Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 15:55, 25 March 2010 (→A Hint: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GoRight anticipates being busy in real life for a few weeks and so he may be slow to respond. Updated: 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical References

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

CRU hacking incident article name

Current Proposal

We the undersigned would like to propose the following name change for the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article:

Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy

This proposal has come about as a result of good-faith discussions by editors who have expressed differing opinions on the subject but have nonetheless come together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Our reasons are as follows:

1. The constant renaming proposals are unproductive and ultimately a drain on people's time.
2. It is clear that few if any people want the current name.
3. Coming to an amicable compromise is in the best interests of the project, overall.

We believe that this proposal has the following benefits:

1. It avoids the use of "Climategate", which is strongly opposed by many editors, is deprecated by current policies and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's usual approach to such issues.
2. The redirect from Climategate will still be in place for users searching for that name.
3. It avoids the use of "stolen", "hack" or "data" to which editors objected on various grounds.
4. It follows a well established project convention in the naming of X-gate type articles: namely the X-gate is a redirect to an article which is descriptively named after its subject matter (e.g. Rathergate → Killian documents controversy, Attorneygate → Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy, Whitewatergate → Whitewater controversy etc).
5. It is a middle ground proposal that requires everyone to give a little and noone walks away with everything they wanted (i.e. it really is a compromise).
6. The inclusion of "email" is obviously needed as this is probably the single most noted and discussed aspect of the whole affair.
7. The inclusion of "documents" is still broad enough to cover other materials (even code) which were released and it is well aligned with the FOI request aspects of the affair.
8. It does not depend on the outcome of ongoing investigations, and will remain valid whatever the investigations conclude.
9. And probably most importantly, "controversy" does not bias the article on one direction or another, thereby meeting NPOV requirements.

Signed,

1. GoRight (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
3. ATren (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) -- though stylistically I'd prefer removing the "and document", which is a little clumsy. But I'd be fine with any wording that termed it a "controversy", which would nicely encompass both the unauthorized distribution of the emails as well as the content concerns. Addendum: I like JohnWBarber's best; simple and to the point. ATren (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
4. JPatterson (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
5. ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I do not sign proposals being used to allege that "in the early stages, the article was being owned by a vocal faction that attempted to censor any mention of a controversy...until recently, when enough NPOV editors became aware of this article to balance out opinion." Hipocrite (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
7. mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Why not shorten in slightly? CRU e-mail and documents controversy?
8. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
9. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Heyitspeter (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Wikispan (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
12. SPhilbrickT 02:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
13. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) This is fine. It could be shortened even to "Climate Research Unit controvesy" but this proposal will do.
14. Oren0 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Nsaa (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) This is fine. It could be shortened even to "Climate Research Unit controvesy" but this proposal will do as JohnWBarber states above.
16. Agree with Nsaa/JohNWBarber on "Climate Research Unit controversy." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Agree with Nasa/JohNWBarber and this if that isn't suitable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Moogwrench (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I will defend "Climatic Research Unit email and documents controversy" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" because an email is a type electronic document.
19. WP looks silly continuing to have the article named as if the supposed hack is the controversy and not what was contained in the info thus made available. I am in favour of anything that makes WP look less stupid. This proposal would help. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
20. WVBluefield (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Evensong (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

"Climate Research Unit email controversy" has been suggested twice before - originally by jheiv back on December 13th and then again by Cla68 on January 2nd in this thread, which is worth reading. I think it's worth proposing as a compromise; the problem is that I don't think the hardliners are willing to compromise. Cla68 in particular now seems to be determined to ignore policy and push for "Climategate". However, I think it's worth proposing all the same, as it might offer those willing to compromise a position with which they can agree. Do you want to go ahead and propose it? Feel free to mention that we have been discussing it (and please ensure that you flag up the fact that it's a compromise proposal). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so who would you list as the hardliners from each side on this issue, and who is the most influential of them? Roughly speaking, of course. I suggest that we test the waters on the pages of those individuals first. If it looks like a no go then there is no need to disrupt the talk page.

