Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:33, 9 February 2010 editTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →RfC on article name change: - oppose← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:02, 18 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,583,439 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-17. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{BLP}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{Talk header |search=yes}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}}
<!--If changing the archive time, PLEASE REMEMBER to also change the AutoArchive notice time below-->
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=mid}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject Computer Security|importance=low|computing-importance=low}}
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Low}}
|counter = 25
{{WikiProject Weather |importance=Low |climate-task-force=yes}}
|minthreadsleft = 3
{{WikiProject Higher education}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
{{WikiProject East Anglia|importance=low}}
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Image requested|in=Norfolk}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}}
{{Connected contributor|User1=TimOsborn |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=] relevant affiliation: Climatic Research Unit.}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |dounreplied=yes}}

{{Article history
|itndate=24 November 2009
|itnlink=Misplaced Pages:ITN archives/2009/November
|otd1date=2011-11-17|otd1oldid=461039593|otd2date=2014-11-17|otd2oldid=634065122|otd3date=2018-11-17|otd3oldid=869082625|otd4date=2019-11-17|otd4oldid=926631181
|otd5date=2021-11-17|otd5oldid=1055648714
|otd6date=2022-11-17|otd6oldid=1121946106
|otd7date=2024-11-17|otd7oldid=1257976355
}}
{{top 25 report|November 3, 2013|until|November 17, 2013}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes|quickedit=no}}
{{Old moves|date=26 June 2024|destination=Climatic Research Unit email leak|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1232605862#Requested move 26 June 2024}}

{{Archives |auto=short |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |1=<div style="text-align:center">], ], ], ], ], ], ]</div> }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
|target=Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}}
{{shell|
{{WikiProject Meteorology|class=C|importance=low}}
{{Environment|class=C|importance=mid|climate change=yes}}
{{WikiProject Computer Security|class=C|importance=low}}
{{Rational Skepticism|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{ITNtalk|24 November|2009}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{notaforum|anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{Controversial}}
|counter = 44
{{Calm talk}}
|minthreadsleft = 4
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|algo = old(30d)
{{tmbox
|archive = Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive %(counter)d
| type = content
| text = Issues related to this article have been raised at the ] on
* ] (archived)
* ] (archived)
* ] (archived)
* ] (archived)
and at ] on
* ] (active as of December 15, 2009)
and at ] on
* ] (])
* ] (Talk:Climatic_Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 14#Proposed page move|failed]])
}} }}
{{tmbox|small=yes|image=none|textstyle=padding:2px|text=
{{todo}}
<div style="text-align:center; font-weight:bold;">Issues related to this article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages</div>
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] noticeboard:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


] noticeboard:
== Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 ==
* ]


{{Col-2}}
I must admit, article looks better now after the big overhaul. I'd like the following inserted into the final comment on the "nature trick" email.
]:

* ] (fail)
"Before the incident, '''other research in which Mann was a contributing author''' had found similar results with or without the tree ring records. "
* ] (fail)

* ] (fail)
The point here is that this statement should not give the false impression that Mann's Hockey Stick graph was independently validated by other researches.
* ] (pass)
] (]) 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{Col-end}}

}}
:You're bringing in the ] which wasn't quoted in references used at the time that was put together – as , the graph was validated by other researchers. That's a source which should be reflected in our article. No objection to clarifying that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author, but we must be clear that the scientific consensus supports a form of Mann's thesis.
{{Refideas|{{Cite journal |last=Maibach |first=Edward |last2=Leiserowitz |first2=Anthony |last3=Cobb |first3=Sara |last4=Shank |first4=Michael |last5=Cobb |first5=Kim M. |last6=Gulledge |first6=Jay |date=2012-05 |title=The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy? |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.168 |journal=WIREs Climate Change |language=en |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=289–295 |doi=10.1002/wcc.168 |issn=1757-7780}}|{{Cite web |last=#author.fullName} |title=The Trick review: How the Climategate scandal rocked the world |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294061-the-trick-review-how-the-climategate-scandal-rocked-the-world/ |access-date=2022-09-20 |website=New Scientist |language=en-US}}}}

: gives a useful overview, concluding with the IPCC 2001 "claim that 'it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium'. Most researchers, including Briffa, now believe that statement was correct." It describes how other emails show that the dispute at that time was between Mann and the CRU research by Briffa. Interestingly, the detailed IPCC Chapter 2 report shows the downturn in the tree ring reconstruction in its graph. The Jones email was about the graph for a WMO Statement, which I've not checked out. McIntyre, who was on the scene later, brought in the IPCC 2007 report. Our section would be better retitled, perhaps "Tree ring proxy reconstructions", and there's getting on to be enough material for it to be a standalone article with a brief summary in the main CRU hacking incident article, ]. . . ], ] 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::It appears there are no objections to my edit referenced above (that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author).] (]) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I've made the above edit, just so you all know. (article page is unlocked now). Please discuss it here first, if you are thinking of reverting it.] (]) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::My feeling remains that the change gives undue weight to the minority views, as several sources have stated that the overall picture rests on multiple lines of evidence so the tree rings have limited significance. Still to revise. . ], ] 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== Time to rename it to "Climategate scandal" ==

I just read the FAQ and the reason cited was basically that we can't use either "Climategate" or "scandal" let alone "Climategate scanal" because it implies wrongdoing. I mean, here's what it says right now verbatim:
:Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles.

Well, if this is the case, then we need to rename ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], and quite a few others that I'm not going to bother mentioning.

This standard of not using "-gate" or "scandal" doesn't apply anywhere but here.

So one of the following will take place:
# Consensus will change as a result of my compelling argument against the previous consensus,
# All articles that have the terms "-gate" or "scandal" in them will be renamed to a euphemism of what the article is about, or
# There will be a massive ''de facto'' concession that there's a double standard here.

Thanks. ] (]) 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:Hahaha beautifully argued. I'm in.--] (]) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:Your "compelling argument" is nothing of the sort, and this has been discussed to death already. Please see ]. -- ] (]) 08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::Pulling the "discussed to death card" is confused. Stuff happens. Rehashing a discussion is warranted after new information arises, new people show up, etc.--] (]) 08:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::There is no new information and this is not the first time Macai has been involved with this article. -- ] (]) 08:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::ChrisO goes with option number three. ] (]) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Nonsense. ] makes it clear that "scandal" and "gate" are to be avoided '''except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources'''. This is not an historical case, it's a current event. As for other article titles which may not comply with WTA, the ] argument is invalid - if one or two articles don't comply, that doesn't mean that this one shouldn't as well. Plenty of articles do comply. Compare ] ("Rathergate") or ] ("Attorneygate"). -- ] (]) 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Can we consider this a motion for the counterproposal, "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy"?--] (]) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, it's a way of telling Macai that his proposal is unacceptable, since it's irredeemably POV. -- ] (]) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Prove that it's POV to say that a scandal is a scandal. ] (]) 08:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Chris is not the one going around in circles. You are. ] (]) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::You're right. I am going in circles; around Chris. The fact that he resorted to in place of an actual argument placed him in the objective wrong in this discussion. Sorry if that bothers you. ] (]) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::So let me get this straight, Chris. It's a current event. That means it's going on now. As in, more emails are coming out, and CRU is continually being hacked or leaked or whatever? Is that correct? Because if it's over, it happen an historical event. Period.

::::Also, notice how I didn't make the argument that we should necessarily change this article based on the fact that others don't comply with a mandate; see option #2.

::::Furthermore, your source is talking about the inclusion or exclusion of articles, not in the naming scheme of articles. ] (]) 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Since it's the subject of current reporting, it is plainly a current event. You will not find it being referred to in "reputable historical sources" (such as academic books) because it's far too recent for that. As for "not in the naming scheme of articles", I can see you haven't read ] properly. It says of "-gate" and "scandal": "'''They should not be used in article titles'''". Pretty clear, I'd say. You should also look at ], which requires neutral article titles to be used. -- ] (]) 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::: @Macai - love your work. Fully support. @ChrisO - I think that your argument was a fair one pre-christmas, but Climategate has become the standard term. Can you advise of any other terms that are used to label the event and the subsequent controversy? ] (]) 08:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Since Macai's work appears to involve moronic Rush Limbaugh-influenced vandalism , you might want to rethink your praise for him. -- ] (]) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::ChrisO - I've admired your work here and elsewhere. I know you disagree with what I'm saying, but I really hate to see you posting this sort of message. Please go get a cup of tea and take a few deep breaths. ] (]) 09:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::ChrisO calling others work moronic is not they way we work on wikipedia. So please stop name calling other peoples work like this. ] (]) 11:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::]. Your move. ] (]) 09:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::If you guys are not willing to read Misplaced Pages guidelines, why are you even here? ] (]) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::We have reached this "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." from ] stage for '''Climategate scandal'''/'''Climategate controversy''' now . (Nearly) every source now uses som variant of this. Even
:::::::::*<nowiki>'climategate' scandal</nowiki> &ndash; ] (),
:::::::::*<nowiki>"climategate" controversy</nowiki> &ndash; ] () and
:::::::::*<nowiki>"ClimateGate" affair</nowiki> &ndash;] ().
:::::::::The second piece ChrisO is refereing to is a style guidline and should be "attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions". ] (]) 11:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for the useful link to the statement that "Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs." A mainstream scientific point of view that should be incorporated into description of the "scandal" aspect of the article. . . ], ] 12:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No. Stop bringing it up and work on something that might actually get consensus. The arguments against Climategate as the name have been done to death - bringing it up again and again and again reeks of an unwillignness to work with others. ] (]) 12:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
*Yet again, "Climategate" is clearly a pov spin, a label being used by one side of the argument to obscure the case that there is a significant human caused contribution to global warming. . ], ] 12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::Stop bringing it up? If you care to read my links just given above from the Guardian and The Independent so will you see that even these publications has now (as of 2 February) start using Climategate in some way or another as an description on this scandal/controversy. It may be a pov spin in the start, but now it isn't anymore. Why else would Guardian/Independent now start using it? ] (]) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::These are articles about the arguments being put by "skeptics", most obviously in the Guardian article. That's just a part of the incident. Note extensive use of inverted commas around "climategate". Framing in that way may be acceptable in some news media, but is inappropriate for an article title. . . ], ] 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Consensus is not forever. The fact that this issue has been raised in the past should not prevent us from raising it again. Especially now that it has become obvious that the usual lable applied to "the controversy following the unauthorised release of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit" is Climategate. The name Climategate appears to be the most commonly used name. Are there other names that are more widely used? The current title is clumsy and presumptive. It needs to change. ] (]) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Your proposal remains one-sided and not appropriately neutral for this article. Further proposals welcome, but effort would be better put into improving the article itself. . . ], ] 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::There really isn't anything to discuss here. Words like "scandal" and those ending in "-gate" are essentially ''prohibited'' on Misplaced Pages per ] and ]. The fact that other articles make use of them is irrelevant, because in many cases they ''predate'' Misplaced Pages (and are thus "grandfathered in"), or are simply ''wrong'' and ought to be changed. I'm open to discussion on changing the title (and I've gone to ] to help reach an agreement on a new title in the past), but there is no way I would support any version that includes "Climategate" or "scandal". Furthermore, I think there is a clear majority of editors who will agree with me on this, particularly because investigations are still ongoing. Calls to get these non-neutral terms into the title will not be successful, so the efforts of those calling for them would be better spent on trying to work out a compromise that will satisfy everyone. -- ] (]) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I want to weigh in on the side of ChrisO and Scj. This said, I agree that "consensus is not forever". I think we should try to establish some test for when an article can be referred to as "gate" or "scandal". In my mind the test should be this - When a super majority (i.e. >66%) of randomly sampled news articles and RS covering the incident unequivically refer to the event by the term "gate" or "scandal", Misplaced Pages should do the same. I don't think "Climategate" has met that test yet (unlike events like Watergate, and the Mocia Lewinsky scandal probably do), though I acknowledge that that could change. ] (]) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Concur with ChrisO, Scj and NickCT. We have a specific guideline which states that articles should not be named with the "-gate" suffix. See ]. ] (]) 15:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::Well Dave you say "Climategate" is POV spin, but all the defenders of the Climategate scientists have pushed the "hacked" meme as a way to distract from the contents of the emails - the implication being that they were "victims" of a crime instead of whistleblowing (which is usually praised). If you are against POV titles then you should agree with ScienceApologist's proposed title of Climate Research Unit emails. Are you going to be consistent in this matter? Or are you going to insist that a crime was committed against these poor misunderstood scientists? ] (]) 18:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::: Do you actually think your above comment assists in creating a cooperative environment where editors with differeing perspectives work with eachother to improve the article? Why, or why not? ] (]) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: Regardless, the title and lead sentence need to be changed in light of the new evidence. The theory that CRU was hacked is unlikely at best, yet the title states this as a fact. Additionally, the idea that we can't use the word "scandal" to describe the even because it is current is marginal at best. The Foley Scandal was called a scandal from the beginning for example. ] (]) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::I'm just trying to get things back on track. One side says "Climategate" is biased and the other side says the current title is biased. There has been a proposed middle ground and we should be working towards that which is what I was attempting to do. ] (]) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"The theory that CRU was hacked is unlikely at best," ?!?? Really Arzel? Really? ] (]) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:Security experts have stated that it was most likely an internal leak. The other option is that they left their server open - which is something they've accidentally done in the past. ] (]) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

