This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Climate change C‑class Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Computer Security: Computing C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Answer question about Same-origin_policy Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

/Climategate usage, /emails, /RFC Climategate rename policy query, /RFC/CRU Hacking Dispute, /RFC/Death threats against climate scientists, /RfC on article name change, /Subpage

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

We have another long running dispute with the climate change editors that seems intractable at this point, so input from non climate change editors would be appreciated.

Our lede says:

Climate sceptics said that the documents showed evidence that global warming was [[Global warming conspiracy theory|a scientific conspiracy]].[7]

A number of us (myself, Pete Tillman & Arthur Rubin) have protested and argued that in the interests of both accuracy and neutrality, reliable sources referring to simply to a "conspiracy" or a "scientific conspiracy" - even a "global warming conspiracy" - should not be hyperlinked to our article on the "global warming conspiracy theory" for two reasons:

1) If the source doesn't explicitly say "conspiracy theory" anywhere, then that source doesn't support adding a link to an article on a "conspiracy theory"; it may simply refer to a "conspiracy" in the normal, neutral sense.

2) Calling people "conspiracy theorists" is usually pejorative, cf. conspiracy theory whereas NPOV requires us to "Prefer non-judgemental language". Thus, we should prefer to steer our readers away from a non neutral term unless there is an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources that uses this precise wording.

So far, plenty of sources have been provided that refer to a "conspiracy" or a "scientific conspiracy" and some even to a "global warming conspiracy" but only one source (the Telegraph) has been provided so far that refers in passing to "climate change conspiracy theorists". I believe I saw a second source a long time ago.

For the record, my own opinion is that global warming conspiracy theory is a terrible piece of original research that shouldn't even exist, and editors should also review that article to make up their own mind, but obviously as it has survived several AfDs there are others who would disagree.

In order to justify a hyperlink to "global warming conspiracy theory", do we need sources that refer word for word to "global warming conspiracy theory", or are sources that just refer to "conspiracy" okay?

Alex Harvey (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor responses

• I have attempted to reword the bolded question after Viriditas said it was a leading question. I am not sure if I have succeeded. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the links to the so called conspiracy wikipedia entries, because 6 independent investigations have cleared the CRU people from wrong doing or data which would support any so called conspiracy. Those links are deliberate affords from the orchestrated fossil funded campaign to damage the image of climate science. Gise-354x (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing wrong with the link to the conspiracy theory article. The conspiracy is clearly nuts, but the conspiracy theory is notable, which is why the article on it recently survived an AfD. The illegal publication of emails which is the subject of this article is closely related to this conspiracy theory: If it was done in good faith by someone thinking of themselves as a whistleblower (a theory pushed by Alex Harvey, actually [6]), then that was clearly motivated by belief in the conspiracy theory. And it's pretty obvious that the publication has fueled the conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 12:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't stuck my oar in this particular climate issue, but I'll put my comments under "involved" due to my other recent edits

(A) Agree with Hans that the theory is nuts but since so many people believe it coverage is merited.

(B) Suggest moving "conspiracy" to follow statement about the results of all the investigations. Conspiracy believers say that fact they could not prove fraud in the investigations is evidence of the conspiracy.

(C) I think there is way to much text in the lede before we get around to saying the important thing, which is that there have been all these investigations and all have cleared everybody of serious wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor responses

• I think the sentence just has to be more clear about who these critics are accusing of engaging in a conspiracy theory: just those involved in these documents, anyone who should have known better and accepted/promoted their views, or who? If the critics mean a certain subclass, naming them makes the article accurate. If they mean everyone who thinks there's any kind of human made global warming, they will look questionable. In any case, wikipedia is being accurate and that's all that matters. This helps solve the WP:OR problem on use of "conspiracy theory," though obviously refs that use the phrase are preferred. CarolMooreDC (talk)

