevant.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Care to site a single reliable secondary source supporting your viewpoint? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy supported by climate change denialists

James Delingpole has been given credit for naming and breaking the "climategate" story. Our article calls him a "climate skeptic", but his arguments are entirely based on climate change denial not skepticism. For example, please listen to Dennis Miller's interview with him on iTunes. That someone who engages in climate change denial has coined a derogatory term about this subject and helped break the story is significant. Furthermore, Delingpole uses the "conspiracy" word several times, accusing the scientists of "cheating the evidence, conspiring to shut out any scientists who disagreed with them". He also won't accept the results of the investigations. I think it is becoming clearer by the day that "climategate" is a global warming conspiracy promoted by climate change denialists, and the sources support this statement. It is important for this article to make this clear and to discuss it in its own section, perhaps called "Climate change denial". Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to describe him as an opponent of action on global warming. Certainly his interview with Paul Nurse suggested that "credulous and ill-informed" would be more accurate than "sceptic". . dave souza, talk 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Goethean (talk · contribs) changed the lead description from "columnist", which is accurate, to "climate skeptic" which is both problematic, as above, and un-British. . Tried the more generally accepted term "climate contrarian", if need be we could link to contrarianism. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back to "columnist", which is both neutral and factual. My other suggestion would be no ID tag at all, which is our customary solution if a tag becomes controversial. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Suits me. Thanks. . dave souza, talk 16:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This Paul Nurse? He was on a Charlie Rose (talk show) repeat in the USA recently. 99.181.151.50 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FOIA

In the light of requests to clarify the rather confusing FOIA section, I've extensively re-written it to show the context and sequence of issues. I've also included the recent ICO decision on a case that predated release of the emails, about disclosing raw data belonging to Met offices in other countries. . dave souza, talk 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climategate – The obviously contrived title of this article contradicts consensus as reflected in policy more than any other title I've ever seen. I presume it has been argued that "Climategate" is non-neutral, but there is no basis in consensus as reflected in policy for avoiding words in titles simply because they're non-neutral. As explained at WP:POVTITLE, being neutral in deciding titles simply means following usage in reliable sources. When we consider the principal naming criteria,

• Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
• Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
• Conciseness – titles are expected to be concise, and not overly long.
• Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

"Climategate" beats "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on every single point, hands down, including precision, since the current title is much more precise than necessary (Climategate is unambiguous). This title essentially substitutes WP:AT with WP:JDLI, and I wouldn't really care, except it's used as an example to justify other moves contrary to policy. For that reason alone, this needs to be fixed. Please. Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not again! Most respectable usage puts this blogospheric term in inverted commas, but my understanding is that "Climategate" goes against WP:TITLEFORMAT policy as well as pandering to fringe views of science. . .dave souza, talk 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) fmt and correct self 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have not been involved before, and this is so egregious and blatant it has negative ramifications on the titling of other articles.

    Perhaps usage in sources has changed as the term has gained more acceptance over time? I don't see any use of quotes, in recent (2011) references at google scholar [29]. The NY Times doesn't seem to use that either [30] [31]. Same with The Register. [32].

    Even if some or even many sources put it in quotes, it's obviously not universal, nor does it seem close enough to universal to require us to also put it in quotes, or avoid using it without quotes, especially not in order to favor the bizarre and contrived current title that so blatantly conflicts with policy and consensus, thus creating such a terrible precedent (despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move -- current title was product of hard-fought consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Consensus changes. What consensus/policy based reasons are there for opposing it today? Do you have any rebuttal to the support argument presented in the nomination? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, the present arguments were all rebutted in past discussions. Surely you've read them before dredging this up again? Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment to the nominator - these issues appear to have been addressed and resolved in past discussions. Please explain which of the points raised in previous discussions you accept, and which ones you reject, and why. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this the latest RM discussion prior to this one?

    When you say "these issues" and "the present arguments were all rebutted" (above), which "issues" and "present arguments" do you mean? Anyway, I see several arguments at that RM discussion based on WP:POVTITLE, but no rebuttals. There is only one acknowledgement of it, but it's dismissed based on the belief that unqualified climategate is not used by a majority of RS (a rebuttal I'd be happy to address if anyone wishes to present it here). Anyway, as noted above, usage appears to have changed, with sources using climategate without quotes much more commonly now than when it was a neologism. I don't see any arguments based on comparing the two titles per the principal naming criteria as I presented above, much less a rebuttal of that, so I really don't know what you're talking about. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

