Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RfC on article name change

RfC on article name change

Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support name change and suggest Climatic Research Unit "Climategate" incident. I believe that this list shows that "Climategate" is now the common name for this incident used in print and video media, by government figures, and by the general public, on both sides of the controversy. The list of sources even shows a couple of major Spanish newspapers using the "Climategate" term. I suggest adding "Climatic Research Unit" at the beginning to clarify the title, and putting "Climategate" in quotation marks (WP:AT does not appear to prohibit using quotation marks within the full title) and adding "incident" at the end to NPOV it. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a second choice, I support any variation of Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Trade "email" for "documents" and I'm game. The controversy covers coding as well.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think a convincing case for a proper name article title Climategate (as opposed to the descriptive article title Climatic Research Unit email controversy) is made here. Let me know what you think, Heyitspeter. As I read the policies, my own feelings towards a proper noun name vs. descriptive name changed (proper noun is preferred when it exists in the RS). Moogwrench (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support change to Cla's version, or perhaps "Climate Research Unit Email Controversy" with Climategate mentioned as aka in the lede. Note that the use of the word "hacking" is similarly unconfirmed, so that shouldn't be there either. OTOH, it's clearly a "controversy" (both the "hacking" and the emails themselves, in fact) so calling it "controversy" should not be a problem. ATren (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose name change until investigation conclusions are known. Oppose anything using the non-neutral terminology "Climategate". Oppose proposal by Cla68 - WP:NPOV violation (not neutral), WP:WTA violation (uses "-gate" construct), WP:TITLE violation (uses "quote-like characters"), unbelievably tendentious given recent discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you could re-evaluate your position re: WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV concerns based on a, I feel, more accurate reading of WP:NPOV and related arguments presented in my Policy vs. Guidelines posting. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming this article until investigation is complete. Support name change but oppose non-neutral "-gate" terminology. Wikispan (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the drive to wait until the investigation is complete before changing the article title. The current article title makes an assumption - viz., that the documents were hacked - whose corroboration requires a completed investigation, whereas the proposed title doesn't have to. So these arguments favor changing the article title now and not later. Reconsider this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A fair point expressed well . I'm striking out my original vote. However, I will continue to oppose any attempt to rename this article "...climategate..." for reasons already explained. Wikispan (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support any NPOV change that removes "hack" from the title JPatterson (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "generic" name change. Oppose proposed non-neutral title. Given the fact that "climategate" titles have been rejected over and over as non-neutral, I endorse Scjessey's comment above. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is part of an ongoing attempt to rename the article from a US conservative viewpoint. Brought to us by people who disbelieve climate science and think this story is the biggest thing since Piltdown man. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "US conservative viewpoint" is news to me. Do you have any reasoning/evidence to back that up and could you explain just what you mean by that? Last I heard, the US president and a majority in Congress were members of a more liberal political party that generally supports the IPCC's stance on AGW. You know, the party of Al Gore? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• There are many commentators, including scientists, who accept the scientific consensus on climate change but who think this is a scandal and call it "Climategate". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as "I don't like the current name, so we gotta change it to something" is an exercise in pointlessness. Also, any suggestion of "-gate" is a non-starter. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Either new name is fine. Both seem consistent with WP:AT. The idea that "Climategate" is biased is founded on the idea that calling this a "scandal" is somehow biased (since "-gate" implies scandal). But it is a scandal, as numerous sources -- not just partisan ones -- have pointed out. For instance, British government investigators have concluded that there were violations of the FOI law. "Scandal" fits. Early on, it was right to avoid calling it a scandal, but now it would be biased not to admit it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)added to my comments -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climatic Research Unit documents controversy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support calling it what the reliable sources call it: "Climategate." Right now, we're calling it some neologistic, hackneyed thing that someone somehow thought sounded "neutral." The current name is like calling World War II something like Global Conflagration of various nations with grievances against one another. It's absolute madness. As a poorer alternative, I support Cla68's proposal. UnitAnode 05:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe Reagan assassination attempt should be neutralized to Attempt to woo Jodie Foster using a firearm aimed at President Reagan? Just sayin... UnitAnode 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe Caution; Dangerous Not-Unsharpened Objects Ahead. Tarc (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Or maybe you could deal with the fact that the article's current title is a hackneyed neologism. UnitAnode 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any attempt to change it to the POV term "Climategate" per Scjessey. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any name change until investigation conclusions are known, Strong Oppose anything involving the POV term 'climategate'. Verbal chat 08:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "gate" suffix per policy. Moreover, Newsnight called it "emailgate" (with a scare quotes intonation) only a few days ago, and Channel 4 News has done the same. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to the POV term "Climategate" . Suggest we await the result of the investigation. Lumos3 (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The present title was created on the basis of reliable sources at the time of, and in the few weeks following, the incident. Since then it has stood the tests of time, despite a huge amount of largely uninformed input from the (mainly US) blogosphere. The next time large amounts of reliable relevant information will be available is likely to be when the inquiries begin to report. They may or may not change the landscape sufficiently for a re-name, but it certainly won't be any US-politics-based 'X-gate' format. --Nigelj (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Point me to a couple of "reliable sources" that call this kerfuffle "the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." UnitAnode 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scjessey. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support changing it to something other than the incomplete and very likely misleading title it's at now to something other than climategate, which although it's been widely used and has certain benefits of conciseness and catchiness has the same one-sidedness issues that the current title suffers from. Something balancing the unauthorized release of the information and the controversy would be best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggest Climactic Research Unit documents controversy Arzel (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to Climatic Research Unit email controversy or similar. Calling it just Climategate would be OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support immediate change to *anything* which removes the POV and presumptive "hack" from the title. We now know from the Guardian articles that any number of ways in which the info became available are being considered by police. Additionally support re-naming of article to Climategate as per reasoning below i.e. it's the commonly used name. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support change in main article name to Climategate, per my reasoning here (it is the proper noun name commonly used by the majority of RSs). Please read policy-based reasoning before responding or reaching conclusions, or citing WP:AVOID guideline ad nauseum or the "highest degree of neutrality" title argument (which applies to descriptive article names, not proper noun article names). Moogwrench (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as is due to lack of consensus. Wait six months. In six months it will be a lot more clear how this controversy will be remembered. Compare to the controversy over how to name the article that Barack Obama's birth certificate now redirects to. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not really an answer. We are deciding concensus now. Your response seems to indicate that you have no position either way. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose anything with '-gate' in the title. Neutral on the various other proposed titles - I wouldn't object to a rename to get the word 'controversy' in the title, which it probably should be. Robofish (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Climategate," this name should be in the article but not its title. Support change to "email controversy," because of email content vs hacking, email content was the big controversy. Also support ScienceApologist's suggestion to wait if there is no consensus for a change. MiRroar (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As with SA, that is not really a position to say that you are waiting to see what the concensus is. This to determine concensus. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This controversy is widely recognized as "Climategate" in the media. The hacking aspect, if true, it but one small part of the of the overall controversy. It's like calling WWI the "Serbian Shooting Incident". It simply does not capture the overall complexity of the issue. Evensong (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I want to call attention to the BBC's Q & A with Phil Jones published on February 13, where the BBC explicitly acknowledges that this event is known as "Climategate." :