• Leave alone - The sentence that the readers see is "... that global warming was a scientific conspiracy". That sentence accurately reflects what the sources say, true? (If it does not reflect the sources, then it should be changed, of course). So the real issue of this RfC is the blue hyperlink on the phrase "a scientific conspiracy" which is linked to the article Global warming conspiracy theory. The question is whether that link is misleading or erroneous. On the face of it, the link is valid. The linked-to article does indeed discuss the alleged conspiracy. It is tempting to change the wording of this article's sentence to match the linked article name: "... that global warming was a scientific conspiracy theory" but that makes no sense. The guideline WP:LINKS says links should be used for "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully", and I don't see any violation of that principle here. The RfC originator raises questions about the linked-to article Global warming conspiracy theory ... but any issues about that article should be raised at that article's Talk page, not here. Finally, there is the question "do we need sources that refer word for word to "global warming conspiracy theory", or are sources that just refer to "conspiracy" okay?"" - my opinion is that exact word-for-word match is not required. It is the intention of the source that matters. Requiring word-for-word matches would mean half the encyclopedia would disappear overnight :-) --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Presumably it is true that climate change skeptics claim this as evidence of a scientific conspiracy. I have heard this reported in the news and while it may not be true, that is certainly what is being claimed by the skeptics and so can and should be reported in Wikipedia. If the skeptics opinion is not notable enough to be linked then it is not notable enough to be mentioned at all, but if it is in the article I am baffled by the argument against linking. In the interest of balance the following sentence might mention that sources independant of the CRU have opined against conspiracy - a piece in Nature is mentioned in the body of the article. SpinningSpark 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Requiring an exact four word match is too high a burden. We're not talking about multiple words that form a single, searchable unit like the title to a book or article, or a section of song lyrics. If the source says "global warming" and "conspiracy" somewhere in it, then as long as the material isn't taken out of context to twist meaning in some non-neutral way, that should be enough. I think we should err on the side of inclusion. If the reader sees the information, he can decide whether to skim over it or follow it up. If the information isn't there, we made the decision for him. Obviously, information overload is bad, but I don't think we're in danger of that here. Just saying "global warming" and "conspiracy" is fine, I think. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use above section for discussion. Since 6 investigations found no evidence what so ever of any wrong doing and since the mainstream media no longer trumps the alleged Climategate scandal, the headline is misleading. The controversy is explained in several parts of the article but to better describe the event now, we can refer to it as the hacked CRU emails. "Climatic Research Unit hacked Emails"

Approve

• Approve, because it's no longer a controversy, the headline should reflect that. The article offers enough information to conclude that there have been a lot of controversy, which later got resolved. Gise-354x (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this editor has been blocked for a week, and expressed that it was its intention to leave wikipedia for ever. --Cerejota (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disapprove

• We still call controversies in the past "controversies"; there is no chance that someone will presume it must be ongoing just because it is called "controversy". Furthermore, such a request only days after a previous request to move was turned down seems more than pointless. How about not having these discussions for a bit?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per VsevolodKrolikov - this is not a descriptive name - this is patently about the notable controversy. Now, I do support Climatic Research Unit email hacks controversy as a patently descriptive name, but are cognizant some feel "hacks" is controversial so I do not know if there is a consensus view on it.--Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is still highly controversial; consider that we just had the article locked for a week. As said by VK, even when the controversy is resolved--or, more likely, fades into oblivion without resolution--it will still have been a controversy. (See my user page for my take on historical revisionism. I'm strongly opposed.) It 's so controversial we don't even agree on what the controversy is! I'll digress in small print to a brief summary.

1. Was it a hack or theft or leak, or was there a whistleblower? Unresolved, even if some of us are convinced in our own minds it was a hack.

2. Were the scientists guilty of perpetrating a fraudulent scenario of climate change? Resolved--they weren't.

3. Were the scientists open enough? Resolved--they weren't.

4. What rights do researchers and the general public have wrt FOI requests? What burden does the sponsoring institution bear? Mostly resolved--scientists must comply with the law.