=== No compelling counterargument ===
None of the arguments in this thread against changing it to "Climategate scandal" have addressed the fact that many other articles are referred to as "scandals". If no compelling argument is made within twenty four hours, consensus will be ''overridden'' as per ]. Thank you. ] (]) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:Sirwells supports option number 1 for the reasons Mr Macaii outlined in his inital post. The "this has aleady been argued to death" excuse does not hold water. (Sorry RC / AGW crowd, but you do not ''own'' wikipedia articles.)] (]) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::Per ], "scandal" and "-gate" are words to avoid when naming articles. ] (]) 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Are you for option number two, then? Yes or no, please. ] (]) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::That's a false tricotomy. ] (]) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That's not a false tricotomy at all. Either the "don't use -gate and scandal" rule applies, or it doesn't. Period. ] (]) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::The rule does apply. There are no article titles which violate ] as far as I am aware. Of course, Misplaced Pages has lots of articles so there might be violations, but I am not aware of any. ] (]) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::So you're in favor of option two, then? Here's a list of article names with "scandal" in them:
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]
:::::::*]

:::::::And that's only going through the second page of a Google search for "site:wikipedia.org scandal". "Scandal" is found all over the place, including very recent events. (I wouldn't consider the ] ancient history; it's not even been half a decade yet.) ] (]) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::OK, clearly I was wrong. I wasn't aware of most of those. (But some of those aren't violations such as the Teapot Dome scandal. According to ], it's OK if a history journal uses the term.) Anyway, if you want to make the case that those articles need to be changed, you need to bring this up to those talk pages. Mistakes made by editors in other articles can't be used to justify repeating those mistakes here. ] (]) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::NP, bro. The case I'm trying to make, though, is that I think it's fair to call this a scandal, seeing as it is one, and that it's easily "historical". I mean, if Mark Foley is historical, why not this? I'm kind of under the impression that anything taking place in the past, but not ongoing, qualifies as "historical". ] (]) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I'd like to ask QuestForKnowledge if he knows of any examples on wikipedia where ] has caused an article about a widely known scandal or controversy to be renamed. Climate-gate is the only example I can think of. (of course wikipedia is a large place so there may be others, but I don't know of any.)] (]) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not sure what you're getting at but no, not that I know of. ] (]) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::My point is that perhaps ] needs some work. I believe the intent is correct, we can't have conspiracy theorists running around calling everything a scandal. However, in the cases such as this, where nearly an entire population has labeled it xxx-gate, the appropriate name of the article should be xxx-gate. It seems to me you are using the "...except in historical cases..." bit as justification for other, somewhat olders scandals being excused from your ]. This is splitting hairs and does not respect the intent of the rule. macai's arguement is a good one. If every other scandal is labeled simply for what it is, it's wrong to put never used but more "politically correct" label on climate-gate.] (]) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Look, I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to follow them, that's all. We have a guideline that says not to use these words. That's good enough for me. I'm not here to think. ] (]) 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::So let me do the thinking for you then :D (that was a joke, I actually do respect your opinion). I ''think'' what we have here is a compelling case of ].] (]) 23:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems a little ]. Here's an argument: the vast majority of people who understand climate change don't think this is a scandal. Only one particular group (the denialists) think it is a scandal. Therefore the title should not include "scandal" any more than the ] should be called "Proof that man never went to the moon". ] (]) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:From ]:
::"A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed."
:This is clearly a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations, and in the public eye, it certainly damages the reputation of an institution, individual, or creed. Just because people who, in your words, "understand climate change" don't find it to be a scandal doesn't make it a non-scandal. It'd be comparable to say that since "people who understand" that Lewinsky's blowjob was ultimately unimportant don't find the ] to be a scandal, that we should therefore call it the ]. ] (]) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::Why is this still being discussed? At what point do the constant calls to violate Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines with "-gate"/"scandal" terminology be called ] to the point of outright ]? That POV-pushers keen to misrepresent reality have been allowed to continue like this for weeks and weeks without sanction is, frankly, ''outrageous''. To this day, there are only allegations. Despite comments from the toothless ICO, no wrongdoing has been properly asserted and no criminal charges have been filed. In fact, the ''only'' suggestion of criminal activity has been directed toward whoever stole the data from the CRU servers. Some ethical questions have been raised, but nothing that could be described as scandalous. The notion that this incident has attracted the sort of attention that was afforded Watergate, or Lewinsky, or any of the other ''real'' scandals cited above is patently ridiculous. The constant insistence that this article be renamed to accommodate these non-neutral terms is highly disruptive, and serious consideration should be given to handing out topic bans. -- ] (]) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::It is an objective fact that conspiracy to corrupt scientific process ("Kevin and I will keep them out somehow") is scandalous. All the reliable sources agree me on this one. This is an immutable reality that you're trying to ''white wash''. People like you are the POV-pushers, not those of us who want to call a spade a spade.

:::Furthermore, you have expressed in this message desire to exclude anybody from the discussion that does not agree with you. This constitutes intent to white wash the climategate issue, and your message will be used as evidence for this claim. If anybody else agrees with this perspective, it constitute conspiracy to white wash the climategate issue.

:::In the meantime, your input will be disregarded by me and any with two brain cells to rub together until you come up with some valid points to make. ] (]) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@scjessey - The lack of criminal charges being filed does not militate against the allegation of scandal. Neither Lewinsky nor Foley were subject to criminal indictment. Professional societies typically have ethical rules which they enforce with sanctions, outside the criminal justice system. Some of these qualify as scandals, especially with doctors and lawyers. I do not plump for the use of the word scandal in the title of the proposed article, but I do support its consideration on rational grounds. I do believe that Climategate needs to be in the title, and that it needs to address the allegations of scientific misconduct, rather than the release of the FOIA.zip file. ] (]) 06:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:The problem is, as they say, that there's no there there. There isn't an actual scandal. There's no "-gate". The only evidence of wrongdoing is on the part of the hackers, whomever they may be. Everything else is just political spin, faux outrage, and imagined misdeeds. ] (]) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::The scandal exists in the perception of many, including many scientists, that scientific method has been perverted in the interests of goals thought to be righteous . This has been and is being debated. It may prove unfounded. And the elevated morality of the putative motives is not being questioned, but the behavior is. And that is what the scandal consists of. ] (]) 08:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:::No wrongdoing = no scandal. No matter how much the far right tries to spin it. ] (]) 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Nonsense. Neither Lewinsky nor Foley were guilty of wrongdoing. The scandal in Watergate consisted not in the "third-class burglary" but in the coverup and its ramifications. Scandal merely requires public discussion of socially-disapproved behavior which is either flaunted, or discovered and publicized, both implying lack of discretion. Compare Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron, Parnell, Emma Hamilton, and, perhaps unfortunately, the Piltdown Man. Theologically, "giving scandal" is considered sinful as it is liable to induce others to sin. We certainly do not want scientists in training to believe that they can manipulate data to their desired ends with impunity. Not to imply that that is necessarily what took place, but that is what the concerns, yet to be refuted, allege. And how did the far right get in here? Sokal was a Marxist and he took the Left to task for intellectual dishonesty. ] (]) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Failure to produce compelling counterargument; name changed in compliance with NPOV ===
The name of the article has been changed to ] in compliance with ]. I know I did it quite a bit early, but the thread has been largely abandoned and similar arguments popped up elsewhere. No more discussion was going to take place here. ] (]) 08:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== Another Bold Proposal ==

I informally proposed this a few times, but I'm wondering what sort of a response this will garner. I'd like to take the existing email section - including the code and whatever else was removed from the UEA/CRU server - and chop it back to the brief summary put together by ], with a wikilink to a brand-new separate email article. Here's my rationale:<br>1. The overall readability of the article will be improved.<br>2. As more and more emails become public, it will become necessary to evaluate each one.<br> 3. With a separate article, it will be possible to selectively wikilink to it from ] or ] or from any other article without the need to drag along the debate on how the documents came into the public sphere or why. ] (]) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