    • So what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to address the many past discussions, all of which have resulted in a consensus to stay with this title? But despite your unwillingness to address those discussions, you expect me to waste time rebutting these same tired old points? In other words, your time matters, but no one else's does? It's clear from your nomination that you have proposed this move simply to prove a WP:POINT: except it's used as an example to justify other moves contrary to policy. B2C, you have a long history of trying to force article titles to adhere to your vision a policy - a vision that the community has repeatedly rejected. Trying to rename this article because you find it inconvenient in other debates sounds like a bad faith nomination. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• point of order It's been more than 6 months since the last request which had a discretionary sanction of no further discussion of the article title change for six months. Therefore, we can't just hat this as beating an equine exhibiting signs incompatible with life. Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again
  • That said, oppose requested move, as proposed title is non-neutral and implies scandal where pretty much none as been shown to exist by subsequent inquiries. It's also debatable under WP:COMMONNAME whether Climategate vs "Climategate" or so-called "climategate" is the most common usage. The current title is an appropriate and neutral compromise with a redirect from the pov-laden title. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • As long as we're following common usage, we are being neutral, per WP:POVTITLE. The distinction between X and "X" is moot since both are commonly used and we don't quote other terms in our titles that are commonly quoted in sources. Similarly, whether "gate" implies scandal is not for us to judge or take into account in deciding whether to use it for our title - our obligation, under neutrality, is to simply follow the lead set by sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support "Climategate" gets 758 hits on Google books, compared to 1 for this title. Kauffner (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perusing the results, I see that very few books that reference climategate put it in quotes. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Apart from the grandaddy of them all, we avoid naming articles after the very old and very tired "-gate" neologism. The very nature of the "-gate" shtick implies that a cover-up or a deception took place, so we are not going to use a term that is inherently NPOV-violating to name an article. In this specific case, this is a perennial request that the nominator should have had the good sense to check the archives first to see how many times it has been soundly defeated. Repetitive nominations becomes tendentious at some point, and editors should me mindful of the discretionary sanctions that can be imposed for such behavior. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What consensus or policy based reason is there to avoid using "a term that is inherently NPOV-violating to name an article"? Do you not realize that WP:POVTITLE says the exact opposite?

Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

Does anyone have a rebuttal to this explanation about what neutrality means with regard to deciding article titles? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, we're not going to use any form of -gate to name an article. It is a dumb, sensationalized, overhyped, drive-by media fixation to slap the fucking on every micro or massive controversy-of-the-day. This is an encyclopedia, not TMZ, and we should strive for professionalism. You can click through the entire list at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, and I think you will find that all or very nearly all of those links are redirect to a sensible name. This is a long-standing Wikipedia precedent to not name articles in this fashion. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware of that. Very interesting. This undocumented practice contradicts NPOV in general and WP:POVTITLE in particular (explanation quoted above if you don't understand how or why), but it does establish a precedent for this title, except that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Long-standing or not, I, for one, find the policy-contradicting gate-phobic practice to be, well, stupid. Usage of climategate is established in scholarly journals, books, newspapers and magazines. To not use it here is just plain silly, as well as contrary to policy. Now I'm even more convinced this title needs to change. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:LABEL has always seemed like the more common-sense approach, and seeing how Climategate and all the other -gates are redirects that get the reader to the article anyways, all of this just seems a little pedantic, honestly. This is a battle you're going to lose, that's just how it will play out from here on out, so how much time you wish to sink into it is entirely upto you. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is part of the style manual, not policy, and addresses article content, not article titles. How we treat titles is addressed at WP:AT (including WP:POVTITLE - you still haven't addressed that explanation regarding titles and neutrality) and WP:D.

I've looked at the list of "-gates" and most are different from this one. Most are much more obscure and are not nearly as commonly used in reliable sources as is climategate, and many have much more natural alternatives commonly used in RS, like Monicagate redirects to Lewinsky scandal.

The argument about "redirects that get the reader to the article anyways" is meaningless since it can be used to oppose any move proposal.

Please don't make this personal (as in, "you're going to lose"). This isn't about me or anyone else winning or losing - it's about improving the encyclopedia, and that includes deciding titles based on consensus as reflected in policy, and purging it of articles at contrived titles when names commonly used in RS can be used.