5. Did climate skeptics create a furor over nothing? Empirically unresolved; resolved in sharply differing opinions by partisans.

6. Did the MSM react properly to the skeptics? Were they fair to the scientists? Did they hide the truth from the public? Was their journalism professional? Unresolved.

7. Were the investigations whitewashes? Unresolved.

8. Was a crime committed? Unresolved.

Still, I don't really care what the title is so long as there is a redirect from "Climategate" and an aka. Fake politically-driven Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking event flap (also known as "Elephant-in-the-room") would certainly not be my first choice! (That's an attempt at levity, as the title is not a world-stoppingly grave matter, imho.) Yopienso (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For all the obvious reasons. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It describes a historic event, plus the only readers who will care and might be effected are those who arrive here wondering what the controversy is/was about. So the current title draws them in, and the text can set the record straight.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• After witnessing the debate about naming this article in the first place, I am sure that no further amount of debate can improve on it.Jarhed (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Yopienso. Perhaps someday this article will have a proper name title that reflects common usage. Moogwrench (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like the current title, but the proposal is even worse. Maghnus (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Resource July/August 2011 Environment magazine "Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change: A Call for Research", excerpt from page 40 ...

The campaign received a boost in late 2009 and 2010 with the widely publicized release of hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, dubbed "Climategate," and with pbulicity about relatively minor errors in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Given that research on environmental risk perceptions has highlighted the importance of trusted sources [52], part of the recent decline in public acceptance of climate change likely stems from the success of coordinated efforts to question the trustwothiness, credibility, and integrity of climate scientists.[53]

• [52]
  • P.Slovic, 1999, "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis 19: 689-701.
  • M.Siegrist, T.Earle, and H.Gutshcer, 2007, Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind (London: Earthscan).
  • M.Siegrist, G. Cvetkovich, and C.Roth, 2000, "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, 20: 353-62.
• [53] A.A.Leiserowitz, E.W.Maibach, C.Roser-Renouf, N.Smith, and E.Dawson, 2011, "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust," American Behavioral Scientist, forthcoming.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Slovic is P.Slovic I'd assume. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely lacks critique on the inquiries. Since such critique has been published and it is highly relevant to this article, I tried to add it but my edit (451135617) was promptly reverted on grounds which I cannot accept. We cannot have double standards on what sources to accept. The sources I used are far more than adequate as they are primary sources that far exceed the usual standards of Wikipedia. If no valid reasons for keeping this information out are presented, I will re-add it tomorrow. Help would be appreciated in improving the text though. Tronic2 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the self-published sources "far exceed" each of these specific standardsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should very well know that the usual standard for sources on Wikipedia ranges from nothing to random websites and online news. Having a primary source is exceptional. Montford's review is not self-published as he was hired to conduct a review by a political think-tank that then published the findings. The work itself has been reviewed in what is also a reliable source by Wikipedia standards [7]. McKitrick is an expert on the field and his work has also been republished by a number of organizations, e.g. (found by googling) [8]. Therefore, both of these documents clearly pass the reliable source requirements. Tronic2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could go on forever adding critiques of the various inquiries by various sources, but the impact of those critiques is very weak. Our article lists six prominent official inquiries, not one of which found any reason to give credence to the claims of McKitrick and Montford. Moreover McKitrick is a researcher in Environmental Economics and Montford is a retired chartered accountant with a BSc in chemistry who writes a blog. For every critique we added by the likes of that we'd have to add a great thundering waterfall of comments by independent experts in the field to balance them. Enough is enough. We are supposed to include significant dissenting views, not stuff like that. --TS 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about not including all independent experts' dissenting views but this critique fulfills the reliable source requirements and appears to be quite notable. I might agree with you if the article wasn't specifically about the Climategate controversy but in this context mentioning only the official inquiries adds a large bias to the article due to the image of a full consensus it gives. However, the lack of independency and the incompleteness of those are main points in the critique and this should definitely be displayed on an article that is about the controversy, for completeness. Tronic2 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McKitrick - his ref is self published from his blog. Ordinary that would violate WP:VERIFY. You appear to defend his self published blog article on the exception in the policy which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." In this case "the field" would be scientific integrity (not to be confused with having the correct and accurate scientific results), within the various laws, rules, and regulations from government, institutions, and whatever codes of professional conduct apply. From where I sit, its not clear why being a researcher in Environmental Economics makes one an expert in assessing legal or professional misconduct. So its unclear that he's an established expert in that particular field. Even if he is qualified on that level, to invoke this exception in wiki's verification policy you point to 3rd party publication of his work by the Heartland Institute. The only problem there is you are implying that Heartland is a reliable 3rd party source. Yeah sure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing double standards again. I am not going deeper into this but McKitrick clearly does have expertise on climate research and scientific procedures and so is qualified, in fact more so that some of the official reviewers. You keep claiming that this is a self-published source source even though it has been republished like I have shown. A peer review or a source you personally "trust" are not requirements of the process. Therefore I am reverting the revert (that was done against the one revert rule anyway). Tronic2 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yours is the one now in violation of the 1RR probation. You may wish to consider reversing your edit there to avoid a block. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources cited are in the recently reverted mainspace edits are in one case self published and in the other published on a clearly non-neutral website. If this standard of source were adopted these articles would be a mess of contradiction.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including these sources violates rs and NPOV. TFD (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article currently known as Climatic Research Unit email controversy be changed to the common proper noun name Climategate or should it retain its descriptive title? Moogwrench (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional introduction