"U - Now, on to the fallout from "Climategate", as it has become known." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm 24.11.186.64 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Change in article name to Climategate. It has clearly been established as an umbrella term for the exposure of the university emails, the controversial nature of their contents, and the resulting fallout in the field of climate science. Despite there not being a shred of evidence to demonstrate hacking was involved, the term somehow remains in the existing title (which is incredibly irresponsible). Fortunately, even if hacking turns out to have somehow been involved, Climategate still remains perfectly applicable.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Change in article name to Climategate. It doesn't take too much to see that Climategate is the de facto name. Look here[1] - throw out all the providers that you feel are too much this-or-that, and you're still left with nearly every recognized outlet using the term neutrally. The NYT's, BBC, Nature, the list is nearly endless. It's just "Climategate". 99.144.243.71 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support any title that includes "Climategate" and removes "hacking incident" because, like it or not, climategate is what this is now called, and it's completely speculation whether or not "hacking" actually occurred. Thparkth (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support with neutral title something like Climatic Research Unit email controversy. "Climategate" is a bit of neologism so we would need many solid WP:RS to support. How the emails were revealed is only one part of the story, their content and the ramifications of that content are what is really important, so the emphasis should be on the controversy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support rename to Climatic Research Unit document controversy or similar. Oren0 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose partisan "-gate" suffix per policy, open to variants on Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support any title that includes "Climategate" or a title including the word Controversy. I would even support Scandal. 130.232.214.10 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any title including -gate. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly the scope of the controversy is not limited to "hacking" (which implied the fault was with the hackers and not with the CRU apparently violating the spirit of FOI as a minimum). With the added news about errors, use of anecdotes without checking, and sloppy records, the scope definitely does reach "controversy" status. Collect (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wait until the investigation is complete?

There have now been several (4) votes to oppose name change on the grounds that we should await the outcome of "the investigation." If you mean the police investigation, this is puzzling, as the current article title makes an assumption whose corroboration requires the completion of that investigation - viz., that the documents were hacked -, whereas a new title can avoid this. The "we don't know the outcome of the investigation" point would thereby support changing the article title now rather than later. If, on the other hand, you mean the investigation by Muir, I fail to see its relevance to a name change. Nothing he decides will affect the appropriateness of the word "hacking," and nothing he decides will change whether the subject of the article is a "controversy" surrounding a hacking incident or a simple "hacking incident" (the latter of which wouldn't be notable if taken by itself).

I'd love to hear any explanation for your reasoning if I'm missing it, or a refactoring of the corresponding comment to weed out that point if I'm not (I hope you'd remove the vote entirely if it's based exclusively on that premise).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all to do with WP:RS. When the incident happened, we had a flurry of statements from involved, reliable people who knew what had happened, and we wrote most of the current article(s) (including what's now in the CRU docs article). Since then, nothing much has happened except a lot of people who weren't there, and know very little about anything, have been talking unsupportable nonsense all over the blogosphere and in a few op-eds and on some TV shows. The next time we get reliable facts will be when someone releases some. Unlike you above, we do not know what the police or Muir Russell will say, nor which will report first. In the meantime, have a look at Hacker (computer security) and some of the sub-articles; it will be useful background when the time comes. --Nigelj (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still confused. The article title is problematic now, even taking account of information now available from RSs, regardless of what happens later. It's been disputed for months. Be that as it may, thank you for the response.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with "hack" is that it is a loose term. As Nigel says, the blogosphere speculation has been uninformed and unpersuasive. The Daily Mail even suggested that Russian students might have something to do with it (yeah, like universities give undergraduates in all disciplines easy access to dedicated servers in research centres). Apart from that, all seems to be framed in terms of "outside hack" versus "heroic internal whistleblower", when the reality does not have to be either of those. While the police investigate, all we know for sure is that a) a lot of computer files intended to be for private consumption were released onto the web for all to read and b) they were not released through any decision of UEA. The release was therefore likely to have contravened one or more UK laws, we don't know which yet. "Hacking", though loose, covers all the eventualities in a way that more precise wording doesn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are lots of names that would pass muster. None of them include the word "Climategate." I look forward to a strong proposal for a name that is better than the current one that is likley to both follow guidelines and policies and reach consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit computer files incident. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero news hits[2], and potentially even more hackneyed than the current mess of a title. UnitAnode 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither news hits nor hackneyed are an issue. I'm just imagining people sitting around suggesting alternative names for our article on a certain world superpower. "Not' United States of America, puhleeeeeze, that's sooooooo hackneyed!!!". We just need a descriptive and neutral title. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - as the person who found the lost USB stick, etc. ... come on, the real way the data got into the public realm isn't even part of the article, not one of you can prove I didn't wonder past the carpark and spot an odd USB stick that had fallen out of someone's pocket. And would it change the article if I had found a USB stick? No! Climategate is climategate irrespective of how the information came into the public realm. All the current title does is tell people who find it by chance: "Here is a pretty POV and out-of-date article", it certainly wasn't an article I bothered to read when I needed to write up stuff on climategate.88.110.2.122 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Policies vs. guidelines

• Comment: (sorry in advance for the WP:TLDR)

I don't know if anyone has noticed the following: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal is a guideline. It says, in part:

The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal).) (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal

Now, one can argue that according to this guideline, the title "Climategate" is not used widely enough by reputable historical sources.

However, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a policy, meaning that it takes precedence over a guideline, per WP:Policies_and_guidelines#Role. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming states that:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming

Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive titles, another policy, makes it clear that when articles are given a descriptive title (as in, editors have invented a title because no clear proper noun title existed in WP:RSs) then it must take great pains to be neutral. However, Wikipedia:Article titles makes no such pronouncement regarding proper noun names supported by RSs, and in fact states that

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names

Those of you who editorialize against "Climategate" as an article name might consider that it follows well at least four of the five qualities of a good title, according to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title: It is Recognizable (commonly used), Easy to find (readers are most likely to search for it over other terms), Precise (unambiguously refers to subject), and Concise (short [unlike this comment :)]). The last one, Consistent, is open to debate.

Believe me, I have seen this type of extremely contentious fight over at 2009 Honduran coup d'etat and related articles. Some editors thought that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was a "coup", others did not (and felt that calling it that was non-NPOV), however, in the end the majority of the WP:RSs referred to it as such, and as the result of several RfCs and AfDs, such as this, this, and this, "coup" was adopted as the correct consensus name for these articles. If the majority of RSs are calling using the proper noun "Climategate" to refer to this subject, then according to the above naming policies, it should be given serious consideration, and not be dismissed out of hand through a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.

Again, sorry for the long comment. I saw WP:AVOID being thrown about a lot like an ace card and I think it is important to put that guideline in proper perspective. Climatic Research Unit documents controversy is an solid, acceptable name if we want a descriptive, instead of proper noun, title, because it doesn't presuppose the outcome of the police investigation, and puts due emphasis on the content of and controversy over the documents, not the manner in which they were obtained and disseminated (the amorphous "incident"). However, I would hope that even those who find Climategate to be an anathema might consider the "common proper noun" naming policies I cited above in forming their opinions regarding the article title. Moogwrench (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" is fine for the controversy, but the controversy is only part of the incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to you, what is the "incident", exactly? What does it encompass? Because usually "incident" refers to a discrete event, not an ongoing series of events. If the incident is the removal and dissemination of the information, I really can't see that being the notable aspect of this article. If the incident had occurred, and no controversial data had come to light, do you *honestly* think that it would be notable?

When people think of the Watergate scandal, they don't think primarily about the burglary, they think about tapes, privilege, cover-up, controversy, etc. In this article, what is notable is the content of the documents, and the ensuing controversy, not the "incident" of data removal and release. If anything, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is a subset of Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (or Climategate), just as Watergate burglaries is a subset of Watergate scandal.

Secondly, did you look at my reasoning/citations on proper noun article names (i.e. Climategate)? Moogwrench (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the controversial aspect has been largely manufactured by the skeptics, I see it as a secondary issue. The criminal act of hacking into the CRU server, followed by the criminal act of stealing data, followed by the criminal act of distributing that data - these are far more serious issues than the faux "scandal" that followed these criminal acts. The anti-AGW echo chamber has made certain that the faux scandal has received an enormous amount of press attention, aided by the lack of details about the preceding criminal acts and by inane commentary by clueless politicians in the pocket of the energy industries. With respect to your "reasoning" about the use of "Climategate", I completely and utterly reject it. I find this whole retitling discussion to be so tendentious and disruptive that I find myself disinclined to elaborate any further on it. It feels like I am having to repeatedly explain why it is wrong to purposefully drive a truck into a crowd of schoolchildren. I hate having to restate the obvious, so I'm simply not going to bother anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think my point still stands. The criminal act: very few people (in the media and in the population) care. What the criminal act revealed, and what the UEA is having to defend itself on, even if it is misrepresented and "faux" as you put it, is what is the focal point of this story. To say that it isn't is just ignoring the content of media coverage. Notability is conferred by treatment in RSs, not because an editor thinks that it is more important. And just for the record, I don't feel that it is a waste of energy engaging those who disagree with me. It sure beats edit warring, and people might just listen to what I have to say. I'm not wedded to any title, but the policies seem to lead me in the direction I delineated. I hope that you can understand this, and not compare myself, nor anyone else who disagrees with you to "schoolchildren". Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is an outstanding summation. It's also why I won't be supporting the supposed "compromise", which is hardly better than the current neologistic title. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A well-formed and coherent argument. Well done. Nightmote (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, thank you for these extracts from policies and guidelines. However, you don't seem to have noticed the paragraph preceding the one you quote in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming, which states that:

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

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming

Note that the article titles which are sanctioned in the paragraph you do cite, e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, are historical events or figures covered by reputable historical sources, not current political news stories. "Climategate" is clearly promotes one viewpoint, portraying climate science as a political scandal, and as such fails the earlier paragraph which I cite here. It is not a historical event, so the term has not yet been widely used by reputable historical sources, a point described in the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal guideline. You're arguing that it's only a guideline, and choosing a part of Wikipedia:Article titles policy to claim that as a proper noun name "climategate" doesn't have to be neutral. However, the policy in fact states that

Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave.

For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Another example is that the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive titles

That policy specifically rejects a common partisan -gate nickname in favour of a more neutral descriptive name. Both "Attorneygate" and "Climategate" are proper noun names, but they are not neutral and are not appropriate. The other points you make in favour of "Climategate" apply equally to "Attorneygate". Your partial reading of policies is inappropriate for this article. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You won't accept this as proof, I'm sure, but the Ghits alone speak to the HUGE difference between "Attorneygate" and "Climategate."