Is there anything that will convince you, or are you emotionally attached to a certain outcome here? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, this has been flogged to death. Most mainstream sources use the term 'climategate' indirectly, either in quotes or with qualifiers like 'so-called', 'referred to as...', etc. The term is contested and definitely not NPOV. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not true that most mainstream soruces use the climategate indirectly, at least not any more. Did you even read this discussion? We have links from newspapers, books, and scholarly journals contradicting this point. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I see. And what is the source for your assertion? A review by a reliable third-party source? Or simply a few cherry-picked examples? Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      • You would know the source of the assertion if you had read the discussion and clicked on the links. I'm not going to repeat. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because it's just cruel to that poor dead horse. Tell you what, when you get Anthony Weiner sexting scandal changed to Weinergate and Killian documents controversy changed to Rathergate, then I'll sign on. Gamaliel (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If reliable sources used "weinergate" and "rathergate" about as commonly to refer to those respective controversies as they use "climategate" to refer to this one, that would be a reasonable comparison. As far as I know, that's not the case. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. To begin with, the nominator admits that he is only nominating this article because he finds it inconvenient in other debates. Given his history, it sounds like a WP:POINTy nomination.

  The issue with the name "climategate" isn't simply that it's non-neutral. More importantly, it's a smear. Using that name perpetuates that smear. The name connects it with so-called "-gate scandals", when in fact it would only be comparable to Watergate if the DNC had staged the break-in and used it to smear Nixon. Using the name perpetuates a lie, one that casts aspersions on the professional capabilities and academic integrity of living people. We could never make claims like that in an article, we could never allude to things like that in an article. We would never entitle an article about a living person "XYZ (embezzler)", but we most certainly could not do it if said person had been found innocent of the alleged crime.

  Consider the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod article. Sherrod was falsely portrayed as a racist, was forced to resign from her job, and subject to all sorts of scathing attacks...based on a misleadingly edited tape. We would never, ever, use "racist" to disambiguate an article about Sherrod, no matter how many rightwing bloggers used the term because (a) it's false, and (b) it would be a terrible BLP violation. It's no different here. Implicit in calling this "climategate" is the idea that (a) there was a "-gate scandal" and (b) that the scandal was about the conduct of climate science. Both of these are, of course, untrue. By calling this "climategate" we become active participants in the smear. And, most clearly, is a policy violation.

  Now, obviously, there is also the secondary issue of the use of quotes. By using quotes or by adding some otherwise descriptive terminology, reliable news sources have largely distanced themselves from the smear. Stop counting Google hits and look at the actual usage. There's all sorts of nuance around the troubling issue of how to refer to this. Arguments that ignore this nuance are, at best, meaningless, synthesis-by-search-engine. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I have to say, for someone who objected to this proposal because these arguments "were all rebutted in past discussions", you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding about what the objections are to the current title.

    To start, you say: "the nominator admits that he is only nominating this article because he finds it inconvenient in other debates". False. That's not what I said, and, more importantly, it's not true. There are many reasons to move this title as proposed, some are more important than others. Several of the reasons are each important enough alone to justify this move. Among those reasons, the one that cause me to learn about this mess and thus submit this proposal, is the harm caused by the precedent effect of this title because it contradicts policy as explained in the nom. But if I happened upon it without knowing about the precedent, I would probably still submit this proposal, basically because it contradicts policy.

    Do you have any RS to support your opinion that climategate is "smear"? Or is that just your personal opinion?

    Do you not understand that when we choose titles based on how sources refer to the topic, we are relying on the neutrality judgment of the sources? If we then apply our own neutrality judgment, like by choosing not to use a term due to "neutrality (or smear) concerns", when that's the term used most commonly by RS, we are not being neutral with respect to relying on the neutrality judgment of the sources... that's an NPOV violation.

    The Sherrod/racist example would only be relevant here if RS referred to Sherrod as a racist about as commonly, relative to referring to the respective topic with others names/terms, as RS refer to this topic as climategate. They don't, of course.

    I've also said nothing about anything depending on google counts; of course that doesn't prevent you from saying I'm doing that. WTF? When I search for "climategate" at google Scholar (2011) and google books, and look at the results, the use of quotes is only in a small minority of the sources. The most common name used to refer to this topic in RS is clearly climategate, without quotes. Maybe quotes were more commonly used a few years ago, but no longer.