Since the events described in this article occurred nearly two years ago, I thought that now would be a good time to discuss the title, since time perhaps lends perspective. Heaven knows that we have seen enough discussion on this topic, some of which I have participated in myself. To my best understanding, there have been two camps, those who favor a descriptive title (a string several words that describe the event, in this case usually beginning with Climatic Research Unit and ending with hack, hacking, hacking incident, etc.) and those who favor a common proper noun title, to wit, Climategate.

Many editors have voiced concerns with each of these two options. Those opposed to the descriptive title argue that it is cumbersome, not common usage, and promotes a POV towards the "hack" rather than the content of the emails so hacked; they argue that we should adopt the common name most often used by reliable sources. Other editors have expressed concern regarding the common proper noun title, regarding it as a neologism, hopelessly POV, and biasing the article towards an implication of wrongdoing on the part of the involved scientists; they argue that a descriptive title is better and more NPOV.

The purpose of this RfC is to determine which option best follows the policies of Wikipedia, and form community-wide consensus around that option. Moogwrench (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded comments

Support change - I thought that it would be prudent to review relevant policies of Wikipedia to help the regular Most Interested Persons of this article, as well as any newcomers to this topic, so that we might understand the relevant policies. I apologize in advance for its length, but a thorough treatment is the only way I felt that this could be addressed with any certainty.

Regarding descriptive versus common proper noun names for titles

Wikpedia policy (WP:Article titles) gives preference to the use of a common name that is derived from reliable sources:

Because Climategate has "effectively become a proper noun" and is "the usual term" for this article's topic in reliable sources, the concern over its POV is overridden. Below I discuss the evidence for this term having become the usual term for the topic in reliable sources.

This concept of "biased but used" is reiterated in WP:NPOV, another policy:

The conclusion is that, even though it may be biased, Climategate's common usage in reliable sources, the fact that it is imminently recognized as the common name for this article's topic, indicates that it should be used.

At one of the heights of the controversy last year, Jimbo gave his opinion regarding this issue, basically reiterating the above policies and voicing his support for Climategate as the common name for this article's topic:

While Jimbo is an editor, just like you and me, he is also the founder of Wikipedia, an administrator, and I believe has a pretty firm grasp on the policies of the project and its overall vision. I am inclined, therefore, to agree with him.