1. Attorneygate = 47,900
2. Climategate = 2,850,000

I think it's pretty obvious which one is a neologism and which one is an actual useful term, employed by scores and scores of reliable sources. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, self evidently "Climategate" is a newer neologism, and it's clearly useful to those opposing action on the scientific consensus on climate change. Many of those ghits will be to articles using inverted commas to denote the artificial misuse of genuine concerns about how science and peer review are to deal with changing circumstances.[3] Almost certainly many more will be used by political opponents aiming to undermine the scientific consensus.[4] . . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, even if you find 500 billion Google hits for "Climategate", it would still violate policy. Why is so much time and effort being wasted on this? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it violates your interpretation of a guideline, but is well within the bounds of our policies on the matter. Are there enough editors who don't like it to stonewall the name change? It looks like it. But that won't lessen the ridicule that Wikipedia comes under due to the current tortured and neologistic name. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're asserting that counts of Google hits = reliable historical sources? Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, but that is a convenient straw man for you to knock down. My Ghits comparison was only intended to discredit the Attorneygate comparison. However, a simple news search shows that many reliable sources call it "Climategate." I have no idea what you even mean by historical reliable sources. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness me, UnitAnode. The article has a descriptive name that satisfies Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive titles as quoted by dave souza above. If one fraction of the energy going into this campaign against consensus was spent improving the articles (or reading refs or swotting up on the physics of climate change for example), Wikipedia would greatly benefit. --Nigelj (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It satisfies neither NPOV or RS, as "hacking" is very non-neutral (and, increasingly likely, false), and no reliable source calls this kerfuffle "the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." Scottaka UnitAnode 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not about to start the whole argument over again from the start for you. We're done here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be "done here", but that doesn't mean we're "done here." It's been clearly demonstrated that a vast majority of the reliable sources call this incident "Climategate." Nothing has been shown to disprove that fact. It has been equally clearly demonstrated that the current term is used by only ONE source -- and that is done in reference to this article, and what a terrible title it is. The fact that a core group of editors doesn't like the term is all that is keeping it from being properly-titled. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My response:

Dave, I did notice that previous paragraph. You have to understand the difference between proper noun titles and descriptive titles. It is only for descriptive titles, not proper noun titles. Let's read it together:

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

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming

The very next paragraph discusses proper noun titles (different standard):

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. [edit] Article structure (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming

See the difference? Descriptive titles, combinations of words which describe the subject, have to conform to the highest degree of neutrality, whereas proper noun titles can contain non-neutral terms as long as they are supported by the majority of RS. This argument is supported in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Descriptive_titles:

Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. (italics mine)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Descriptive_titles

Attorneygate was a nickname that never was extensively used in RS, hence it is inappropriate as a proper name title. Climategate, on the other hand, is an extremely common name used extensively in WP:RS:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names

Common names, even if they contain non-neutral terms, have preference over other mere descriptions. Also, the specific deprecation on -gate names is from a guideline (WP:AVOID), not a policy, so the policy take precedence. I really don't think "We can't have an article named Attorneygate, so we can't have one named Climategate" isn't an especially strong, policy-based argument. You can't automatically apply all the arguments against Climategate that apply to Attorneygate, because of the difference in their use and acceptance among RS. Attorneygate was never extensively used by people other than critics of the government, versus Climategate which has been used even by supporters of AGW consensus, and most importantly, by a large majority of the RSs, which is what guides Wikipedia. Moogwrench (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article called Climategate - it's a redirect to here. So what are you worried about? People will find this using their favourite POV neologism, and then they will read about it under a neutral descriptive title. Best of both worlds, and it always has been like this. The problem is that some (very few) people want our readers to read the article under a POV neologism for a title, presumably to help drive home their POV. It is not to help readers find the article. That's a problem, and that's the reason why the present set up is the most NPOV we can have. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, like I said above, I am not wedded to any particular title. I did my own analysis and came to my conclusions. Before analyzing it, I thought perhaps as you did, that Climategate was POV, or at least recentism, but when I read the policies well, and thought about it, I came to my conclusion. Proper, common names are better than the descriptions we come up with as editors. My earlier experience in 2009 Honduran coup d'etat with non-neutral titles that accord with RSs helped inform my conclusions as well. I believe we should try to follow Wikipedia's policies the best we can, and so we shouldn't shy away from proposing what we feel is in accordance with those policies. I know a lot of people don't like the proper name "Climategate", think it prejudicial to AGW instead of merely the best descriptor of the phenomenon, and that is fine. A lot of people didn't like calling Manuel Zelaya's ouster a "coup", either, and thought that the sun shined out of Roberto Micheletti's butt. However, when the RSs call it something, we ought to follow their lead. It shouldn't be up to our own POV. Hope you understand. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate how you've reached your conclusion, you still seem to be confusing current news coverage of a developing story with detached historical coverage of a historical event in the past, as shown by the specific exempted examples. Also note that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names cites non controversial examples, "climategate" is being used by reliable sources to refer specifically to the biased and partisan preeentation of this issue, see How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies. Because that's part of a series, other articles in the series with a link to that article will also show up in a google search, even though the term isn't used in other articles, such as this one which calls it "the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November". The Muir Russell enquiry has been requested to report in a few weeks, if it titles its report "climategate" I'll withdraw my objections but it seems much more likely that it will adopt a neutral description. "Climategate" is not a proper common name, it's a partisan nickname and as such is inappropriate unless adopted by historians once the event is over. . . dave souza, talk 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Worse, it is a nickname with a political WP:POINT to it, namely to associate this data theft with another burglary that led to the downfall of a corrupt US government. One notable difference is that those who organised the Watergate break-in were the very ones whose house of cards was toppled by it in the end. --Nigelj (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the Zelaya ouster, "coup d'etat" is a phrase that has a specific meaning in English. So its use is descriptive. Whether something was a coup or not is a debate you can have on the facts, or you can draw your conclusions based on common usage. But there's no such thing as a "climategate", so you can't debate whether or not this was one. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so like I said, Climategate is a proper noun used by the majority of the RSs, with or without quotes or inverted commas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, your presentation and analysis of applicable guidelines and policies was very well done. Thank you for the time and effort.
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for reading and considering it. Moogwrench (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

An analysis of various potential titles by news hits

1. "Climategate"

   1,711 hits in the past month.

2. "Climategate scandal"

   199 hits in the past month.

3. "Climategate controversy"

   29 hits in the past month.

4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"

   1 hit in the past month, and that's from a source mocking the silliness of the title.