    None of the objections here are consistent with consensus as reflected in policy. Whether you realize that or not, hopefully the closing admin will. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The topic of the article 'is' climategate - that's how everyone finds it - and the fact that climategate isn't in the title weirdly skews the article itself. Yeah, it's gotten a lot better than when "hacking incident" was in the title, but what we've got is still kind of a mess. Climategate includes discussion of things that 'weren't emails' (e.g., HARRY_READ_ME.txt and the data dirs) so "email controversy" is too specific. Whatever this thing we're talking about is, it's not really *about* email and it's *got* a name; we should use it. "Climategate" is natural, concise, and recognizable. --Blogjack (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I prefer evidence-based discussions rather than those rooted in alternative realities constructed in the mind. For evidence that the term "climategate" was not "natural" as you claim, please see Norton 2010. "Climategate" is an artificial term deliberately and purposefully coined to attack climate science and scientists in coordination with an illegal hacking of their university server and release of stolen emails, played out in the media with the usual Fox effect presented as a manufactured controversy that six investigations determined was nothing but smoke and mirrors. Renaming this article would be akin to participating as a partner in crime, metaphorically speaking. We aren't in the business of helping conspiracy theorists spread their seed. Of course, we could change the focus of this article and create climategate conspiracy theory which I have previously suggested, and focus only on the global warming conspiracy claims of the climate change denial movement. This is not a POV fork. If we had two articles, one focused on the claims of the climate change denialists, and another on the incident, the people involved, and the investigations, we could avoid lumping both subjects into the "climategate" meme which was authored by only one side. It would also give us more room to flesh out the climategate conspiracy theory and to explore it fully and to show how it doesn't hold up when you think it all the way through. Of course, that idea won't work, because one side will seek to have the other article merged or deleted. So we are left with dealing with the climategate conspiracy theory in one article about the hacking incident and the investigations. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• There no telling how many words and terms that we use in our titles have similar dubious origins. But that's not relevant to us with respect to using them in our titles, for the same reason the dubious (but Twitter-accelerated) origins of climategate should not be relevant to us with respect to using it in our titles: to be neutral, rather than relying on our own neutrality judgement, we rely on the neutrality judgement of RS instead, whenever possible. In the context of deciding titles, that means following usage in RS. Whether you personally like it or not, the fact is that RS overwhelmingly use climategate to refer to the topic of this article. When I search for "climategate" at google Scholar (2011) and google books, and look at the results, the use of quotes is only in a small minority of the sources. The most common name used to refer to this topic in RS is clearly climategate, without quotes. Maybe quotes were more commonly used a few years ago, but no longer. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also, most of the RS that refer to this topic as climategate are also "not in the business of helping conspiracy theorists spread their seed", but that doesn't prevent them from using climategate to refer to this topic. Nor should it for us, if we are to abide by NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• NPOV doesn't mean "let's use the most sensationalist terms to name our encyclopedia articles". It means going with the best sources about the subject, sources like Science which don't use the term at all. I think a redirect works just fine. We'll save the sensationalism for Murdoch's empire, or what's left of it. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please. So, you're down to straw man arguments already? Of course NPOV doesn't mean "let's use the most sensationalist terms to name our encyclopedia articles". No one is arguing that.

  In the context of deciding titles, NPOV means "follow the usage of RS - rely on their neutrality judgment - do not impose your judgement about neutrality into the decision process, even if that results in using what you believe to be 'the most sensationalist terms to name our encyclopedia articles'". Following usage in RS without regard to your own opinion is exactly what neutrality requires. See WP:NPOVTITLE - I've also quoted it above, I believe. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with using only one source, like Science, is that their editorial board might be biased (actually, since it's comprised of humans, we know it is biased, like all editorial boards are), and, if it is, that would be reflected in their usage. That's why we look at usage in a wide variety of RS (not tweets, not blogs, but RS, like newspapers, books and scholarly journals). But we, in order to be neutral, to abide by NPOV, we must put aside our own biases and judgments when we do that, and simply follow their usage.

  If we do that in this case, we get Climategate, not Climatic Research Unit email controversy. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• We aren't using one source. I've given you one secondary source that disproved your claim, now I'll give you a primary. Could you explain to me why the Minority Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quite possibly the most vehement climate skeptics in U.S. politics today, released a 34 page report about this subject in February 2010 that did not use the term "climategate" at all, but used the terms "CRU controversy" and "CRU scandal" throughout their report instead?[33] When we look at secondary source coverage of this report, we see that media outlets like Fox News didn't refer to "climategate" at all either, and the word only appears once in a quote from Inhofe. Fox referred to "The CRU controversy" as quoted in the report.[34] Then, when we look across the aisle, we see that CNN didn't use the word "climategate" either.[35] How many more examples can we find of this, Born2cycle? Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misunderstood you. Okay, there are RS that do not use the term to refer to this topic - there is no denying that. But there are many RS that do use it - we can't deny that either.