Evidence for common usage in reliable sources

So if a common name (as reflected in reliable sources) is considered the ideal name for an article, even if some regard it as biased, where is the evidence that Climategate really is the common name used for this article's topic? Many editors have claimed that Climategate was a neologism that would soon go out of style, or that it really wasn't the term that was most widely used in reliable sources. Let us look at evidence.

I chose first to do a general search of Google News Archives, using no quotes around the descriptive title for maximum hits. These were the results:

• Climatic Research Unit hack - 804 results
• Climatic Research Unit emails - 728 results
• Climategate - 5740 results

However, I can already anticipate some criticism. "Moogwrench," you will say, "there are lots of nasty blogs and yahoos that come up under a general Google News search, so you can't use that!" I understand, and I agree with you, up to a certain point. I merely wanted to show the vast general disparity among all sources of news (not just the most reliable) between the various titles. So, let us use only the best, most reliable, and most unbiased reliable sources we can (The New York Times, CNN, and The Guardian were the first three that came to mind), and run the same test.

So if we search in Google News Archives (again, I did not use quotes around multi-word descriptive title in order to provide maximum hits):

• Use of terms in the New York Times:
  • Climatic Research Unit hack source:"New York Times" - 10 results
  • Climatic Research Unit emails source:"New York Times" - 4 results
  • Climategate source:"New York Times" - 39 results
• Use of terms in CNN:
  • Climatic Research Unit hack source:CNN - 0 results
  • Climatic Research Unit emails source:CNN - 8 results
  • Climategate source:CNN - 9 results
• Use of terms in The Guardian:
  • Climatic Research Unit hack source:"The Guardian" - 1 result
  • Climatic Research Unit emails source:"The Guardian" - 13 results
  • Climategate source:"The Guardian" - 15 results

It is obvious that in each case, even among sources least likely to be biased in the direction of the POV of the word Climategate, it was the term(s) most often employed by the reliable sources. I would invite anyone to do similar tests on other reliable sources' news articles and almost invariably I imagine that Climategate will be the number one term/name used for the topic of this article.

Conclusion

I admire and appreciate the contributions of those who disagree with me on this issue, and ask that they try to evaluate my arguments de novo, if possible. I am posting this as an RFC such that we can get a wider sampling of community opinion regarding this issue, and so that the same 10 people duking it out on this and other pages aren't the only voices considered in applying a community policy and community-wide consensus over the local consensus that has developed. Per Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS#Level_of_consensus, I feel that this local consensus has not be true to the overall policies and consensus of Wikipedia.

If we honestly believe that the policies mean what they say in plain English, I think our course of action is clear. Climategate should be this article's title. Not because it doesn't have a POV, but because it is overwhelmingly the most recognizable proper name for its topic, and that fact overrides the POV concern. I realize that accepting the sentence you just read might feel to you like you are trashing Wikipedia's NPOV, but it wouldn't be. I have tried to cite the policies of Wikipedia in a way that is consistent with their spirit, I have endeavored to avoid excessive citations and argumentation, but I do feel that the policy supports the argument that I have made here. Moogwrench (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last discussed a few weeks ago Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_41#Requested_Move do we need to go through this again?. Mikenorton (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a Request for Comment has a chance at soliciting a wider range of input rather than a Requested Move. I am particularly interested in fellow editors making arguments based on policy rather than invoking past discussions as a kind of stare decisis that is inviolate. A lot of previous rebuttals/supports to this name change either had no direct link to a policy (other than merely claiming it without actually reading/citing which parts they were supposedly referencing, which I do) and an appeal to non-existent or weak evidence (which I cite as well). So yes, I'd love to see people's evidences and counter-evidences and citations and counter-citations. Moogwrench (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