I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. UnitAnode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Climategate articles also describe it as scandal or controversy. Ex. Climategate+near+Controversy gives 163 last month. What is good with our current title is that it gives a hit. The old one gives ZERO (all time) "Climatic+Research+Unit+e-mail+hacking+incident" Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Nsaa (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, pointless bit of GoogleDiving to waste everyone's time. There is no notability requirement for titles, and there are no policies that prohibit us from inventing an entirely unique title. As long as it is accurate, unambiguous and neutral we can pretty much have anything we like. Even if you could find 100 million GoogleNews hits for "Climategate" (or variations thereof) it would still fail the neutrality requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It's reliably-sourced, and much clearer than the hackneyed junk that currently constitutes the titling. UnitAnode 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-neutral. Saying it isn't won't ever change that fact. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "non-neutral" to call it what the reliable sources call it. UnitAnode 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most reliable sources use the term in quotes, indicating it is not their choice of word. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Of the top 10 Gnews main results, 6 use it without quotes, and 4 use the quotes. UnitAnode 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which most are blogs/op-eds/opinion pieces. Legitimate reports from legitimate reporters almost all use quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are simply a way of acknowledging that they didn't coin the phrase, not a statement on what they think of it as a neutral term. UnitAnode 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on the "Climategate" name change issue. As a skeptic I would like to state for the record that it's just too soon to re-name this article "Climategate" even though many (every single) reliable source calls it that. For two very simple reasons: 1. It's a violation of WP guidelines (a word to avoid); and 2. We don't know yet whether or not this is a significant event. Someone once opined that everything since the Fall of Rome is current events. I don't take quite such a strict view, but there's no avoiding the fact that this is a developing story. Maybe the term "hack" should go. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to talk about it, especially since it rubs some folks raw (for one reason and another). You know what really would help, though? The whole "assume good faith" thing. The skeptics (and we know who we are) need to stop acting like this was something other than a minor issue of semantics and WP policy. The True Believers (and you know who you are) need to ease up on the stridency and condescension. (tongue-in-cheek) How's about htis for a compromise - if Al Gore calls it "Climategate", can we put it parenthetically in the title? Nightmote (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "Climategate" should be the title, surely the present title is unbalanced? "Hacking incident" implies the controversy was about the supposed hackers; while in fact the main focus of this story has been the controversy about the alleged behaviour of the scientists (revealed, incidentally, by the alleged hacking).--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found:

Climategate in quotes: 11 [5][6][7][8][9] [10][11] [12][13] [14][15]

Climategate not in quotes: 2 [16][17]

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7 [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: [25] and [26] for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[36] is certainly an apologia for the UEA, while [37] is behind a paywall. How do these show anything other than that Nature.com certainly has their own spin on what happened? UnitAnode 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet is not a reliable source regarding climate change-related issues, then I really, really encourage you to go to WP:RSN and see how far you get with that argument. I think that deserves a *rolleyes*. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't a reliable source, only that they clearly have their own spin on the politics of what's going on in the scientific community with regards to the CRU/UEA. UnitAnode 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concure with SA. Nature is peer-reviewed, academic journal. Such sources are highly prized by Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints are presented fairly and with equal weight. It present viewpoints as they're presented by WP:RS. Since the scientific consensus is that AGW is the correct viewpoint, we're supposed to repeat that bias here. Maybe AGW really is the greatest scientific fraud since Piltdown man? Who cares? That's not our problem as Wikipedia editors. You're just going to have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a pristine reliable source on science takes an unequivocal position on the politics behind that science, we give it no more weight than any other RS on the same political issue. UnitAnode 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you basing this on anything but your own point-of-view? Has any reliable source ever criticized Nature for being political? And since when are there "politics behind science"? Are you referring to the politicization of science, because if that's so then you've got your cause-and-effect mixed up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Read the series of articles by The Guardian that I linked below, and then tell me that there aren't any politics going on behind the "scientific scene." UnitAnode 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I guess the answer is, "no". No, you aren't basing this deprecation of Nature on anything but your own POV. No, you don't have any reliable source criticizing Nature for being political. And you similarly failed in recognizing your premise/predicate problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay cut the crap. I haven't even implied that Nature is "deprecated." They're a great source for actual science, and the fact that they have a POV on the politics behind the science doesn't change that. And I notice how you failed to reply regarding the politics that go on behind the scientific scene. UnitAnode 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Great. Since you admit that Nature is a great source for actual science and global warming is actual science then they are a great source. Whether global warming is a political issue or not is irrelevant to the fact that the source I cited was discussing the presentation, conduct, and application of science (not politics which isn't the subject of either article). Since we need not intuit any political bias when none is explicitly mentioned in the articles in question and since you were unable to provide any source which indicated as much, we rightly rely on Nature for notable commentary on this issue. I'm glad we came to an agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There would indeed appear to be sourcing that calls Nature's editorial independence into doubt. Key quote from Dr. Campbel: "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." Nature's editor forced to step down from climate review panel?? They are clearly an involved party here and should be treated as such. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

False. The editor-in-chief is not the same thing as the publication itself. Nor is there any evidence from that Channel 4 piece that Philip Campbell is somehow lacking "independence". Only spin from naysayers. Removing the appearance of something that would call "into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task" is not the same thing as actually having a problem in that regard. Let me be clear: the panel is going to come to the conclusion that there is no smoking gun in these documents that makes anthropogenic global warming questionable. Similar to the DOE panels convened about cold fusion, for example. This is essentially a nice big fat red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Above, you challenged the notion that Nature had been criticized for being political and asked for sourcing to support that statement. I simply submit the requested evidence in which Dr. Campbell admits he has made prejudicial statements and, quite rightly, disqualified himself from serving on an independent review panel. Is there any evidence that Nature is regarded as neutral in this dispute? Ronnotel (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a "prejudicial statement" at all. He was simply stating facts that should be obvious to more or less everybody. It is hard for anyone to be impartial when the skeptical position is so fringey. In that sort of climate (no pun intended), a reasonable statement can seem prejudicial. I doubt very much the skeptics would be complaining about the makeup of the panel if it included someone like Ross McKitrick, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be clear, marginalized and deprecated sources have questioned the political neutrality of Nature from time-to-time. But their protestations are not things worth considering. Think of people like Young-Earth-Creationists, Big-Bang-Deniers, Einstein-was-wrongers, Cold-Fusion-pathological-scientists, etc. Global-warming-denialists is just another branch on the tree of pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have regularly questioned the political neutrality of Nature Magazine: do feel free to call me a pseudo-scientific denialist, or whatever is the insult of choice these days, but you might wish to click through to my publication record before doing so. Now, can we please calm down and get back to the issues? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This insult-fest that ScienceApologist is engaging in needs to be ignored, I think. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ScienceApologist is insulting anybody, just remarking that those who see Nature as a politically motivated organ are adopting an extreme and somewhat marginal position. Those who would take umbrage at that are simply identifying themselves with that margin, which is okay too. We have a Fringe theories guideline precisely for this kind of thing. --TS 02:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Cleave Article - CRU / Climategate