: I need to noodle on this, but I should note that I would have moved my summary live this morning if the article wasn't locked. ] (]) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:: I think the proposed other article on 'more and more' of the emails will be spectacularly dull. According to recent analysis, the emails were heavily filtered for maximum Copenhagen impact, "But many are completely innocuous, or indeed show the climate researchers in a good light, holding rigorous internal debates". No interest there for sceptics, I think. Let's just get Hipocrite's e-mail rewrite in asap, and leave it at that. --] (]) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Your statement, Nigel, is unrealistic. The files removed from the server are significant. The emails section was restored because it was observed that curiosity about the emails and their content was one of the reasons readers came to this article. My point is that the lengthy analysis in this article makes the article a little harder to read, and more contentious. A separate article will allow those with a more in-depth interest the opportunity to read selected emails and analysis, allow other articles to wikilink, and keep *this* article focused on what is known to be true rather than on what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time. ] (]) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::I would also add that whether one is a skeptic or not is of no consequence regarding the value of the article. I'm quite certain that both skeptics and believers will be only too happy to parse every bit of those emails to bits-n-bytes. ] (]) 15:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::: ] sounds like an interesting essay :). I'm (locally) warming to the idea. ] (]) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
* Strongly support this idea, see ]. Each article would have to fully meet ], and the concise summary in this main article would outline the overall conclusions without going into all the "he said, she said" sort of build up. The sub-article could start as the full section incorporating the most recently added info but restoring any significant deletions, with an overview summarising the main background. It could expand from there. . .], ] 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::I'm a little concerned by "keep *this* article focused on what is known to be true rather than on what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time" (NM above). Presumably the other (e-mail) article is not going to be the one for "what may or may not be proven in the fullness of time" either? Best to keep all articles based on what ''has'' happened, and ''does'' exist, isn't it? Just a worry, please clarify if poss --] (]) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Fair question. If we (as editors) are willing to acknowledge that there are varying <i>honestly-held</i>, reliably-sourced opinions on the significance of the content of the emails and codes, then it is reasonable to split the article. This article can deal primarily with the facts surrounding the theft and the consequences to the various involved individuals. The (theoretical) email article can focus on the more-difficult-to-define nature of the files that were stolen, their significance (if any), their impact on the AGW hypothesis (if any), and their impact on governmental policy (if any). As it stands, we have too many possible conflicts: the data were stolen/the data were leaked/the emails mean nothing/the emails are significant/AGW is fact/AGW is fiction. If we split this, the article becomes more readable to the casual reader, the opportunity to more closely examine the emails and their significance still exists, and we make consensus more likely. I really see it as win-win-win. ] (]) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Actually - I'd like to retract and restate. The email and code article should (in theory) be limited to a description of the files and their content, with explanations (as necessary) for any computer code. *If* the files are significant, they will have impacts on the IPCC, the AGW hypothesis, and various international treaties. As impacts are identified, the files article would be updated, and the appropriate article wikilinked. Make more sense? ] (]) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

* As proposed, the useful info is now split into a ] article, with a ''see also'' link in this article. That can accommodate expansion as sources develop, with a concise summary in this article being updated. . . ], ] 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== Fluffy kittens ==

I have been advised that there are many contributors to this page who are insisting that the other parties, those whose viewpoint is opposed to theirs, like or dislike fluffy kittens according to their stance or viewpoint relating to World Cuteness Liability. I would give notice from the posting of this section that any editor claiming another contributor has a pov relating to fluffy kittens unsustained by application of WP policy will be blocked for 12 hours. Just try it... That is all!!! ] (]) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:Oh here we go again.... Do you have a reliable source proving that fluffy kittens as so-called "cute"? ] (]) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::im afraid the inability to either prove or disprove the cuteness of fluffy kittens lies at the heart of Godels incompleteness theorem, rendering any effort in this universe devoid of substance. still, they ARE cute...] (]) 08:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::If a fluffy kitten is completely enclosed in an opaque box, the cuteness coefficient of the kitten is inherently unknowable until the box is opened.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Indeed. Not only is the fluffy kitten's cuteness unknown, it is not determined until someone opens the box. ] (]) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== Proposal for New Title ==

For the title of the new article, may I suggest ]? It can be referred to as "The Article Not to be Known as Climategate"] (]) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
: The article title is already as laughable as your suggestion, so I second it. - ] (]) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
: or how about <math>\overline{\mbox{Climategate}}</math>? ] (]) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

::How about we rename the article to reflect a more accurate description to it current editors: "A Huge waste of time"? ] (]) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== It's not a scandal, but it is Climategate ==

I don't see how we can avoid calling it Climategate any longer. That's what it's known by everywhere else in the world and continuing to ignore this is POV in and of itself. I don't see how you can seriously argue that it's in any way POV to use the word Climategate. I notice that the latest issue of calls it climategate, a recent report by calls it Climategate (and funnily enough refers the reader to this page!). Even Penn State refers to it as Climategate when they need to be clear what it is they're talking about . I don't actually thin the term Climategate is positive or negative any more. It's just the name that's applied.

I've asked before and have not received an answer. If it is not commonly known as Climategate, what is it known as? What other name is commonly applied to the incident that occurred last November that resulted in the unauthorised release of around 1000 emails and a similar number of documents? Certainly it's not known as "Climatic Research Unit Hacking Incident". The only time I've seen that phrase away from wikipedia is when someone is poking fun at wikipedia's perceived bias.

Now, as for the word scandal, I think it is inappropriate. Whether or not the incident resulted in a scandal is highly contentious. It certainly resulted in a controversy, so I would suggest ] as an appropriate name, but I would be just as amenable to ]. I would '''not''' support ] and I do '''not''' support the current title.] (]) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

::Hear him!!] (]) 05:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::: No. ] (]) 09:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::No you won't hear? Or no you are unwilling to answer my questions? ] (]) 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::How many times does this have to be said? '''"Climategate" can only refer to the controversy that ''followed'' the incident being described by this article.''' At best, you could argue that "Climategate" could be used as a section heading....hmmmmm.... compromise proposal forming in the misty part of my brain - will think on this... -- ] (]) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Update to this train of thought: I considered whether or not we might be able to give "Climategate" a dedicated section, since the controversial aspect of the incident is real, and it would give the increasingly-notable term a little more exposure. However, I realized that this really falls foul of ]. -- ] (]) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Is it really "increasingly notable"? I get the impression that for the most part this tempest in a teapot had pretty much blown over, and is only back in the public consciousness because of the release of the Penn State report. ] (]) 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you say "increasingly notable"? The phrase 'Climategate' has been used fairly consistently since before xmas. I'd say that discussion of the incident is greater over the last few days (ie since the Mann Report was released) but the use of the word Climategate to refer to '''''"the unauthorised release of emails from the CRU and the subsequent controversy surrrounding that unauthorised release"''''' has been pretty consistent. Probably because it is so much shorter :) ] (]) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::''Why do you say "increasingly notable"?'' I didn't. Simon did. I disagreed with his assessment. ] (]) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: Well! I'm glad we got '''that''' settled. ] (]) 01:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I used the phrase "increasingly notable" because it seemed there had been an apparent increase (in my opinion) of the use of the non-neutral term in the British media. I have done no specific analysis to back up this "hunch" though. Either way, the point is moot. -- ] (]) 03:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::: {{'}}''"Climategate" can only refer to the controversy that followed the incident being described by this article. At best, you could argue that "Climategate" could be used as a section heading''{{'}} — Scjessey.
:::::: It's the other way around — the leak/hack should be covered in a section of the article on 'Climategate', explaining the origin of the controversy. By itself, the fact that a university computer system was insufficiently secure is in no way noteworthy. What's interesting is what was revealed.
::::::] (]) 06:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::WWoods hit this on the head. This entire article is, and always has been, backwards. And it all starts with the name. The primary things covered by reliable sources are the contents of the documents and the ensuing controversy. The hacking is background, not the reason this whole thing is notable. This is why, at the very least, the article should be '''Climatic Research Unit documents controversy'''. However, any attempt to rename is inevitably forked into proposals to call it Climategate (which people always oppose, choosing the style guideline ] over the policy ]) meaning that consensus is never reached. ] (]) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== The name should now be "Climategate scandal", as per NPOV ==

As has been firmly established ], there is no argument in compliance with ] that allows for this article to not be named "Climategate scandal". After having changed the article, it was quickly deleted. ] (]) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:Your link doesn't work for me. ] includes "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." While proper names for events which incorporate non-neutral terms such as ] are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources, the section refers to ''Main policy page: ]'' which, under ], notes that "a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded ].... See ] for further advice on potentially controversial terminology." Even if a title is legitimate, that doesn't mean that it's neutral or that we have to use it.
:] requires that we should not endorse any particular point of view, ] that we "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." ] requires that "The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The framing of this as a ] social or political scandal clearly presents it in the terms of the anti-action on AGW side of the debate, undermining the scientific majority view on what is essentially a scientific topic with political aspects. We should give ] to the majority scientific view which can be taken as a ] in this article. ], ] 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:: The current article title is fine, as has been discussed here ad nauseum. It is NPOV now, Climategate is a stupid media neologism that has no meaning, and the word "scandal" is inaccurate. Drop the politics. ] (]) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:::The current title is not fine - it says a crime was committed (hacking), which is something the defenders of the climategate scientists keep on throwing out there to distract from the emails (making the current title inherently POV). ScienceApologist suggested a perfectly NPOV alternative title and we should work towards it. ] (]) 09:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree that the article title probably should be "Climategate", because I'm seeing that term used in just about every article on the subject that I've read lately. Would someone please start a content RfC here on that? I think there are enough people watching this page that the RfC should get fairly good participation. ] (]) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Please stop ignoring ]: "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." Climategate is not going to be used in this article's title, period. -- ] (]) 09:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::(e.c.)This is not a WP policy, so stop yourself. And if you read on the top of the page it states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with '''common sense''', and '''occasional exceptions''' may apply." ] (my '''bolding'''). I.e. the <nowiki>'Climategate'</nowiki> term is established way beyond what should be required to have it as an article name. This is what this debate/controversy/scandal is known as by every ] reporting on it. So as of one of our cornerstones (See the second of our ] which states "That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.". This is not done in the present title (hacking, heres one article that says something else ), but will be fulfilled iff we use the <nowiki>'Climategate'</nowiki> (with '). So yes we should have a broad ] on this aspect know. ] (]) 11:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

*Since "Climategate" is a redirect to the existing article title the ''necessity'' of having it as a title is moot, the phrase will take the searcher to the correct place. As that aspect is resolved, then it is necessary to consider the neutrality of the proposed title. Per references to policy noted above, "...gate" and "scandal" are not good titles since they infer an opinion (and the references in the media are likely journalistic shorthand; every week there is a new "...gate" and a "scandal" every day - it sells newspapers). The question of whether the current title is npov also is one I think that bears consideration, from the points raised here. What was ScientistApologists suggested alternative? ] (]) 11:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::Climategate is dreadful. Scandal is inappropriate. End of. ] ] 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree that "scandal" is inappropriate. Your argument against Climategate however, while it is no less cogent than any of the other arguments against the word that have appeared here, is irrelevant. Whether or not it is 'dreadful' is beside the point. The fact is that pretty much all of the rest of the world refers to the incident as 'Climategate'. By not using that name here, we are expressing a point of view. ] (]) 12:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