complaint with proposal The OP only offered the choice between forms with "climategate" and "hack", but did not solicit input on just leaving it the NPOV way it is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moogwrench, have you actually read recent move discussions? From your proposal it appears you have not. In particular you do not mention the issue of RS describing climategate as problematic, you do not consider the use of scare quotes in RS, and you do not consider the arguments that for a lot of RS the event is not the content of the emails, which repeated inquiries have found to have no impact on the state of climate science, but the hacking and what people tried to claim about IPCC and science processes based on the content of the mails.. You also have not adequately explained what was wrong with previous discussions that necessitates an RfC. I don't see too few people involved as a credible reason.. Climategate redirects here, so findability is not an issue - as pointed out in previous discussions. Anyway, asking people to go over the same ground again merely for your benefit seems a little presumptuous. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer each of your concerns: Could you cite the policy where the reason reliable sources use a term as often as they do has anything to do with its prevalence or recognizability as a common name, and thus its suitability as title? How about the policy citation deprecating the use of a common name when it is used in scare quotes? Again, in regards to the direction of the content, this article is currently on the controversy, so we aren't arguing content, we are arguing the name for the content. You are right, findability is not an issue, following policy is. And as I hope to have made clear, it is not for me benefit, but for that of the community as a whole that I have done this RfC. You need to be able to cite policy that supports your concerns. Moogwrench (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the most important question - have you read the recent move discussions? (I conclude that you haven't). Go read them before asking people to reproduce the same points. Frankly, it should also be blindingly obvious that the policy in question is NPOV. People need convincing that you're not simply trying to replay discussions because you didn't like the result.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them, and I found the same troubling habit again and again: a quick appeal to a particular policy without actually reading it. You say that it is blindingly obvious that the policy in question is WP:NPOV (which I have cited specifically, detailing the exact words of the policy in correlation with my arguments). In previous discussions, many editors invoked a similar response to the one you just gave: "The support for my position is in WP:NPOV." Ah, but where? Unless you can actually cite a part of the policy (the actual words) that supports what you are saying, then a mere blanket invocation of WP:NPOV is not enough. Moogwrench (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, WP:Lawyering is not a policy but an essay. Nonetheless, it says in relevant part that wiki-lawyering may refer to the assertion that "that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express." Although Moogwrench smoothly quotes the letter of the policies on WP:NPOV it states in a nutshell banner at the top: "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." IMO, after numerous investigations have cleared the scientists of serious scientific misconduct, the rest of the saga (allegations of coverup, continuing efforts at FOIA to dig up new dirt) is evidence of a continuing controversy, as the current title states. In contrast, many people in Watergate were found or at least plead guilty. Say again GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-

Need I go on?

As a result anything-gate carries a stigma of guilt. The only way we can or should imply "GUILTY" is to embrace the conspiracy theory that the investigations themselves were in on some sort of mass coverup. I'm terribly disappointed that anyone would suggest that my intellectual and ethical discipline is so infantile that I might be willing to take that step. "Innocent until proven guilty" is patriotic if we sit on a jury... and its patriotic as citizens of the world right here on wikipedia. Shame shame shame.

Whether the phrase used is based on "hack" or "-gate" both imply misconduct and both violate the spirit of the NPOV policy expressed in the banner text I just quoted. The devil can - and apparently is - quoting the letter of that policy for their own POV beliefs, but that doesn't make it truly neutral. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The devil can - and apparently is - quoting the letter of that policy"? Why would you write that?