Rather than try to fit the continuing political events that have arisen from the CRU incident into the thimble of CRU - we should create a Climategate article. As pointed out above, this is akin to calling WWI the "Serbian Shooting Incident". Fact is, everyone from the BBC to your neighbor knows it as, and refers to it as, "Climategate". So why should we not have an article dedicated to recording this very real and historic political moment? Climategate has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics, it seems like the fear is that some would try to make it an article on science. Not having an article dedicated to this current political and cultural event is odd. Surely we, having tackled such difficult subjects as Politics of Harry Potter, are able to cover this lesser event?99.144.243.71 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Climategate as separate article. Having made the motion, allow me to be the first to support it. There seems to be massive support for renaming - perhaps separation would allow each article to be more specialized as the two events are truly only related by birth.99.144.243.71 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Available options according to community

The section above seems to have generated a slim majority, though likely not a consensus, of people supporting some rename, but because the section was so open-ended it's hard to gauge what the name should be. I think it's clear that any name involving "Climategate" will not reach consensus, and therefore I boldly offer the following two alternatives.

1. Leave the article name as-is, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.
2. Rename the article to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy.

Please do not propose another name in this section. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've chosen to be WP:BOLD and added the widely supported third option. The maddening thing about Wikipedia is when obstructionists continue to shift, archive, or otherwise artificially limit legitimate discussion. Consensus doe not require unanimity. That some oppose Climategate due to bias regarding personal politics should not prohibit the community from considering the name used by Phil Jones the scientist at the center of the CRU incident - or the NYT's and BBC. Let us remain as a community, neutral and able to go where the references take us.99.151.170.36 (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, if you want to do that I can't stop you. But I have removed the copy/pasted responses from above as out of context they are misleading. If those people want to support "Climategate" in the context of the current choices they can do so again. I suspect you'll find that many of the people who previously supported Climategate will now support Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. Oren0 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have posted messages on the talk pages of everyone who participated above linking to this section. Oren0 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support keeping the article name Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

1. EngineerFromVega (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
3. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Nigelj (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
8. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Support renaming the article to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy

1. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
2. --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
4. THF (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
5. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
6. (I'll register if it makes a difference) 91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
7. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
9. It is quite clearly a "controversy" and most articles relating to the ongoing controversy do not stress "hacking" which makes that title obsolete. Collect (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
10. ATren (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Thparkth (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
12. User:Gerardw hacking not neutral word. Gerardw (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
13. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Evensong (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Moogwrench (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
18. (as between the two) - Wikidemon (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
19. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
20. --SPhilbrickT 16:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
21. HideTheDecline (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
22. JPatterson (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
23. This is a reasonable compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
24. K10wnsta (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC) --If this is the first step in giving the article an appropriate title.
25. Jarhed (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC) -- Good luck with that.
26. --Blogjack (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
27. --JCBergman (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Climategate as separate article

1. 99.151.170.36 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
2. (whatever the name)... support differentiating the public controversy from the underlying issues of science and scientists' (mis)conduct - Wikidemon (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Support Climatic Research Unit documents controversy as separate article

1. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC) (see my comment in the discussion section below)

Support renaming the Article Climategate

1. 99.151.170.36 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support renaming the article Climatic Research Unit data theft incident

1. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support renaming the article Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy

Per this proposal

Discussion

I believe the proposed article name is the right choice for several reasons. First, it contains neither "Climategate" nor "hacking", both of which seem to have caused problems with some users. Second, it highlights the more notable part of the subject matter, which is the controversy relating to the documents rather than the hacking. Without the ensuing controversy, the hacking would be non-notable and wouldn't have an article. Third, I believe that this title will allow Climatic Research Unit documents to be merged back into the article. Oren0 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While I don't like the way the discussion was carried out, according to this, a third alternative has more support than either of the names proposed here. Guettarda (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, of course, the RFC is still ongoing, so declaring a "win" when it's at "no consensus" (and in the midst of a rather surprising flurry of activity) seems more than a little premature. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, as was discussed within the last couple hours. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not declaring a "win". There is no consensus above, in large part because there was no proposal. People are supporting and opposing all kinds of things up there. I'm trying to distill the discussion into the two most common likely options so that we can see where consensus lies. That's the point of this section. Oren0 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then did someone forge your sig? Someone signing your name said "Based on the initial RfC, I have opened a proposal to rename the article on the RfC subpage". Since the purpose of the RFC was to propose that we have yet another RM discussion, having the discussion amounts to a closure of the RFC. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, since there was an ongoing discussion of just this issue on the talk page, why not make your case there? Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't say "Should we discuss renaming the page?" it says "Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be?" The end result of a consensus to move to a specific page above wouldn't have been an WP:RM, it would have been the page being moved. The problem is that it's impossible to decide whether to rename until a prospective name is proposed, so that's what I did. When you ask about the talk page are you referring to this? That section posits that there is no consensus for the current name; I agree. I'm taking the next logical step: proposing a solution. And an RfC page seems like the perfect place to build consensus for something like that. Oren0 (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time the RFC was started, there was a sense that given the steady stream of RMs, that there should be a halt to them for the time being. This RFC asked for input in that context. Since there's no consensus as to whether we should have another discussion, instituting an RM discussion amounts to a premature (and illegitimate) close. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the wording of the RFC: "Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be?" Since "should this be renamed" has no consensus (a much broader question that "should it be renamed x"), the more specific question of "what should it be renamed to" has, necessarily, even less support. Guettarda (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous RfC wasn't well formed because it didn't propose anything. If a certain user replied "oppose renaming to Climategate", that doesn't imply that they support the current name. There needs to be a name proposed before we can gauge consensus on that name. It would be one thing if I said "it's clear the article needs renaming, what should it be?" I'm taking the original RfC and making it more specific, i.e. should the article be renamed to this specific title or not? Also, closing an active discussion because you don't like it is disruptive. Anyone can open any discussion they like as long as it's not disruptive and you're free to either participate or not. Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Guettarda, most of the already outnumbered "oppose" votes are more specifically and solely votes against either variants of -gate or what has been termed a "generic name change." The current precisification [a word that isn't in the dictionary, but it's in a Tyler Burge paper so I'm sticking with it] is very appropriate given that. The only other argument you give here is that the current proposal is inappropriate because another name change has been tabled, à savoir one you've opposed as invalid due to concerns about WP:CANVASS. Be contented that this proposal avoids your WP:Canvass concerns and - respectfully - stop wikilawyering.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the word controversy. I favour the word incident. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - repeated calls for name changes are getting extremely tedious and detracting from doing substantive work on the article itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the name changes are getting annoying, but the problem is that there is clear discontent in the community with the current name. I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned this is it; if this discussion doesn't result in a name change I won't initiate or support another such discussion for a while. Oren0 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Like Kittybrewster, I oppose the word controversy. It's an article about data theft (please, read the article), the question of whether the documents were stolen by an outsider or an insider doesn't quote make this a controversy. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. The theft/hack/leak isn't what's notable here. The release of documents alone is of minor interest and that alone wouldn't have resulted in an article. The reason this article exists and the reason it's a major story is the controversy that has resulted from the documents, leading to inquiries, accusations, and so forth. I don't see how anyone can deny that there is a controversy here. Even people arguing over whether the documents are controversial is itself a controversy. To cover it any other way is misleading, and part of the problem with the current article is that Climatic Research Unit documents was spun off into its own article. I think that if this article is renamed that can be re-merged. If indeed this article is only meant to be about the theft and the documents article is supposed to be about the controversy, the information about inquiries and reactions should be moved there, as should the "Climategate" redirect, and then that article should be renamed Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. Oren0 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • I'm starting to think we need at least three articles here: one called Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (or 'data leak controversy', or 'Climategate', whatever) as the 'main' article, and two sub-articles called Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (about the specifics of how the leak/hacking itself) and Climatic Research Unit documents (about the content of the documents). I doubt anyone else is willing to support such a complicated solution, but I have a feeling it's where we're going to end up. Robofish (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment- The most widely used name on all sides of the debate off-wiki is "Climategate" which we currently redirect to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. The implication is that WP thinks Climategate = CRU hacking incident which makes us look out of touch with reality. The hacking part of this controversy lost its legs (if it ever had any) within days of the release of the documents and virtually no one outside of a few zealots are talking about "the hack" off wiki. We are here to chronicle an historical event, not to spin it one way or another. Climategate, while widely used on all sides of the debate, is tinged by its popularization being associated with the skeptic camp and is therefore arguably POV and unlikely to ever gain consensus. 'Climatic Research Unit documents controversy', is an more encyclopedic alternative that I support. 'Incident' is not an accurate substitute for 'controversy' because this controversy has been on going for months. An incident usually describes an event (like a hack) that takes place over a short period of time. JPatterson (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered why no one has proposed "East Anglia University has lousy IT security," which is about as NPOV as "climategate," or "hacking." Gerardw (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous name

This is a controversy over a particular set of documents, not all documents that were generated by CRU. As such the article is ambiguous because it doesn't refer to the act which generated the documents in question. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The title is clear enough IMO. Consider the article 2010 Haiti earthquake. Has there been more than one earthquake in Haiti this year, counting aftershocks and barely-perceptible 2.0 tremors? Almost certainly. But the article title refers to the one that is widely the most notable. In this case, there is one particular set of CRU documents that has generated the most controversy. If a user is still confused the first sentence will solve that. If you think we would need a hatnote pointing somewhere else, where would it point? Oren0 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the incident where the documents were released over the internet is actually the most important aspect of the story, not the documents themselves. By just using the term "documents" I think the internet-related feature of this controversy is not addressed properly. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The contents of the leaked documents is the real issue here, and it is disingenuous to hold that the alleged theft of e-mails is more important than the FOI evasion and the other improper behaviour revealed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hacking" is perjorative which means the existing title is not neutral. "Controversy" or "incident" would be reasonably neutral. Gerardw (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative toward whom or what? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Important Questions

Okay, prior to issuing a vote on these proposed article names, I really wanted to reset my frame of mind to approach this objectively (and really should have asked these questions prior to issuing my initial support in changing the name to begin with). These are important claims that, if valid, warrant consideration in the vote (atleast my vote). I've spent hours searching the archives but cannot find the basis for their assertion, yet they are mentioned repeatedly, so if someone knows the location of a well-reasoned explanation, a link would be appreciated. As they are distinctly seperate issues, I am posting them seperately.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1) How is use of the term 'hacking' in the existing title (and lead sentence) justified?
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• See FAQ, question 5; also see the Independent Review Panel's FAQ. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see extensive use of the phrase 'hacked emails' on that site (and elsewhere in the media) but have not been able to find a source that demonstrates how 'hacking' was actually involved. The only thing I've seen established is that the data being made available was not authorized. But unauthorized distribution is not 'hacking' .

While 'hacking' is certainly one way the information may have been accessed, use of the term without evidence for that being the case is wholly unsubstantiated. I guess a better way to ask this question would be:
How have we justified the use of such a speculative term in the article's title?
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite! By focussing on the "criminal hack" we divert attention from the criminal evasion of FOI requests and other questionable behaviour by some of the scientists involved. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