*Strongly oppose rename, per KB, LHVU, CO, SA etc... Also reasoning is highly spurious, as changing the name as proposed would introduce bias. As the redirect exists, it is also moot. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:*How do you create bias by changing the name to something everyone is already calling it? By your logic, it is already biased. ] (]) 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::*So you would fix what you see as bias by introducing worse bias? Explain how that makes sense? -- ] (]) 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Prepare to a RfC ===
I've just created a subpage ] to just collect usage and definition by ] of the term Climategate. Please only add what considered ] (i.e. blogs is not relevant in this discussion except for blogs on newspapers under full editorial control by the newspaper per ] and ]). Please add more and different sources both in time and in coverage. ] (]) 12:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:You're wasting your time. "Climategate" is a POV term which ] '''explicitly deprecates'''. It is not going to be used in the article title, period. Please move on and find something more constructive to do. -- ] (]) 12:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::You seems not to have read right above. We uses what the secondary sources uses, not something POV like "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" (hacking is not NPOV as shown in the edit I just gave you ... ] (]) 13:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious, I'll put you on notice: if you pursue this further I will ask for probation enforcement against you and a general injunction against proposals to include "Climategate" in the article title. -- ] (]) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious" strikes me as unhelpful. The words after the colon stands on their own, without the characterization at the start of the sentence. ] (]) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Wow, I don't think I have seen such a blatent display of ] in my time here. Why not just rewrite the article to your personal preferences and be done with anyone elses thoughts. ] (]) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Can you tone it down a bit? This really isn't necessary. ] (]) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with adhering to established guidelines on Misplaced Pages content; namely, that we do not use the cliched "-gate" to name an article. ], ], ] are all redirects, not the titles of their respective articles. ] (]) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::I was going to say something similar. The only "blatant" stuff here is Arzel's misunderstanding of ] and mock outrage. -- ] (]) 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Could you simply address the issue at hand, without making characterizations of another editor? ] (]) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::And coincidentally I'm sure, all those scandals are something democrats would like "damage control" on :). ] (]) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::How is that comment helpful? ] (]) 19:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I was pointing out that Tarc's scandals were all unfavorable to democrats and it is shocking, just shocking, that wikipedia wouldn't name them by their well-known names. :)] (]) 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::]. -- ] (]) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd never heard of the term "Attorneygate", but I was aware of the incident. However, I '''do''' remember Travelgate, Rathergate and Whitewatergate being thrown around, although one I heard the most was Travelgate and Whitewatergate was usually just referred to as Whitewater. ] (]) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::While that interpretation is possible (though, of course, it requires the assumption that Misplaced Pages is a tool of Democratic activism), it's also possible (and perhaps more plausible) that the right wingers are better at spinning things into "-gate scandals". After all, there's ''this'' issue, which is decidedly ''not'' a scandal about climate, but has been quite effectively spun into one. ] (]) 21:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Well ] includes both "-gate" and scandal - so much for your theory. Hell, wikipedia won't even call Hugo Chavez a dictator despite being called that in nearly every source imaginable. There are obviously problems regarding left-wing bias in wikipedia. ] (]) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Watergate was named after the ] in Washington D.C. - go and read ]. It is '''not''' an example of a "-gate" name, since the ] "-gate" suffix was only coined ''after'' Watergate to claim similarities with that affair. The article title uses "scandal" because it meets the criteria set out in ]: "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., ], ] or ])." -- ] (]) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:Two thoughts with regards to the original suggestions: (i) ''examples'' of usage can't be used to ''demonstrate'' usage; it's meaningless unless you provide a comprehensive analysis of usage, and (ii) if it's in quotes, you can't really cite it as an example of usage; that's quite explicitly ''non''-usage. ] (]) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::And furthermore, examples of usage outside Misplaced Pages are not strictly relevant, since Misplaced Pages operates under neutrality standards that don't apply to often partisan media outlets. -- ] (]) 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Of course - I meant my comment to be on the use of examples to make a case. This issue of whether such a name would be in keeping with policy and the naming convention is entirely another matter. The latter is an appropriate discussion to have, but before we have a discussion, we need to be clear that the underlying "facts" used to support the arguments actually are facts. ] (]) 21:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
*If most of the mainstream sources are using the term "Climategate" to refer to this incident, then there's nothing wrong with using that title for the article. As someone said above, we use what the secondary sources are reporting. The current title doesn't work, as it isn't being used by many of the sources, at least the ones that I have seen. Any ideas on an alternate title? If not, it appears that "Climategate" is beginning to reach consensus support here on the talk page. ] (]) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:Claiming that there is a consensus for "Climategate" is both untrue and irrelevant. That term violates ]'s requirement for article names with the "highest degree of neutrality" ''and'' "-gate" names are '''explicitly''' deprecated by ]. We do not use "-gate" names for articles. This article will not be called "Climategate" and NPOV cannot be overridden by any supposed consensus (which in this case doesn't exist anyway). This has been discussed many times before. Now please desist. -- ] (]) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::ChrisO - I don't think it's helpful to keep declaring that it's been discussed before so it shouldn't be discussed again. Sometimes consensus changes. If you don't agree that it should be called Climategate (or some derivation thereof) then just say why.] (]) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
: My opinion remains that the title should be either ] or ] simply on the basis that this is what everyone else calls it. I would not support calling it ]. ] (]) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::Consensus may change but the policy has not, and ] in particular '''cannot''' be overridden by a supposed non-existent consensus. Since policy deprecates the use of "-gate" names, a "-gate" name is not going to be used in this article title. It's as simple as that. -- ] (]) 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"Climategate incident" appears to be a neutral title supported by the RS, so that title gets my vote. ] (]) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::It is not remotely neutral and names of this type are explicitly deprecated by ] and ], so no. -- ] (]) 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::What? "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases..." Uhm? This is a historical case, since it happened in this thing we call the ''past''. "Climategate scandal" stands. ] (]) 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::No, it's an ongoing current event. Or had you overlooked the constant news reporting about it? -- ] (]) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The Bush administration is still mentioned in the mainstream media as well. The Bush administration must therefore be an ongoing current event. "Climategate scandal" stands. ] (]) 23:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:I'm sick of this flaring up every three days and causing so much bad blood that it prevents progress on improving the rest of the article. How about we all accept that any title which has -gate or "hack" is never going to gain widespread acceptance and move on to trying to find one that can. Someone posted a reference to what the Wall Street Journal called the incident prior to Climategate catching on. It struck me at the time as being something everyone could probably live with (no -gate, -no hack), but now I can't find it. '''Does anyone remember?'''. {{unsigned|Jpat34721}}
Prepare whatever you want. This will never happen. ] (]) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:I'm going to check ] and ProQuest NewsStand tomorrow (if they're available) to see how much "Climategate" and other terms are used as titles for this event, then add the references I find (if any) to the sub-page that NSaa created and we can go from there. ] (]) 08:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Fine, go ahead and waste your time. -- ] (]) 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I found 287 references to "Climategate" in NewsStand. I'll start posting the refs to the sub-page. It will take awhile. Then I'll check Infotrac. ] (]) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Do please have a look for reputable historical sources rather than just concentrating on news outlets, and when tabulating them take care to show when the term is used in "inverted commas" to indicate it's a partisan label. A breakdown into partisan sources would also be interesting, but not alter the basic point that it's a pov label. . . ], ] 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't matter if some of us feel that it is a partisan label or not, we just report what the sources are saying. If you'll look at the list of sources that I , I think it's clear that "Climategate" is currently the title that the majority of the media and world public is using to describe this subject. I think we're ready to start the RfC. ] (]) 00:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::It doesn't matter what the media call it. Policy specifically deprecates ''-gate'' article names, and NPOV prohibits the use of POV article names in general. No RFC is going to override NPOV. -- ] (]) 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, but there are only two things that will prevent this article from being renamed as "Climategate": 1) if the RfC doesn't establish consensus for the change, or 2) if Misplaced Pages's administration intervenes and contravenes our content dispute resolution process. I don't think that #2 will happen. I don't know about #1 but believe that an RfC is appropriate because we are currently in a dispute over the article title. ] (]) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== Who made charges that... ==

In unlabeled revert, Heyitspeter states "It wasn't (just?) skeptics. This misrepresents the sources," when reverting who made charges that the e-mails showed bad things. Here are the sources, with quotes from each, bolds mine:

* Guardian 20 Nov: "'''Climate change sceptics''' who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind."
* NYTimes 20 Nov: "Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among '''global warming skeptics''', who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change."
* Moore 24 Nov: "said Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor who has '''reinvented himself as a critic of climate change science'''. "They were talking about destroying various files"
* BBC 3 Dec: "At the time that the theft of the data was revealed, some '''climate sceptic websites''' picked up on the word "trick" in one e-mail from 1999 and talk of "hiding the decline"."

I'm not accusing Heyitspeter of intentionally lying about misrepresenting the sources - clearly he was just mistaken, or didn't look at the sources before saying they said something they didn't say. Apparently the revert restriction prevents me from correcting Heyitspeter's obvious mistake. I guess he'll self-revert on seeing this, right? ] (]) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter's recently added ref:
* WSJ 23 Nov: "Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute ... John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama," - ] - "is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic." - "Global warming skeptic." ] (]) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::(ec)This is a strange sort of admission, I suppose, but here goes: I was wrong, but now I'm right... I had added the section in question from a very old version of the article and thought they included certain refs when they hadn't. I've now added refs that "feature" the same allegations coming from non-skeptics. Thanks for bringing this and sorry about mucking things: up. --] (]) 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::: And your new ref shows that someone who is not skeptical made all those other changes exactly where? Please revert to the version supported by sources - if you don't do so, I'll probably bring this up at the probation board. ] (]) 10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::You can revert the citations I've added, and 2/0 has made it very difficult - nigh impossible - for me to stimy any such action. So that would probably be a faster/easier route. But it's your call. First please look at the refs provided and note that asserting that "skeptics" made the allegations in question would be ].--] (]) 10:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: I don't intend to revert any of your worthless citations, however, I'm going to ask you to find quotes from those citations which show "allegations" made by people who were not climate skeptics. That's what you falsely alleged I misrepresented in sources. Now I'm accusing you of misrepresenting your sources - I found quotes for you, now do so for me or self revert. ] (]) 10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::It wasn't me, but Heyitspeter did the right thing in this particular case. Criticism has come from a broad range of people, including (but not limited to) George Monbiot. BTW, I strongly encourage anyone who's hasn't already to check out my user page (not my talk) for my summation of the situation regarding this topic and the problems we're having with this article. ] (]) 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== A simple yea or nae will suffice ==