  I presume that we all understand that to maximize compliance with neutrality in deciding how to title any article about a topic to which sources refer, we need to look at enough of the sources to reasonably ascertain what term or name is used most often -- more often than any other -- to refer to the topic, and use that. If we do that, we're completely unbiased in the title decision process, because we're totally avoiding imposing our own judgment about what is or isn't neutral or appropriate for whatever reason, and simply following the sources. Therefore, if we do anything other than that, we're imposing our own bias about what is or is not neutral, and therefore compromising neutrality. This is what WP:POVTITLE explains, and, frankly, it's common sense.

  As and aside, and perhaps this is why it's confusing, it's true that we have many articles in WP about topicsthat are "artificial" - they are unique to WP and don't have counterparts in sources - topics like List of Countries. For articles about those "artificial" topics we have to invent what we call descriptive titles since we don't have sources we can follow, and so we are compelled to use our own best judgement about neutrality in deciding what those titles are. That's a compromise in neutrality as compared to simply following usage in RS, but it's a necessary compromise since we don't have the option to follow usage in RS for these artificial topics.

  But the topic of this article is not artificial; there is no need to compromise neutrality by inventing a title instead of following usage in RS. It's a real topic covered and referenced in sources, so we can remain totally neutral by not using our own judgement at all, because we can rely entirely on the judgment of the sources, by simply using whatever term or name RS use most often to refer to this topic, and using that for our title.

  Therefore, the main question before us, if our goal is to be neutral in deciding the title, is the same as for any other article about a topic that is covered in the sources - what is the name or term used most often to refer to this topic in RS?. In other words... For us, more specifically: Is it climategate? If not climategate, what is it?