2) How is the term 'Climategate' POV and more important, what point of view is it supporting?
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dramatic, sensationalist, journalistic, cheap tabloid and unencyclopedic. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Climategate" suggests that there is a "-gate scandal" (like Watergate) here; to date, no reliable source has substantiated any wrongdoing beyond the failure to respond to FOI requests in a timely manner. It supports the POV that climate change is a hoax which has now been revealed. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This interpretation of events is a fantasy. It's not that they didn't respond to the FOI requests "in a timely manner", they were found to have "prevent[ed] intentionally the disclosure of requested information" in violation of the law. The only reason they weren't sanctioned was because too much time had passed. They were asked to delete the requested information by Phil Jones. That much is undisputed. Then we have the mucking with peer review, boycotting journals, etc. While it is true that the overall case for AGW remains intact, that's not what the "Climategate" name implies. It implies alleged legal and ethical wrongdoing demonstrated by the individuals who wrote the emails. This wrongdoing has been alleged by many people on both sides of the issue. Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have any experience with prosecuting scientific fraud cases? Because I think if you did you would recognize that your "reliable sources" are not in fact reliable at all. Maybe you should do your homework before disseminating your ignorance to the mass public here. Start with the Imanishi-Kari case, it shows you exactly how these things get covered-up. HideTheDecline (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have seen recent arguments that the real 'climategate' also refers to all the other nonsense dragged into the media recently by those who don't understand and won't accept global warming: glaciergate, africagate, hollandgate, etc. Even those who want a calamity to befall climate change science haven't yet decided what it's going to be yet. The word climategate just refers to climate denialists' wet dreams. Hence the online message from the CRU hackers: "A miracle just happened" - it'll take more than a miracle to stop global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Again and again in these discussions, defenders of the UEA and CRU falsely or perhaps dishonestly state or suggest or imply there is some kind of equivalence between the two positions (1) the conduct of some of the scientists has been sometimes illegal, sometimes dishonest and a unscientific and (2) there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate warming. This is used to justify not renaming the article. We pretend the issue is the "criminal hack" rather than the conduct of the science. There can be both Climategate and AGW. I suggest that that is the only sensible view. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda's response above seems to summarize the only reasoning I've found on the 'Climategate isn't appropriate' matter. I asked the question hoping there was something I'd missed as I simply don't see how this holds water...

"Climategate" suggests that there is a "-gate scandal" (like Watergate) here; to date, no reliable source has substantiated any wrongdoing beyond the failure to respond to FOI requests in a timely manner."
Doesn't the unauthorized public disclosure of information from specific scientists that results in several international inquiries and investigations qualify as scandalous? As 'a publicized incident that damages the reputation or character of individual(s) involved', it does by definition. Since the 'source' in this case is largely the scientists themselves, the degree of that damage will largely be determined by what an individual considers acceptable practice in scientific research and behavior.

"It supports the POV that climate change is a hoax which has now been revealed."
Those in the know understand the term refers to the fallout relating to the leaked data (in addition to the leaking of the data itself). Someone who had never heard a word from either camp on the subject (but was aware that -gate generally referenced a 'scandal') would see the term and have no way of inferring any specific meaning on the subject. Just because it labels an incident that damaged the reputations of scientists arguing in favor of AGW does not make it imply any sort of perspective on the matter as a whole.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the question of consensus still in doubt?

Currently there are 22 editors in favor of changing the name; 5 oppose. Many of those supporting name the name change are uninvolved in the GW debate. Can we now agree that consensus to change the name exists? Certainly changing to "Climategate" did not garner consensus, but there IS strong support to change it to something other than the current "hacking incident".

I suggest we change it to the title listed above (not my first choice, but much better than the existing) and move on. There is clearly consensus for such a change. ATren (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How did all these people, "uninvolved in the GW debate", find this page in order to !vote? (I found it hard to track down) Where are their reasoned arguments behind their choices? My assumptions of worldwide goodfaith prevent me from thinking about WP:MEATPUPPETRY, but I should remind people that Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Without the "policy-related points made by [these] editors", it is hard to see the benefit of the !vote. Most of these "uninvolved" voters have so far contributed little to any consensus building by editing and discussion, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, when the RfC was posted, the template posted a notice of it to the various, related RfC forums by topic. Wikipedia volunteers who are trying to improve the 'pedia then see it listed and come and give their opinion. Their participation is much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My assumptions of worldwide goodfaith prevent me from thinking about WP:MEATPUPPETRY If you weren't thinking about it, how did it end up in your contribution? There has been significant discussion above. Restraint in editing the article is a sign of respect for the process -- discuss first, then edit after consensus has been achieved. Gerardw (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...let's see... It's a new section of an RFC that was added yesterday, and was extensively canvassed. It's not a move request. It hasn't appeared on the article's talk page. I can't only imagine that ATren is making a joke of some sort. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, WP:RM is an option, not a process requirement (viz., "In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here..."). It's usually used by editors who don't know how to move an article and don't want to screw it up.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, what is your position on the proposed name change? This proposal has not been sprung on anyone, each procedural challenge put in the way of the series of name change proposals has been patiently and exhaustively dealt with. Your views and those of others have been accommodated as best as can be. Many of us do not consider this proposal the ideal article name, we have had to compromise too, but the current name is misleading, the new one is better. Now, have your say, and step aside. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is clear consensus to change the title, and the title suggested above appears to have the most support. I think the article can now, safely, be moved. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be listed as a controversial page move, which I've initiated Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Move_request Gerardw (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

(I'm not fussy on capitals). The only long version I can think of is: "the issues surrounding the unauthorised release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia" - which is why I've said right from the beginning that the article was going to be called Climategate and that is the name it should have. Isonomia (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fork to two articles

I should add to above that there are two issues which have been confused into one article. There is the actual "unauthorised release" of emails. This is an article about who did it, how they did it, etc. Then there is "climategate" which has almost nothing to do with the mechanism of release of the emails - it would be climategate however they were released by legitimate FOI, by whistleblower of denied FOI, lost laptop, public exposure of server, hacked - it wouldn't matter because climategate is about the content, not the disclosure. Isonomia (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Another Vote on this Name Change is Occurring HERE

For those who think this matter is settled, it's being discussed again in the move request (which I don't think was even necessary given the strong consensus here). Be sure to register your opinion there as well. ATren (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're voting twice. My understanding was that the move request was put at that talkpage to direct people here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I lost track of all the different votes going on. Part of me wants to close them all and start over from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I took a few days off and now I can't figure out where things stand at all. --GoRight (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When I look above, I see a clear consensus to rename as "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy". I think someone needs to just go and ask one of the involved admins, like 2/0 or LHVU to review the RfC and make the move if they agree that consensus has emerged. I will probably be fairly busy this weekend, as I'm supposed to run in the Tokyo marathon on Sunday morning, but if no one has made the request by early next week, I'll do it then. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll not make any waves until this is formally resolved then. Good luck in the marathon! I've only run four in my life and that was many moons ago and none of the big names for sure. What's your target time? --GoRight (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able, due to family and other demands, to keep a consistent training program going, so my goal has dropped from 3:30 to 4 hours. Distance running is addictive, isn't it? Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)