I suggest renaming the article to '''Climate Research Unit email disclosures'''. This avoids pov regarding popular media references to it being a "...gate" or a scandal/controversy and also avoids the pov of emails being hacked (and also the fact it is what was disclosed rather than the method of disclosure that generates the interest). ] (]) 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
* I have tried. ] (]) 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
*Nae, it was more than e-mails released(sorry i know your trying here) {{unsigned|Marknutley}}
* Maybe (only the emails were of interest) ] (]) 14:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
* "Hacking" has support from reliable sources. "Disclosure" appears to validate the (unfounded) POV that this was a benign release by someone on the inside trying to expose wrongdoing. We need to stick to the sources and not give implicit support to speculation. It isn't a matter of splitting the difference between reliable sources and blog speculation. ] (]) 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
*Nae, but effort appreciated. I think all retitling discussions should be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation by the Norfolk police. The title seems to hinge on ''how'' the data (my preferred term for emails/data/code) was stolen, which will be established by the Norfolk police. -- ] (]) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:*I would agree to your last point, except Guettarda has made a really good suggestion below - and I have suggested making that more npov. ] (]) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::The main problem is with the word "email." Why not, '''Climactic Research Unit documents controversy'''? ''Climactic Research Unit documents disclosure'' seems too vague, e.g., they disclose documents literally every day, should we include those documents too? And so on.--] (]) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Sorry, I believe you were looking for a simple "nae"...--] (]) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== Royal mess - needs <s>admin help</s> attention ==

The last edit made a royal mess of the article. Had it happened a few minutes ago, I'd assume someone would be working on it, but it happened hours ago. Can <s>an admin</s> someone look into it? --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:It was just a simple cleanup that was needed, no need for admin tools. Anyone can remove unused refs. ] (]) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Oops, my bad. I saw the lock symbol and mistakenly thought we were back to full, not partial protection. Thanks for the cleanup.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== Another Proposal for New Title ==

'''Climatic Research Unit Data Breach Controversy'''

"Data breach" is how the investigators refer to the incident. This gets rid of the objectionable and possibility inaccurate "hacking". ] (]) 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
*Replace controversy with consequences, and you have my full support. ] (]) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
*:But that changes the focus of the article from the illegal access and dissemination of the data to the controversy that was whipped-up by all the AGW skeptics after the fact. Better to keep it more ambiguous, like '''Climatic Research Unit data breach''' (which is more inclusive). -- ] (]) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::We don't know if the data access was illegal. It could just have easily been an insider, which if I understand UK's laws, may not have been illegal. ] (]) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::: But either way it was a breach, no?] (]) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::No evidence or reliable source to back up "insider". MSM virtually unanimous on "stolen", "theft", "hack"-type language. Data was definitely taken and disseminated without permission. -- ] (]) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::: You don't understand the UK's laws then. -- ] (]) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Quite possibly. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be. ] (]) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: ] lists a series of characteristics for the "ideal title" (I'm kind of newish, so I'm still reading this sort of stuff). So, is the proposed title '''recognisable'''? not really. Is it '''easy to find'''? not really. Is it '''precise'''? not at all. Is it '''concise'''? not at all. Is it '''consistent'''. not really. If I ask the same questions of the title ] I get the answers Yes, yes, yes, yes and not really. ] (]) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:Yes I like Scjessey's title, which I think was proposed on the probation talk page. ] (]) 20:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'Data breach' is just proceeding-in-an-easterly-direction-speak for 'hacking incident'. How do data breaches occur? Someone leaves a computer in a way that is less than secure, and someone finds a way into it. 'Finding a way into it' is a hacking incident, and what ocurs is a data breach - you have data that you shouldn't have. It doesn't matter if you are a member of staff moving data, or altering file access permissions, without the authority of your employer, or the Russian mafia. Data breaches occur because of hacking incidents that succeed. There is no reason to change the title at all; there is certainly no reason to change it into a mouthful of PC Plod-speak. --] (]) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::No, "data breach" opens up the door to it being a leak, a hack, or an unsecured FTP server. ] (]) 01:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::The 'leaker' would have had to gain access to files that he was not supposed to be accessing in his day-to-day work (i.e. not authorised by his/her employer), then put them onto an internet-facing server, again against in-house IT policy. IT people are not supposed to access the emails of other staff or copy or zip them; research staff (i.e. recipients of the emails) are not supposed to access internet-facing HTTP or FTP servers and load their emails there. These are both examples of 'hacking' the security layers of equipment belonging to the employer. The purported unsecured FTP server (unless an insider set it up as per hacks above) would have to be found by the outsider trying many possible FTP addresses, and/or logon details until hitting on the one(s) that led the emails and documents - known as brute-force hacking. All this is supposition until the inquiries report, but they all involve some kind of hacking by insiders, outsiders or a conspiracy of both. 'Hacking' is the right word in every case except if the UEA management wanted the emails officially published. --] (]) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

::::The difference is that an insider would be protected under Britain's whisleblower law, whereas "hacking" implies illegality. ] (]) 12:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Could you provide details of this UK legislation? ] appears to be American, and there are no links in the category to legislation affecting England. My suspicion would be that the act remains illegal, but the claim of public interest allows a defence. . . ], ] 13:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

===Amazing compromise title that will satisfy both the "hack" camp and the "controversy" camp!===
I present for your amusement, with tongue firmly in cheek:
:'''Climatic Research Unit hacks'''
] FTW! -- ] (]) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have been toying with an acronym that would result in CRUnch, but am confounded by the "h"! ] (]) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Horror? ] (]) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, the newly spun-off article is ]. ] (]) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== Phil Jones interview ==

Articles have appeared in the British MSM about an interview given by Phil Jones to ''The Sunday Times''. He . -- ] (]) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

: See the PJ article ] (]) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::Two ''Sunday Times'' articles seem to cover much of the same ground, isn't very useful here, but gives some information on the numerous requests for "data was available online, making the FoI requests, in Jones’s view, needless and a vexatious waste of his time... He also suspected that the CRU was the target of a co-ordinated attempt to interfere with its work — a suspicion that hardened into certainty when, over a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests." It gives some details on that issue, and goes on to the threats, stating "Two more death threats came last week after the deputy information commissioner delivered his verdict, making more work for Norfolk police, who are already investigating the theft of the emails." So, confirmation of a point in the article, should be briefly mentioned in the body text. . . ], ] 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== Discussion of splitting article ==

After Dave spun off a portion of the article into ], Hipocrite trimmed the material in this article, per the MOS. CoM has now restored this material, creating an near total duplication between the two articles. In my opinion, the spin off was appropriate, and given that, it was appropriate to replace the section with a summary. I don't see the point of duplicating the material in both articles. I am proposing that we re-instate Hip's version, or something like it, per the MOS. ] (]) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed. with the fixed references section seems to be the appropriate one. -- ] (]) 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

*Agree. Just to clarify, the split came after discussion above. .. .], ] 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone point out where the proposed split off was discussed? I'm not finding it. Thanks. ] (]) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:Follow the link I just gave, or look at ] before it's archived. . ], ] 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

: Dave, could you self-revert the pointer to your soon-to-be-speedied child article? Thanks. ] (]) 20:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::It was created to keep a lot of worthwhile information that was removed in your earlier bold trimming, and as such stands as a self-sustained detailed article which is useful in documenting this issue. Summary style should have been followed at the outset, there's no good case for a speedy. . . ], ] 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be helpful if the section title was more useful and specific. I looked for relevant discussion a few times, but didn't see anything that looked like a discussion of splitting the article up. "Another bold proposal" could mean anything and it's a busy discussion page.

I suggest we reopen that discussion with a better thread title so people know what's being suggested and we can garner broad involvement in this substantial proposal.

A new article on the documents and what they contain is fine with me. The main article still needs to cover the controversy over the e-mails and the repurcussions we've seen. I would think a sub-article of that title should focus on the documents themselves and what they contain. ] (]) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:Check it out, it's essentially the info that was in the "Content of the documents" section before that was drastically reduced. ] should have been followed then to preserve useful detail. I agree with Hipocrite that the section on this page can now afford to be a lot more concise, but wasn't expecting such a drastic change. However, there are advantages in keeping a more general statement on contentious issues here, and thrashing out the detailed arguments on the sub page. . . ], ] 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:(ec)So, let me see if I've got this straight CoM: you're saying that because the title is unclear, we should rehash the discussion, despite the fact that no one was opposed to it (including, it would appear, you)? Interesting proposition. ] (]) 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Right. Because it's a busy talk page, because the previous thread wasn't titled more transparently, because the discussion involved only a few editors, and because the major change garnered some objections when it was implemented, we should revisit the issue and resolve how to move forward. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive with me. I've offered an opinion that I think is pretty reasonable and indicated that I'm open to compromise. The issue is being discussed, there hasn't been any edit warring or disruption, so I'm not sure what you're finding problematic. I've answered your questions on my talk page extensively and been very patient with you. AfDs last 7 days in order to provide a chance for editors to weigh in. It seems only fair and courteous that we work through this issue a bit and give everyone a chance to weigh in, so we make sure that we've covered all the bases. I haven't said we shouldn't move forward or that we shouldn't make changes (as other editors have when they object to attempted improvements). In future a link to the discussion on the talk page in the edit summary of a big edit like that might be helpful so people know what's going on. Cheers. ] (]) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Honestly, I haven't had time to read everyone's opinion here but my initial thoughts are two-fold. One, I think there is enough content here to justify a sub-article. Two, I'm not sure this is the right time to spin this off. Until the admins are willing to actually do something substantial to rein in both warring factions, another article to argue about will only add more drama to the proceedings. ] (]) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I share some of your concerns, but I don't think we should just dig in and resist changes. I'd like to see a clearer statement on the scope of the new article v. this one and what it's purpose is. Is this round 2 of the attempted separation of e-mail issues from the "hacking"/ dissemination? Is the new article intended to cover the documents more comprehensively than is possible here? What will the relation of the two article be after the split? Is one a subarticle? Is this still the main article? Are they co-equals? Sorry about all the questions. But those are my concerns. I'll try to avoid commenting further for a while so others can weigh in. The straw poll below and further discussion and brainstorming seems like a good idea. I don't think I'm the only one who missed the original discussion. ] (]) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::To respond to your concerns, the version you've restored is drastically shortened from the original detailed section. The new sub-article keeps the original detailed information and references, and is split with the intention of a ] style section here covering the essentials of the sub article. As you say, the new article intended to cover the documents more comprehensively than is possible here. This remains the main article, and the length and comprehensiveness of the summary is a matter to be resolved here. Hope that helps, ], ] 13:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming consensus reflected below, including editors from all of the various camps, that the one paragraph summary (the way it's done on nearly every other article) is the best way forward, I'll be instituting that in approximately 3 hours unless someone has a reasonable objection. Of course, that would not cut off discussion while the article is in this format, so if you can convince the overwhelming consensus that they were wrong while the article is in the form the overwhelming consensus approves of, that consensus could change, but I see no reason why 2 editors saying larger and 2 editors saying smaller should stop 8 editors from saying in the middle from having the article reflect "in the middle." ] (]) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:I concur. In fact, I'd say get right on it and revert back to before additional edits make it more difficult. I can't do it myself because of an unrelated ArbCom restriction. -- ] (]) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

===Options===
Just a straw poll to try to understand what people are saying. Please add any that I might have missed.