  But to go down the path of inventing a new title clearly used less often (if at all) by RS is compromising neutrality when there is no reason to do so, not to mention all the other compromises that are unnecessarily made with regard to our principal naming criteria when we invent a new title rather than follow usage in sources. Yet that's exactly what was done to come up with the current title, and why I say I've never encountered a worse title, with regard to neutrality as well as the naming criteria, in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The current article title precisely identifies the subject per the sources. For another example, the March 2010 report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee called their report "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia".[36] Secondary sources covering the release of this report, a report which vindicated the scientists, did not use the term "climategate" at all, such as The Sydney Morning Herald[37], the New Zealand Herald[38], The Australian[39], The Telegraph[40], and The Times[41]. Even CBS News didn't use it in the news story, except to refer to a reader poll.[42] And, before the investigation began, you'll see that the term wasn't even used by the BBC [43]. That's a very small sample of secondary sources covering one of six major reports. So one can see that this title was not "invented" as you claim, but closely matches much of, if not all of, the major news coverage it has received. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that, overall, RS use "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" to refer to this topic more often than they use any other name or term to refer to it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per my (and others) arguments every other time: "Climategate" is what everyone else calls it. It's silly to maintain the fiction that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from the workings of the English language: things are what people call them. Nuff said. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is "everyone", Tillman? Do you mean experts? When the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry names their report "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia" and doesn't use the word "climategate" at all should we take notice? What about the secondary sources that didn't use the term when they covered the release of the report? And how about the minority report released by the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which chose to use the words "CRU controversy" and "CRU scandal" instead of "climategate"? Should we ignore that report and the secondary sources that covered it without using the term "climategate"? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons that I gave at extreme length in numerous discussions with IDHT-suffering anti-science POV warriors. And I am seriously tired of wikifundamentalists who try to enforce their ridiculous misunderstandings and overinterpretations of policy. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a huge game of Nomic. (Our policies and guidelines are extremely contradictory and only make sense as a basis on which good-faith editors with common sense and a genuine desire to build a free and better alternative to Britannica can come to consensus. Attempts to interpret one policy as absolute law and apply it regardless of whether it makes sense and how many other policies this violates generally lead into widespread chaos. Wikifundamentalism is currently a much bigger threat for Wikipedia than vandalism.) Hans Adler 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is a veiled sneer at the arguments I've presented here, but if it is, I'd appreciate it if you would back up these accusations with substance. If you've already rebutted the arguments I've made here, please provide a link, but from what I've reviewed, they've never even been made before, much less rebutted. If, instead, you choose to leave your contribution to this discussion as just this dismissive statement mired in personal preference, so be it. I trust the closing admin to discount it accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There were some formalist attempts at enforcing this non-neutral title, and I don't think yours is substantially different. See talk page archives 29 and 30, for example. (Search for my contributions to see my take on matters and my detailed explanation of the interplay of the various policies and guidelines in this specific case. Policies and guidelines were edited a bit since then, but I think morally everything still applies in the same way, and I am not looking forward to repeating this kind of discussion. At all.) WP:NDESC has been edited since then and the explicit example of Attorneygate (which is a redirect rather than a title, for good reason) was removed. But not because there is anything wrong with the example, but as part of general streamlining and because the principle is of course more general. Hans Adler 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Can anyone determine the percentage of redirects over at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix? Best practice appears to discourage the use of sensationalistic "-gate" suffixes with a redirect to the precise title. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Best practice is to treat each case independently and follow what sources do for that case. Whether it's 10% or 50% or 99% of those on the list that are referred to more often by some name other than the -gate one is irrelevant to deciding the title for any one of them that is referred to most often in RS by its -gate name. For any given topic, if we are serious about neutrality, then we should just use whatever the sources use most often to refer to that topic. Doing anything other than that, including introducing a bias against -gate names in our decision process as a "best practice", is being less neutral. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
        • What percentage of articles found in the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix? redirect to another article? And what does that number say about how Wikipedia treats articles with a "-gate" suffix? If the number (and pattern) of redirects shows that best practice on Wikipedia is to avoid the "-gate" suffix, then shouldn't the article naming policy be updated to reflect best practice? Policies and guidelines often fall out of sync with community norms and practices, and when they do, they need to be updated. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Don't know. Don't know. Nothing. No, for the reasons I just provided above. The argument (did you read it?) I presented had nothing to do with policies and guidelines, except that it stems from the neutrality pillar. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
            • If you don't know something, it is often a good idea to try find out the answer. Roughly looking at the list and redirects with pop-ups and scanning it visually, there appears to be a list of ~200 entries, of which 95% or more are redirects. In other words, best practice dictates that we avoid creating articles with the "-gate" suffix, and for good reasons, many of which have already been explained to you in this thread. For some reason, you appear to be arguing against best practice. When that happens, a policy needs to be changed and/or editors need to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Please read my post which addresses all this, timestamp 22:44. If you don't see how it does, let me know. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
                • It doesn't really address it. Best practice is to avoid the use of the "-gate" suffix in article names. The media will often report a story in a sensationalistic manner, so editors require good judgement when they identify and evaluate reliable sources, and in this case, when they choose an encyclopedic article name. Looking at the list we see many instances of -gate suffix redirects to "x scandal" and "y controversy" articles. When we look at the name of this article and compare it to that list, we see that this article name is in accordance with community best practices. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • I don't see what's "best" about this practice. Blindly rejecting names simply due to having a certain suffix is not a best practice, it's a stupid practice, and it's the opposite of being neutral, as it introduces a bias (a bias against the -gate suffix). I've explained how and why above, which I'll reference here instead of copying/pasting; I hope you don't mind. [44] [45]. If you have any further concerns or questions about this, please let me know. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • You appear to have it reversed. It doesn't introduce bias at all, rather it eliminates the possibility of bias. Please read a bit more about why Safire used the term, how it is used in public discourse, and more importantly, how it was used by climate skeptics to smear living people. We have plenty of sources that describe the topic as a controversy involving the CRU, so there's no problem here at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • I understand why it may appear to you that I'm the one who has it reversed, but I assure you, you have that reversed. You don't seem to recognize and appreciate that introducing a particular selection criteria -- like avoiding names that end in -gate -- is introducing a bias, and is not neutral. It's a prejudice. It's not a prejudice against a certain skin color or a certain sexual preference, but it's a prejudice never-the-less, a prejudice against names that end in -gate, and that's a relevant prejudice in this context of selecting names. That's not neutrality... neutrality is avoiding prejudice. And being indiscriminate about applying your prejudice - by applying it universally to all names which have that characteristic without exception -- makes it no more neutral than any other prejudice applied without exception like that.

                        I mean, you recognize how silly this is: "We're neutral, we don't hire anyone with green eyes." Well, "We're neutral, we avoid any title with -gate" is exactly as silly. It's prejudice; it's most certainly not neutral.

                        Neutrality means looking at each individual case on its own merits. Here it means to treat each case independently and follow what the sources do for that particular case, without prejudice based on suffixes or anything else. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

                        • It's not "prejudice" at all, it is best practice based on evaluating our best sources, and it is substantiated by the fact that almost all instances of "-gate" in article titles redirect to more precise, neutral titles. You can deny the facts, but the facts remain: article naming policy in practice deviates from your interpretation of the policy. It's also supported by the plethora of sources documenting the history of the suffix and its sensantionalistic, problematic use in the media. You are on the wrong page. You need to be over at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles arguing that there is a good reason to use the "-gate" in article titles. If you can't find a reason, then you need to change the policy to reflect best practice. The evidence shows that the current title of this article reflects best practice and is appropriately titled in the most accurate, neutral, and timely context. We couldn't ask for more than that, and if Wikipedia is found to adhere to the principles of journalistic ethics more so than the sensationalistic media, then we should pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on a job well done. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
                          • Okay, maybe prejudice is a bit too strong, but it's certainly a bias: "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation". In any case, it's not neutrality, which is my main point.