Specifically when looking the section of WP:NPOV that has to do with naming article titles WP:NPOV#Naming, it specifically states that "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." So, it doesn't matter whether or not you or I regard the title as biased, all that matters is if it is the clearest, most recognizable name. As Wikipedians we don't try to decide who is or is not guilty, what the truth is, whether or not people are being misled, whether the reliable sources are wrong, etc. We only represent what is in the preponderance of the reliable sources. Moogwrench (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining on the basis that "some" might think it is biased, I am complaining on the basis that the expression is inherently biased on a definition basis that supercedes personal opinions of the matter. In this context the definition of anything-gate is: "A suffix used to denote a political scandal. Its use originated with the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration." (Source: [urban dictionary]) The definition of scandal does not include behavior that has been exnonnerated of serious wrong after multiple investigations but rather it implies, as I said GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY: 1 a : discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person b : conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another; 2 loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : disgrace; 3 a : a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it b : a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality <a scandal to the profession; 4 : malicious or defamatory gossip; 5 : indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion. (Source: [merriam webster]). As a result, its not that some might think "-gate" is biased. Since the very expression is biassed on a definition level, rather than as a matter of opinion over which "some" reasonable minds can differ, this is not an example of a term that falls within even the letter of the law you cite. Therefore that exception to the policy does not apply. Errrrrr..... except for definition #4 of course. I do agree that one seems to fit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1)I don't understand your appeals to outside sources. 2) Under your argument, if we agree that a name is non-neutral, it cannot be used. This is patently false. We have numerous examples (i.e. Boston massacre, definitely POV against the British, right?). Wikipedia clearly allows non-neutral titles when they are common names. That is why the subsection of the policy is entitled: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names. This citing of Webster's dictionary and trying to argue what is right and what is just and issues of guilt...it is not our job. We are mere chroniclers of what society is doing and calling things. If an editor thinks the title Climategate is unfair to the scientists, that doesn't matter a hill of beans, because we aren't their guardians. That is what it means to be truly NPOV...you shouldn't care if science, or CRU, or Michael Mann, or the climate skeptics, or the yahoos wins, or not. We merely document what the controversy is being called and what is going on. You are trying to determine if it was/should be called a scandal or not, when you should just give weight to what the sources say and not what you think should happen or what you look up in a dictionary. Moogwrench (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress! Your silence says you agree the definition is inherently biased. Each exception to the biased-name rule you cite that I know about is for a dead-and-buried issue of long ago, not unfolding contemporary events with enormous public policy implications. Note that major news outlets are able to talk about the matter without using the inherently biased expression, ([example]). In my view, these efforts are an attempt to wikilawyer technical rules in defiance of the spirit of the rules, for purposes of investing an inherently biased neologism about unfolding events with legitimacy. Its not necessary for findability, and - to repeat - major news outlets (even Fox) manage to talk about the events without using the term. So why are you advocating so hard for an unnecessary term you admit is inherently biased and is capable of influencing public policy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Somehow I overlooked the fact that the very policy you cite says "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: . . . (3) Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues". That's the one I'm arguing in my prior comment. Note that the term was apparently crafted in [the reader comments on partisan Anthony Watt's website], and [was popularized] by [partisan James Delingpole].... who, if you haven't seen it, doesn't read climate science since [he has people who do that for him]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - using other search strings gets different results On the assumption that the on-point articles that are substantively about the event will all contain "emails" and either "global warming" or "climate change", but they will not necessarily contain the formal name of the CRU (think penn state for example), and also thinking that "climategate" was a likely search term for just oblique references in unrelated articles, I tried other search strings and (of course) got the opposite results:

• [climate OR "global warming" emails climategate source:CNN]
• [climate OR "global warming" emails -climategate source:CNN] (added a minus sign)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis, NAEG. Even without it, however, I would still vote to close and hat RFC immediately as tendentious and beating a dead horse. Consensus can change, but even a cursory look a the talk page history will show that this issue comes up on a regular basis, and most recently only a few weeks ago in a widely-publicized requested move that attracted numerous editors who had never commented on this talk page before, and had more or less exactly the same reasoning put forth here. I recommend a reinstatement of the discretionary sanction where title change threads are limited to every 6-12 months. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for kinds words and concur with title change protection NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few concerns:

1. You can't combine the results of multiple terms and then say that together they make up a larger number than one given term. 3+3=6 which > 5 however individually 5 is > than each one (3) individually, and that would indicate most common use. You need to break down your analysis further.
2. Also regarding those results, I curious as to how you arrived at only "2" sources which used Climategate in them from the NYT, when my search rendered 39? Some links might be helpful, like the ones I provided above in my matrix.
3. I am also curious as to why you searched for terms that have not, as far as I am aware, been considered for part of the descriptive title? I used the A) proper name of the organization and B) "hack" OR "emails" because they 1)have been used as part of the title, and 2)A+B together are precise enough to identify subject, albeit clumsily. "Climate" or "global warming" + "emails" are too imprecise to be considered. WP:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title states that a name has to be precise in identifying its subject. We would never name this Global warming emails or Climate emails...so why use those as your search terms? Do you really believe that a news article on a hack at the Climatic Research Unit would not mention the name of the place hacked? Is there a more common name for this place besides its proper name that we can search with? I don't think so.
4. The 30 days of an RfC provide a bit more time than the 7 days afforded a page move. I for one hadn't noticed, at the time, the move request, and hence did not participate in it. I am sure there are others like me. Many of the editors previously against this move edit this page on a weekly, if not daily basis, but the wider community may not realize something is being solicited until it is already over. Moogwrench (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to each numbered paragraph in your concerns about my analysis:

1. Huh?

2. I already stated my search strings with precision.

3. I already stated the reasoning for my search strings.

4. (no comment required, as this was not directed at my analysis)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some links showing your methodology, i.e., the results based on a certain search(es)? Did you combine "climate" + "emails" together with "global warming" + "emails"? How did you include or exclude "Climategate"? For example: "Climate" + "emails" + "Climategate" will always be subset of (i.e. smaller than) the results for "Climate" + "emails". But again, per above and what Arthur mentions below, you need to address the issue of precision, as those words would not be precise enough and are a bit of a catchall. Links, as I said above, would be helpful. That is why I provided them for each assertion I made in my argument. Moogwrench (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news, date search 2009-2011 (I forgot to mention that... the issue broke in 2009).... so for example, 4 hits are returned from the first search string above using the CNN example like [this].NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is to regular G-hits, not news items, and also, you still aren't addressing the issue of precision. Moogwrench (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't explain it, it brings up G news in my browser. You haven't address the problem of obligue neologistic references or substantive articles that don't mention the formal name of the CRU either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did address a neologism becoming a common name, but I will restate: "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Climategate has effectively become the proper noun name for controversy surrounding the release/hack of those emails. Do you have another name that is shown to be the usual term for this controversy? The preponderance of the RS shows that there is no other word/term/phrase so widely recognized as the common name for it. Absent another name that is more common, Climategate occupies this spot. Moogwrench (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Your google searching tallied anytime anyone in the news pages mentioned the expression. You may feel that is an appropriate statistic, but I believe the important question is how do the most reliable news sources refer to the matter, in articles that are specifically about it. Flippant sidebars to the expression "climategate" (whether you characterize it as a neologism or not) in the celebrity pages shouldn't count. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you in turn, missed mine. In my tallies of Google News Archives for the three sources I mentioned, Climategate trumped two other very plausible descriptive titles. I provided links for all my searches. You provided some data but insisted on using the flawed notion that a search for "Climatic" + "Research" + "Unit" should not determine the title of an article regarding an incident at the "Climatic Research Unit", and instead wanted to include Climategate stacked up against "climate" or "global warming". 1) They are catchalls that go far beyond this one episode, even with "emails" added in there, as AR suggested below. 2) This makes no sense, because we can't imagine that Climatic Research Unit wouldn't be the name refered to by reliable sources in relation to this episode. Hence I think my method, while not perfect, is far more sound at determining a precise name to this controvery/event. Using your terms skews any kind of result because global warming is a much larger topic than the controversy/hack. Moogwrench (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I concur with title change protection, for the moment, but NAEG's analysis is bogus. It would pick up any discussion of Emails in regard climate change, including phrases such as "please send Emails about this article to nosuchaddress@example.com", without a potential reference to the CRU or climategate. I'm afraid the proponent's analysis is questionable, as well, but that one is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Arthur. No doubt other strings could be devised with a greater liklihood of finding the substantive articles about the event. Do you want to just complain or are you willing to sweat a little bit to try to find a better search string? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]