;Delete the spun off article, return this article to its original form
# -] (]) 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC) If by "original form" we mean "what it is now," with no redirect to the spun off article and a more or less detailed discussion of the documents, with quotes where appropriate.
# ] (]) 04:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) This isn't an AFD, but FWIW, I think the amount of information being discussed here does not require a separate article. I think these three choices overlap and are somewhat confused. I think both the FOIA issues (more part of the response) and email content are both important issues central to the controversy surrounding the dissemination of the data, and that any summary for any split/fork should adequately covered the breadth of the controversy. The "incident" itself is not the focal point of the news coverage, what was revealed ''is'', so I find it curious that significant attention to incident (i.e. filenames, data going from one IP to another, multiple quotes, etc., etc.) is included in the article, without objection, but the "it" of the article, the true meat of the controversy (details, quotes, etc.), needs to be siphoned off into a sub-article? It doesn't make much sense.
#:Check the links I've added below, the longer original version before the drastic cut to the current version on 6 February has a lot of significant information, now included in the sub-article. The shortened version as it is now makes the article more readable, though it could usefully be condensed further and has some problems with balance. If there's no sub-article then more detail would be appropriate here. . . ], ] 11:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

;Retain the spun off article to deal with the e-mails and their contents; and per ] only retain a short summary of issues related to the e-mails.
# ] (]) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
# Seems a better article split — ] ] 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
# ], ] 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I don't see the distinction between this and the next option as I don't know which part of ] would be different to "this the main article retaining coverage of the key issues and controversies". I prefer an option that cites an editing guideline to one that tries to redefine one.
#:CoM replaced pretty much all the content spun off in the original daughter article, and I originally phrased the alternative to reflect that. I can only surmise that this is what he has in mind. ] (]) 22:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
#:: To clarify, CoM essentially the drastically shortened version trimmed in which omitted significant details and sources. The spun off article is taken from the much longer and more informative version before that, and can develop from there. . . ], ] 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
#I think I can live with this. -- ] (]) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
#Let me make sure I understand the options - violate ], grow this article back into the disaster it once was, or get some of the crap of this page? Right. Perhaps this "probation" thing should have someone actually enforcing it. ] (]) 12:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
#] (]) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The meaning and impact of the *content* of the emails has not yet been determined, and can be documented and argued in good faith at length on the spin-off page without making this article unreadable and confusing.
#] (]) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
;Retain the spun off article to provide a more complete coverage of the documents involved; and keep this as the main article by retaining coverage of the key issues and controversies related to the e-mails.
#] (]) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Excellent. Now the current article can confine itself to the conduct, attitudes, and behavior that the rest of the world has been talking about for the last two months. Perhaps under the title of <b>Climategate</b>?

== POV tag ==

The POV tag on this article was removed in by Nightmote. Discussion about the tag and its purpose had long-since died down here and this was a bold and noble edit. Then it was by AQFN for no apparent reason and with no section created on Talk outlining specific POV issues. I have reverted this addition and invite anyone who feels that there is a POV issue with the article to explain exactly what it is here, so that we can decide whether to add {who}, {dubious}, {cn} or other tags to disputed sentences; POV tags to specific sections; or if there are several issues distributed throughout the article, perhaps re-instate a top-level POV tag, and begin systematically working through the list of realistic issues provided. Placing a POV tag at the top of such an active article as this, with no list of issues and so no possibility of finding ways that it can ever be removed by diligent editing, seems to me to be unhelpful at this stage. --] (]) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:This is a joke, right? You're seriously trying to say there isn't a NPOV dispute? ] (]) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any current neutrality dispute. After the recent massive changes by Nightmore and Hipocrite, there's very little of the article left to argue about! -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That made me laugh! But it was exactly what I was aiming for. ] (]) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:Search this talkpage for "NPOV" and you'll see numerous disputes of this article regarding ]. This can give you a sense of the issues that need to be sorted out. Note that it is not common practice to give a list of contentions within the NPOV tag.--] (]) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I think the point Scjessey is making is that the tag was added to an earlier, very substantially different version of the article. It is not necessarily appropriate now that the article has been changed drastically. What are the remaining POV disputes? -- ] (]) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::All from the past 4-5 days: ], ], ], ], ]. Much of the talkpage space is dedicated to concerns about ] (with a recent focus on ]). Note that all of these examples are post-rewrite.--] (]) 01:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Well, there's the current POV dispute over the article's name. ] (]) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not taking any stance, but whoever tags it could at least use {{tl|POV-title}} so people who come here know what's meant. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with you conceptually, but in this case there are also concerns about ] (see last three links I just provided).--] (]) 03:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::There are also serious POV problems with the current article lead and the lack of any reactions from anyone uninvolved with the incident. The tag needs to remain, but unfortunately I can't readd it due to this silly editing restriction. ] (]) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::What's the problem with the lede ''now''? The wording reflects a significant consensus that was worked out in ]. In fact, it drew almost unanimous support from the "skeptical group". -- ] (]) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Any objections to re-adding now? The restrictions have been appropriately lightened.--] (]) 06:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::Of course there are objections - don't edit war over a tag without discussing it. Of the list you give, discounting those that are archived and so died out as discussions and are not now current, and discounting those related to the title (which requires a different tag, has been escalated to 'enforcement', and is now being debated ]), we are left with ]. The discussion above seems to have resulted in a constructive edit and collegiate, ongoing discussion. There is no POV ''impasse'' there that I can see. Your attempt to have me sanctioned via ] seems to have been unproductive too. Where is the sourced content debate that is getting nowhere, that means that this whole article has a POV issue "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors."] --] (]) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Nigel, but you weren't supposed to remove the tag until the dispute was resolved. It specifically said, "''Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved''". Did you not see this? You shouldn't remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally felt the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Can you please show us where this consensus has been reached? Perhaps in a show of good faith, you will consider self-reverting? ] (]) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-add the {{tl|POV}} tag as outlined above. Both the title and the lead is disputed as indicated. ] (]) 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

::::I didn't remove the tag, it was removed last week in by Nightmote after a major re-write of the article. I reverted its meaningless and commentless re-addition. All this is above, along with my requests to anybody who wants to re-add it again. Please read the discussion thread before asking me to repeat it all for you. --] (]) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Eh, reverting the addition of a tag looks a lot like removing it where I'm standing . People have given some of the NPOV contentions in this thread. Would you be opposed to me re-adding the tag at this point?--] (]) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::No, it's all to do with timing: Nightmote removed the tag on 3 February during a major re-write of the article that was under discussion by several editors at the time. The consensus on that removal held for best part of a week until AQFN re-added it on 7 February 2010, saying "Re-added {POV} tag. Not sure how this got deleted". I reverted that addition 40 mins later and started this discussion. If AQFN was adding it because he didn't know why it was deleted, he should have checked the edit history like I did, or followed the talk page to see what was going on (i.e. a major re-write). Not re-added it with no rationale other than that he hadn't personally been following the article or the talk.
::::::Now, all you are doing is asking me to read the article and the talk page history, and this thread, and repeat it for you. How about reading my comment above, , and replying to that? Which part of the discussion at ] is so locked in well-sourced POV arguments that we need a POV tag on the whole of this article? The section on that e-mail is no longer even in this article but at ] now. If you can find the POV issue with the article text "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors"] that cannot and has not been resolved by discussion, then we can talk about adding a tag to the ''section'' that that argument relates to, not the whole article. --] (]) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::This looks like a case of ]. The "section(s)" it relates to are, as pointed out in this section of the talkpage: the title, the lead, the e-mail and the responses sections. That is to say, all of them. So I'm going to readd this tag now. A glance through ''this particular'' section of the talkpage should be enough to confirm that it is appropriate. We can work through these issues together. --] (]) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Er, excuse me for butting in, but exactly what is the purpose of a POV tag? Is it to say that the article is POV, or that there is an active disagreement over POV? It seems inevitable that there will be some people who believe the article is biased and therefore believe it has a POV problem. If we were to edit the article so it met their standards for neutrality, then those editors who think the article is just fine now would think it has a POV problem. So it seems there may be a perpetual POV dispute. If we all know that already, what is the point of using the tag to say so? What does a casual reader get from seeing that tag? These may sound like rhetorical questions but I mean them earnestly. - ] (]) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps it exists to let readers know that there is a lack of consensus regarding the article of Most Interested Persons, and that they might want to evaluate the title/claims/sources of an article with more skepticism than usual? ] (]) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:(ec) It's a badge of shame. ] (]) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::shrug. I was thinking more as editing motivation for editors coming across an article that has repeatedly/recently been the object of NPOV (often its UNDUE subsection) concerns. I don't see the article as the probable victim of a perpetual NPOV dispute. I'm open to discussing this, though. I didn't think of that consideration.--] (]) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::: What circumstances would lead you to accept removal of the tag? Is it merely that the article is not named Climategate? Why was the suggestion to use POV-title rejected, if that's the case? If not, please formulate a comprehensive list of actual changes that would need to be made to the article to either remove the POV tag, or replace it with POV-title. Thanks. ] (]) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Heyitspeter, which part of this discussion do you believe gave you consensus to the POV tag??! One reply back, you were shrugging, saying you hadn't thought of points people were raising, and that you were willing to discuss this. This is precisely the kind contentious behaviour that probation is meant to reduce, I think. --] (]) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== Content restriction ==