                            Do you include all the books and scholarly journals that have been repeatedly cited as sources for the use of "climategate" as being part of the "sensationalist media"? Here's the thing, I would not be surprised if you could not find support in RS for usage for most of the other -gate names on that list. But, for better or for worse, climategate is widely used, more widely than any another term, phrase or name to refer to this topic, and that makes it different, and why all those others on the list are irrelevant. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

                            • Your conception of "bias" is at odds with how the term is commonly defined and used. Sensationalism is an acknowledged form of editorial bias intended to draw an audience. We don't do that here. "Climategate" is a sensationalistic term, as acknowledged by the sources. Per best practices reflected in WP:SCIRS, science-related articles should "avoid sensationalism, and should follow the relevant research community in according weight to such results." The results are in: six investigations vindicated the living people involved in this manufactured controversy, so we have no need to rely on a term that smears innocent people. As we can see from the 100-200 redirects over at list of scandals with "-gate" suffix, best practice is to redirect sensationalistic article titles to the most precise and accurate topic. The media may very well decide to propagate pet memes like they did with Memogate and Rathergate, but this is Wikipedia. Per our policy on WP:NOTSCANDAL and our guideline on WP:SENSATION, sensationalism should be avoided and editors should be mindful of the sources that they use to support the names of articles they choose to create. Common sense prevails. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
                              • Finally! Food for thought! Thank you. Good points. I will mull on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hans, I have demonstrated the strength of my argument by presenting it both in terms of policy and not. To disparage it as "formalist" is fallacious and irrelevant. Please take just a few minutes and read my last reply to Viriditas, the one that starts with "Sorry, I misunderstood you." This is the heart of my argument and it hardly refers to policy or rules at all, since that's what you seem to prefer. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. And if anyone thinks I'm blindly supporting B2C, check the history on US settlement naming conventions. It is CRU, it's not email, and it is primarily about the controversy, rather than the actual documents. "CRU document release controversy" would be possible, although even more ambiguous. I do believe that "climatgate" is the only term which the average reader would recognize as referring to this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (faints) --Born2cycle (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • What are you fainting over? The fact that one of the most reliable ideological supporters of right-wing causes supports your ideological, right-wing cause? 96.25.152.47 (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, my ideological right-wing causes like pro-choice, legalize drugs, end the wars yesterday, religion is evil, end corporate welfare, recall Creationist school board members and fire Creationist teachers... shall I go on? The only cause that motivates me here is neutrality and WP:AT. The reason I fainted is because Arthur agreed with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. (a) We don't propagate the media's efforts at sensationalising manufactured stories. (b) There's little to compare with Watergate now that more of the facts are known ('the establishment' (the scientists here) did not organise the theft; 'the establishment' (the scientists) were vindicated by all subsequent enquiries, not found to be corrupt). (c) There are clear policies against the use of such a title in cases like this: 'As a CBC News Online column noted in 2001, the term may "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up"' (Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: A-I. Taylor & Francis. p. 844. ISBN 9780415259378. See List of scandals with "-gate" suffix) and that would fail WP:BLP among other things in this case. Personally, I preferred the earlier title - Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and would support a move to that. --Nigelj (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see how any of these points -- (a), (b), (c) and the "I preferred" remark -- are relevant to a neutral evaluation of how reliable sources most commonly refer to the topic of this article. If you want to put aside neutrality, and take a position on controversial issues like whether climategate is "sensationalist" and whether it should not be used because it is "sensationalist", and we want to take into account editors personal preferences, I can see how they might come into play, but that is all very contrary to the spirit of WP, and in particular WP:NPOV.

    Again, as for all article title decisions, I think we need to simply look, through neutral lenses (that is, ignoring controversial considerations like these), at actual usage in reliable sources, and follow that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm only going to repeat myself once: the term "suggest[s] unethical behaviour and a cover-up". Which lenses are you using? --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • A neutral lens, despite my personal atheistic/pro-science/anti-religious views that recognize the devastating impact human activity is having on our environment in general, and climate in particular (not that my personal views matter, but you asked about my lens). As to the quoted statement, how significant is that suggestion of "unethical behavior and cover-up" with respect to whether it is appropriate to use the term when referring to the topic of this article? To comply with WP:NPOV, don't you think we need to do our best to remain neutral on this controversial question and simply follow actual usage in reliable sources? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE The fundamental issues regarding neutrality in deciding articles is also being discussed here with regard to the title of Female genital mutilation. In fact, I'm presenting the same argument there as I am here: Focusing exclusively on actual usage in reliable sources, without regard to anyone's opinions about reasons and justifications for using one rather than another, is how we establish and maintain neutrality on deciding titles in controversial cases like this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is somewhat of a difficult one for me, I argued tooth and nail for changing the title of 2011 Libyan Uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war instead of 2011 Libyan Conflict. Conflict was by far the most commonly used term in the media at the time (its now about 50/50 between conflict and civil war). But I felt that civil war was a better title because the media seemed to be purposely avoiding calling it a civil war for some reason, and "conflict" seemed to be completely non-descriptive. But after I did this I realized it was probably an error to do it, even if I was somewhat vindicated later. Wikipedia should reflect what is the most commonly used name, otherwise we open up every name to some ridiculous battle of what makes sense/what is neutral rather than what is policy. I accept that how the media names everything "something-gate" is really annoying, but it has become somewhat of a cultural meme since watergate so we shouldn't be too annoyed by that. Plus manufactured Wikipedia names are far more annoying than "something-gates". They're fine for use before something receives a popular name (i.e. when the article was first created), but afterwards they're not acceptable for continued use. I know that for many people "climategate" is itself representative of the attempts of some conservative groups and politicians to refute climate change, but if you're on the political left and opposing the name change you need to consider that the trend you are setting is very short sighted. Imagine if every name was getting opened up to these kinds of debates, think of all those properly named articles which could get re-named to be more neutral or more descriptive, or less politically charged. You many succeed in stopping this RM, but you're not doing yourself any good in the long run, and next time you may find you're on the other side of the equation and getting a wikipedia-contrived name jammed down your throat in the name of neutrality or descriptiveness. If you stop that kind of move here you limit the chances of it happening to some other article in the future. Vietminh (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. You really hit the nail on the head: "I know that for many people "climategate" is itself representative of the attempts of some conservative groups and politicians to refute climate change, but if you're on the political left and opposing the name change you need to consider that the trend you are setting is very short sighted. Imagine if every name was getting opened up to these kinds of debates, think of all those properly named articles which could get re-named to be more neutral or more descriptive, or less politically charged." Exactly! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I want to add this also: Wikipedia is becoming far too politicized and issues are being decided by calculations of political correctness and neutrality which go far outside Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For instance the person who opposed directly above me said "We don't propagate the media's efforts at sensationalising manufactured stories.", without stopping to think that it's not our job to refute them either. Our job is to reflect what is in the sources and not our personal assessments. The sources we cite, the scientists, the scholars, the academics, it is their job to refute what is bad-science or media sensationalism. If they do their jobs correctly, and we do ours correctly (by reflecting what is said) than the goals of all the people who want to see action on climate change will be accomplished. If we don't do our jobs correctly than we give fuel to the flames of all those people who refute climate change not on the science of the phenomenon but on the superficial dialogue which surrounds it. If the scientists, the scholars, and the academics aren't doing their job good enough or fast enough (in your personal calculation) than you can't truly make up for that here, that's for them to do. Vietminh (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – already too much time wasted re-opening this contentious topic. It has been decided; leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What kind of argument is that? Besides, if time wasted on contentious topics is really your concern, then you should favor this move and any other proposal based on using the much more objective select the most prevalent usage approach than the let's argue about what's the best one to use approach. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Dicklyon, Requested Moves are decided on policy, not whether a topic is too contentious to debate. Also, most RM's are contentious, if the topic weren't contentious then it would just get moved without a debate (or at least not a drawn out one). Vietminh (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, and to repeat my point slightly reworded in these terms, many contentious RMs would not be nearly as contentious (if at all) if people would follow NPOV and be neutral with regard to various controversial naming issues -- like whether a given term is non-neutral or too "sensational" or "inappropriate" for some other reason, about which debates are typically pointless and often practically endless -- and instead agree to simply go with the most common usage in reliable sources. I bet that would cut the RM load in half, at least. --Born2cycle (talk)

Climategate already redirects here, and has for a long time. Renaming is unnecessary = oppose. 99.181.144.107 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)