I am not sure when the "content restriction" was imposed so that nobody can revert material that has been reverted in the last 24 hours, but it seems like a bad idea. That means anyone who wants to make an edit to the article has to study whether any part of their edit undoes anything that has been done in the last 24 hours, which may cover a good deal of edits. Why would this be required? It seems much more obstructive to non-aggressive editing than is useful or necessary. Obviously it means to keep people from contributing to ongoing revert wars, but I don't see how the wording should not be so broad as to require people to constantly keep track of everything that has been edited in the last 24 hours or face being blocked. Right now it appears I have to look through 30 edits to see whether I can make any change. ] (]) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:No one's going to care if you make a spelling correction that's a revert. And anything that may be controversial should be discussed. ] (]) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::I didn't intend to do anything controversial. I was going to remove a statement that had a fact tag on it, and then I was going to try to revise it based on a couple of sources I found. But more broadly speaking, even if I run a compare of the last 30 edits I won't see if material has been removed and replaced so now it is back where it started. So I'd really have to go through all 30 edits one by one. That seems kind of crazy. I don't expect that I'd run into trouble, but the rule seems set up to fail. ] (]) 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::If it is uncontroversial, then people are not going to look to see if you are violating the restriction. If it has been removed for being unsourced, then it indicates that it is sufficiently "sensitive" to require sourcing; however, WP policy notes that if content can be sourced then it may be included (did the removal note lack of relevance, as well?) These restrictions are in place so that meat/sockpuppets cannot take up the cause of accounts who have expended their allotted reverts - if there was not the potential for such edit wars then there would need be no content restriction. ] (]) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC) ps. I was unaware of this restriction, and I have been asked and am involved in trying to overview these topics - I was not aware I was blindfolded as well as dumb! ] (]) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I understand the motivation, to some extent. The only problem is that it's basically impossible to ensure that you aren't reverting ''something''. I can tell if I'm repeating myself, at least most of the time, but to see if I'm doing something someone else has had undone... I just wouldn't know, and there's no way someone is going to go through 30 edits to make sure. We're forced to say then that if an edit is uncontroversial no one will look, but I certainly doubt that in this environment. Probably it would work when it's obvious that the person didn't agree with the last revert, and so reverted back, but almost certainly it will get to where someone claims not to have known. I think for people who try to be conscientious, this is also a pretty big burden; if you don't know anything about enforcement, and you read this, I can't see how you're going to feel like getting involved in editing under rules that are so difficult to ascertain. ] (]) 01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::This restriction is just plain awful and I'm not sure what whoever added it could have been thinking. Not only is it awful for the reason stated here: that it's a ton of work to figure out whether something has been done in the last day, but it's awful because it allows pretty much anyone to freeze the page. If I go do anything that could be considered a revert, nobody can touch it for 24 hours? This is effectively indefinite semi-protection, but it allows disruptive editors to freeze the article however they like. ''Please'' remove this silly silly restriction. 1RR was more than enough and the page was under control with that in place. ] (]) 05:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Alright, I can see that that is unduly burdensome for an article under active development. I will amend it to simply ''] will be strictly interpreted.'' I wanted some unambiguous way of saying that these recurrent ''no, *you* do not have consensus'' edit wars are tiresome and interfere with building a quality article in a collegial atmosphere. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== "Uncontested" version ==

Contrary to the assertion in the edit summary of edit, I do not believe that it is the "uncontested" version.

Why?

1. 9 argued for a "short summary" (not necessarily this one) vs. 4 for a longer (again unclear which version) section in the main article, with or without the subarticle. 9 vs. 4 is not exactly uncontested.

2. Vis-a-vis #1, it wasn't even clear that those who supported the WP:SUMMARY option were arguing for this particular version, especially considering how short it is and the fact that it does not accurately summarize all the content of the sub-article. In WP:SUMMARY we are given the warning: "In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split which results in the original article and/or the spin-off violating NPOV), and/or a difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc."


3. In my personal opinion, I assume that the central aspect of this article, the content of the emails, deserves more than '''two sentences'''. I would suspect that some of those 9 that voted for a short summary would agree with that sentiment.


== "stolen" data ==
On a related note, I might want to add that, apart from the fact that declaring this mini-RfC closed after only 22 hours is a bit premature. Normal RfCs last for up to 30 days, and I am left wondering as to why such a rush to implement supposed consensus? ] (]) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


: If you'd like to propose an addition to the two sentences that you feel more accurately sumarizes the sub article but does not duplicate it per the 9 people who felt that the old text violated summary style, I'm certain everyone would entertain your proposal. ] (]) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC) It seems that RS, at least the AP, seem to agree that the data was "stolen" except for the fact that the rightful owners were never deprived of access to it, which is a key component to conventional theft. It is unfortunate that sources want to draw analogues between theft of conventional property and copying of data, because data piracy is a different thing altogether. ] (]) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
:So what? I think it is unfortunate that the reliable sources do not call the people who bought the stolen mails "fences".
:Why is this on this Talk page? How is it connected to any suggested article improvement? --] (]) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
::Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. ] (]) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article ] which points out {{tq|The phrase data theft is actually a misnomer}} (without a source). The term is still used, and the article exists. I cannot see any problem with using the word "steal" here. --] (]) 11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


== Taxpayers? ==
:(ec) The issue was discussed, and there was no opposition until CoM came along and reverted the edit, claiming that it hadn't been discussed. I couldn't really sort out his comments, so I created the straw poll to figure out what people thought, and whether there was support for CoM's revert. The discussion isn't ''closed'', but I think it's fair to say that there isn't widespread support for CoM's revert. Pending resolution, I think it's appropriate to undo his revert. ] (]) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
*I agree that too much of the content regarding the e-mails was cut out. The discussion of the Freedom of Information act violations and other controversies need to be reincluded. Maybe Hipocrite can take a look and restore the key sentences? ] (]) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Hot Spots From Twitter:
::Well, at least one !vote had trouble distinguishing between the last two options (arguing that the summary should retain coverage of the key issues and controversies, arguable in a 2 sentence summary), and one !vote could be taken even as an endorsement of the then larger summary and its larger subarticle (again, it is unclear because no particular versions were given as diffs for this "straw poll"). As far as people arguing that something is unreadable, I think sometimes we cite as unreadable what we don't wish to read, instead of what is incoherent or excessive.


Toby Young on Twitter:'''
::My original point, made a few days ago, stands: This article might not even exist were it not for the particular content of the leaked information. This subject is notable because of the intense reaction '''the content''' of the leaked information generated (2 sentences), not because of how it was obtained and distributed (a brief episode which nevertheless commands 11 sentences over three paragraphs with numerous small details such as filenames, file size, locations of servers, etc. in this current version) ] anyone? If the previous version's document's section is too long, fine, but the solution is not creating essentially a content fork which substantially differs in approach.


The Foreign Office is helping to pay for the rewriting of '''wikipedia''' entries on climate change to eliminate all traces of doubt about the claim that we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency'.
::And I still think 22 hours is a bit short for consensus to be established in any RfC. ] (]) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Well put. I'm okay with a subarticle on the documents, but as it stands now it looks like an improper forking to cut out the most notable aspects of the controversy. ] (]) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Not 22 hours. ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::'''Yes, 22 hours'''. The "straw poll" that you set up at that is now supposedly serving as "consensus" is not even 24 hours old. ] (]) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::So what? It's obviously falling way in favor of one option, so ] should apply. Let's not waste time arguing over process. -- ] (]) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::: SNOW only applies to things that need to be closed. Since this poll can remain open for a long time, SNOW would never apply. Obviously, if it turns out that theres a proposal that is more supported than my two sentences, that would be preferred. Since the only alternatives are deleting an article that 11 people want kept, or including language that 11 people dont like, it seems to me that the 4 people who disagree with the 9 people can either stand aside, find at least more people to agree with them, or present another alternative, which is why I suggested that Moogwrench present a third way. ] (]) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::] has nothing to do with closing anything, although it has been applied to such circumstances. I'm not saying it applies to the straw poll. I'm saying it applies to the ''circumstance''. -- ] (]) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Well, 9-4 is not ], for one thing, and for another, process (of consensus building) is Misplaced Pages. ] is everything, so to say, "let's not waste time arguing over the process" kinda misses the point that the process is supreme--we are all ] to build an encyclopedia. Finally, not all people interested in a particular decision log in 10 times a day, like all of us ]. Are you going to invalidate the editor who logs in every couple of days and tell them that their opinion goes against a consensus they had no part in forming because some people were so anxious to see their vision put forward as the dominate one that they couldn't allow a little time to pass to hear everyone's viewpoint?
::::::This is why a traditional ] lasts up to 30 days. I would challenge those who believe that consensus is important to either put up a real RfC and see what consensus emerges out of that, or at the very least let their straw poll last a little longer than 22 hours. ] (]) 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Sissy Willis on Twitter:'''
:::::The discussion began three days ago, and no one objected to the fork. So it was done, and the material here trimmed per ]. CoM reverted, claiming there was no discussion, or there was no consensus, or something. I couldn't figure out what he was saying, so I added a straw poll. And from it, it's pretty clear that there's been no major change in consensus. The poll is still open. But given the lack of support for CoM's rv, it was undone. The status quo ante was restored. But discussion—and more importantly, improvements—can still go on. ] (]) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


"The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the #StockholmEnvironmentInstitute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Misplaced Pages’.
::::::From the on at 14:14 on the 5th to the of the new article at 12:48 on the 7th: 46 hours. 46 hours is not a good sense of consensus. Like I said before, not everyone logs in every day--again this is the reason why things like Move requests and AfDs last 7 days. So you can't claim some kind of grand consensus after just a day or two. Not everyone is obsessed with Misplaced Pages like us, but their opinions should count, which means giving them the time to notice what you are doing before you announce it as a ironclad, consensus-bound, ''fait accompli'' less than 2 days after proposing it. ] (]) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


SEI is closely connected with the United Nations & the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
::::::: I don't see anyone announcing anything as ironclad, consensus-bound fait accompli except you. If you have changes you'd like to suggest that you think will gain consensus, suggest them. If you think over the next 30 days additional people showing up to voice their opinion will change the accounting such that the current solution is not the most-preferred version, then we'll switch to the version that work its way out then. I don't know why 2 people who support a version should hold up 12 people who don't. ] (]) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”
::::::::Well, announcing that since "no one has objected to something I may proceed with consensus" doesn't have as much value when you haven't given much chance for them to object to it, much less an example/sandbox version to consider. This is what I mean by announcing something as a ''fait accompli''. The fact that people didn't object until a couple hours after you did it merely shows that either they hadn't noticed what you were planning, didn't have the time to do so, or didn't realize what the plan entailed, for what its worth. Is that consensus building? ] (]) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”
:::::::Like I said before, let's not get bogged down in a meaningless process discussion where the outcome is already obvious to everyone. Nobody objected to the fork. The objections began only once the fork was reverted, and then again when the reversion was restored. Nothing prohibits further discussion, but the forked version should remain in the meantime (since it enjoys far more support). -- ] (]) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Source:'''
== Edits to the lead ==


https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/16/british-government-funds-campaign-to-rewrite-climate-science-entries-on-wikipedia/
← completely ignore the ] just recently. These should be self-reverted - '''some arguably violate an ArbCom interaction restriction'''. In fact, any changes that might have the ''slightest hint'' of being controversial should be discussed on the talk page first. -- ] (]) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:I was just looking in horror at the same diffs. I agree, CoM should self-revert asap. --] (]) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::The user in question may need a user talk page notification (which I am unable to do). -- ] (]) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Any British taxpayer here for the comments? ] (]) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Analysis of the edit:
* "had been" -> "were"
** No, "it was discovered that...documents ''had been'' obtained..." not "it was discovered that...documents ''were'' obtained..." Basic grammar.
*"The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "''Climategate''", regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists" -> "The unauthorised release of the documents and the contents of the e-mails resulted in a controversy, dubbed "''Climategate''", regarding whether there was misconduct by climate scientists or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics. "
**Actually everything CoM added to the article has been removed from the article (and no, I don't mean "spun off into the daughter article"), making it inappropriate for the lead. But more to the point, "climategate" what evidence is there that "climategate" was used to describe the attempt to undermine Copenhagen? "Swifthack", maybe, but not "climategate".
* "The UEA"->"The University"
**Don't see why the latter abbrev. is better, but it shouldn't be capitalised, since it isn't a proper noun.
* UEA-> the scientists
**This is not what the cited sources say. The cited sources say that the UEA failed to act.
] (]) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::a) most of the edits made in the diff provided involve trading synonyms for synonyms. ease bring this up in an appropriate (new?) section. This is a fork(done)--] (]) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::No, it's not synonyms for synonyms. The first one is the introduction of a grammatical error. The second changes the meaning and goes beyond the article content in a big way. The third is a synonym, but with a capitalisation error. And isn't worth keeping. The fourth changes the meaning, and deviates from the sources. ] (]) 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Sometimes it helps to reread diffs especially where the editor has demonstrated a POV before, as this can color interpretation. It usually does in my case.
:::::If you look at the diffs, the only change that doesn't involve either an ''extremely'' close approximation of the earlier version or a simple and straightforward pronominal substitution is the second, where CoM added the clause, "...or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics." I agree that this clause, while supported by the article, should be removed as per ], but it's not worth bringing to the talk. Anyone can remove it with a short edit summary.--] (]) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
{{unindent}} Good call, Guettarda, there were changes of meaning which I didn't notice. A bit tired at this time of evening. . . ], ] 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


:See '']''. If the article is correct, "The ''Daily Sceptic'' is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial". Looks like a waste of time. . . ], ] 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Again, Heyitspeter, I have discussed each of the changes I objected to here. So let's try again:
*Do you disagree with my assertion that "it was discovered that...documents ''were'' obtained..." is ungrammatical? If so, please explain why.
*You agree that the second statement, at least, is problematic. Correct?
*"The UEA"->"The University" is trivial. But it introduces a slight error. And, quite frankly, using "the university" is a bit of an affectation. Trivial, but not worth restoring.
*Finally, saying that "the scientists" were at fault on the FOI deviates from the source in a way that isn't trivial. While I don't know the specifics of UK law, FOI requests are usually made to institutions, not individuals. They are normally sent to legal departments, or something of the sort. And the onus is (normally) on the institution. Regardless of what CoM intended, this change introduces a change in meaning which is inappropriate. ] (]) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


== Climate Deniers ==
== Revert to earlier version of the article? ==


This is a wrong description used throughout this site. The scientific consensus is not Science. Science is and always has been a process of proof. When the Climate change believers are asked simple scientific questions, which they cannot answer, they try to be-little the scientific question using derogatory terms in order to demean the other side of the discussion. If this article were to be balanced, please remove terms such as. 'Climate Deniers' and replace with 'scientific unanswered counter arguments'. I feel that this article is a white-wash of the real problems with using exclusive terms such as consensus and science in the same sentence. ] (]) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey. I'd like to do a regular old poll to test consensus on
:Misplaced Pages is ] and not on your opinion. So, it is no problem for Misplaced Pages that your opinion and Misplaced Pages articles do not match, it is your problem.
. The edit was based on a possible consensus obtained in a three-option ] about which several editors expressed confusion. As a result it's not clear what the consensus is, and this will hopefully disambiguate the issue. This poll only concerns whether or not to revert the deletion, but if you have a more subtle position feel free to indicate that alongside your vote.
:If you had reliable sources that agree with your opinion, it would be a different story. --] (]) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
====Revert the edit====
#--] (]) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


== Requested move 26 June 2024 ==
====Keep the edit====
#] (]) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
#This edit was simply a restoration after a ''previous'' edit that had no consensus. Poll is a complete waste of time. -- ] (]) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# It's good to start from a concise basis. . . ], ] 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;">]</sub> 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
====Edit the edit====
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
# Could you detail what information you'd like reincluded so we could improve the article? ] (]) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# Briefly mentioning the main topics of the previous subheadings would be worthwhile, kept to two or three short sentences. . . ], ] 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
#: Totally on board. Go crazy. ] (]) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# ] (]) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
# Assuming that we keep sub-article, I think that this section should be expanded a bit. A good paragraph should be sufficient. ] (]) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::Why don't we simply copy and paste the summary for the sub article here? On a side note, I sometimes wonder why Misplaced Pages doesn't do this programmaticly. ] (]) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I think there is some general consensus that the summary should be larger than it is presently, but smaller than CoM's reverted edit. The main difference appears to be between those who want to work from smaller to bigger vs. those that wish to pare the larger one down. Maybe, like AQFK suggested, we can get a sample to tinker with, perhaps at ] or pasted in the discussion. I am still not convinced of the necessity of the sub-article, but if we must have it, then we do need to amplify that summary.] (]) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' The term "Controversy" was selected as better encompassing the subject matter in this case, but from reading this the possibility of a better title, should anybody find one, is still open. <small>(])</small> ] 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
== RfC on article name change ==
----


] → {{no redirect|Climatic Research Unit email leak}} – 'leak' is more ] about what actually happened: the mail leaked. The controversy part is what some hacker wanted to create by leaking them, but in the end there wasn't really any controversial content and the scientists were just doing their job fine. ] (]) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;] (]) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
{{rfctag|pol|sci|econ|hist|media|soc|style}}
:'''Oppose'''. First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower. This was burglary. The "controversy" (such as it was) was the ''result'' of selective release of the messages with misrepresentation of their content. The ''effect'' was to undermine the political of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, causing an unforgivable delay in response to it. So the key factor was the effect; the method is incidental. I agree that the name is not great and should be reconsidered, but 'leak' won't do. --] (]) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? ] (]) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::>First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower
*'''Support''' name change and suggest '''Climatic Research Unit "Climategate" incident'''. I believe that 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 (] does not appear to prohibit using quotation marks ''within'' the full title) and adding "incident" at the end to NPOV it. ] (]) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, they were stolen by a hacker indeed, but that hacker then leaked them to the public, taking over the job that is usually done by the insider. I'd say leak is an appropriate term here.
:*As a second choice, I support any variation of '''Climatic Research Unit email controversy'''. ] (]) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::Do you have any alternative suggestions? I'd be open to moving the page to a different name if there is a good alternative. ] would be good to me as well. The page ] contains some title inspiration. ] (]) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (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. ] (]) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Again, that puts the emphasis on the hack as an exploit (which was almost insignificant) rather than on the deliberate disinterpretation of the messages and consequent reinforcement of the denialist conspiracy theory{{snd}} which led to politicians failing to act on the IPCC report. "Controversy" has the benefit of focusing on consequences rather than the ]. --] (]) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' name change until investigation conclusions are known. '''Oppose''' anything using the non-neutral terminology "Climategate". '''Oppose''' proposal by Cla68 - ] violation (not neutral), ] violation (uses "-gate" construct), ] violation (uses "quote-like characters"), unbelievably ] given recent discussion. -- ] (]) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' renaming this article until investigation is complete. Further oppose non-neutral "-gate" terminology. ] (]) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' It was never a great title but the controversy is what has mostly been written about and the controversy had an impact on climate change policy, as has been pointed out. So keep as it is in its imperfect way. ] (]) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
::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?--] (]) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>
*'''Support''' any NPOV change that removes "hack" from the title ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 03:27, 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. ] (]) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:02, 18 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconComputer Security: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).
Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:
Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...
  • 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.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWeather: Climate Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconHigher education
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
WikiProject iconEast Anglia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Climatic Research Unit email controversy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Norfolk may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 17, 2011, November 17, 2014, November 17, 2018, November 17, 2019, November 17, 2021, November 17, 2022, and November 17, 2024.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
? faq page Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"? A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails? A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source? A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain? A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person. A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article? A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do? A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content? A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that? A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.
On 26 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Climatic Research Unit email leak. The result of the discussion was not moved.
Archiving icon
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.

Issues related to this article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages

BLP noticeboard:

NPOV noticeboard:


Requested moves:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:


"stolen" data

It seems that RS, at least the AP, seem to agree that the data was "stolen" except for the fact that the rightful owners were never deprived of access to it, which is a key component to conventional theft. It is unfortunate that sources want to draw analogues between theft of conventional property and copying of data, because data piracy is a different thing altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? I think it is unfortunate that the reliable sources do not call the people who bought the stolen mails "fences".
Why is this on this Talk page? How is it connected to any suggested article improvement? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article Data theft which points out The phrase data theft is actually a misnomer (without a source). The term is still used, and the article exists. I cannot see any problem with using the word "steal" here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Taxpayers?

Hot Spots From Twitter:

Toby Young on Twitter:

The Foreign Office is helping to pay for the rewriting of wikipedia entries on climate change to eliminate all traces of doubt about the claim that we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency'.

Sissy Willis on Twitter:

"The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the #StockholmEnvironmentInstitute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Misplaced Pages’.

SEI is closely connected with the United Nations & the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”

Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”

Source:

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/16/british-government-funds-campaign-to-rewrite-climate-science-entries-on-wikipedia/

Any British taxpayer here for the comments? Kartasto (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

See The Daily Sceptic. If the article is correct, "The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial". Looks like a waste of time. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Climate Deniers

This is a wrong description used throughout this site. The scientific consensus is not Science. Science is and always has been a process of proof. When the Climate change believers are asked simple scientific questions, which they cannot answer, they try to be-little the scientific question using derogatory terms in order to demean the other side of the discussion. If this article were to be balanced, please remove terms such as. 'Climate Deniers' and replace with 'scientific unanswered counter arguments'. I feel that this article is a white-wash of the real problems with using exclusive terms such as consensus and science in the same sentence. 86.21.163.120 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. So, it is no problem for Misplaced Pages that your opinion and Misplaced Pages articles do not match, it is your problem.
If you had reliable sources that agree with your opinion, it would be a different story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The term "Controversy" was selected as better encompassing the subject matter in this case, but from reading this the possibility of a better title, should anybody find one, is still open. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climatic Research Unit email leak – 'leak' is more WP:NPOV about what actually happened: the mail leaked. The controversy part is what some hacker wanted to create by leaking them, but in the end there wasn't really any controversial content and the scientists were just doing their job fine. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower. This was burglary. The "controversy" (such as it was) was the result of selective release of the messages with misrepresentation of their content. The effect was to undermine the political of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, causing an unforgivable delay in response to it. So the key factor was the effect; the method is incidental. I agree that the name is not great and should be reconsidered, but 'leak' won't do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
>First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower
Yes, they were stolen by a hacker indeed, but that hacker then leaked them to the public, taking over the job that is usually done by the insider. I'd say leak is an appropriate term here.
Do you have any alternative suggestions? I'd be open to moving the page to a different name if there is a good alternative. Climate Research Unit email hack would be good to me as well. The page Category:Email hacking contains some title inspiration. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Again, that puts the emphasis on the hack as an exploit (which was almost insignificant) rather than on the deliberate disinterpretation of the messages and consequent reinforcement of the denialist conspiracy theory – which led to politicians failing to act on the IPCC report. "Controversy" has the benefit of focusing on consequences rather than the proximate cause. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was never a great title but the controversy is what has mostly been written about and the controversy had an impact on climate change policy, as has been pointed out. So keep as it is in its imperfect way. Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories:
Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions Add topic