I would also suggest trying to line up support from those OPPOSED to "Climategate" and "scandal" first. If they can be shown to support this as a compromise position in good faith then this will put those pushing FOR "Climategate" and/or "scandal" a bit on the defensive. Failing to accept a good faith compromise position which affords both sides some means of "saving face" (i.e. because we are following a convention used elsewhere in multiple places) would certainly make them look like the uncooperative ones, no? So first let us identify those editors that we should contact initially from both sides. Any suggestions? --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd suggest the following as possibly approachable: OrenO, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpat34721, Hipocrite, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, dave souza, Heyitspeter. The hardliners are currently Nsaa, Cla68, Thepm, Zulu Papa 5, Marknutley. Thegoodlocust was in the hardline camp as well, but since he's been topic-banned he's now irrelevant. I don't suggest approaching Cla68 but when the proposal is made we should point out that he previously proposed "Climate Research Unit email controversy" - it may be possible to dissuade him from voting against his own proposal. What do you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that Sphilbrick and Itsmejudith might be supportive as well. Let me know if you want me to reach out to them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of pinging Itsmejudith as well but I don't know Sphilbrick. But if you know them then please do contact them and just point them to the proposal above and this section for discussion. I think it is a reasonable time to try and pull in a few additional people. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with CRU email controversy, but I'm happy to be approached about other alternatives, which I'm also probably fine with. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. Weigh in with your preference to the two options below. --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, let's decide on what we really want to propose then. I had suggested:

Climate Research Unit email controversy

another suitable alternative might be:

Climate Research Unit email and document controversy

Climate Research Unit email and data controversy

I have not been following that page closely but there seems to be some issue of a potential split because of the email/document schism. What's your guess on how that will play out? Although I guess it doesn't matter too much because whatever we pick can be changed again if the split happens. Thoughts? Oh, and what's the convention for the capitalization in these titles? --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indif/irrelevent to me. I suspect that the discussion will quickly turn to "Climategate is the only acceptable title," brinksmanship, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I still prefer my original suggestion for its simplicity. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.S. I think I have changed my mind. "Climate Research Unit email and document controversy" offers the broadest appeal, I think. Data was opposed by many. Document is sufficiently broad to cover most other things including the FOI requests. From my perspective the emails and the FOI aspects are the most covered in the media and so the most important to cover in the title. The code, while it is covered, is much less so IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (Sign after the fact)

OK, I think I can live with that. It seems a reasonable compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys maybe interested in Scjessey's proposal here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chris had pointed to that above. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed that. But what I meant was to mention Scjessey by name, that he proposed something very similar. He would be unlikely to vote against his own proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a slight misinterpretation of my position. The thread was intended to stimulate discussion, not advocate a specific position. My actual position has evolved somewhat since then anyway. The discussion we had about the lede that eventually brought about a fairly solid consensus evolved because the "Climategate" aspect was redefined as one of the consequences of the incident, rather than the incident itself. It is for this reason that I would have trouble supporting these proposals at this time, because I still see the controversy as a consequence. As an example, consider that the consequence of the 9/11 attacks was the "War on Terror", but nobody would refer to the "War on Terror" as the "9/11 attacks". One avenue that I've been considering is the whole issue of summary style. There's an awful lot of info about this entire incident out there, and so it might be possible to make a good argument for breaking up the article (a process which has been partially begun by the "documents" child article). As long as it was done carefully so as not to create a POV fork, a consequence of moving to summary style would be that an article would necessarily exist that would focus on the email controversy. Anyway, my thoughts on this are very much in the early stages and I'm nowhere near ready to present a formal proposal. In the meantime, I cannot consider support for this proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to misinterpret anything we were merely recognizing that this proposal is in line with something that you had attempted previously. If you have moved on to another approach that is fine. In your estimation does this proposal have no merit? If a large enough number of others sign on would you be willing to support it even if it is not your primary choice just in the interests of downplaying further disruption in this area? In other words, are you adamantly against this or is it an acceptable compromise if you find that you are not able to attain your first choice? --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are fair questions, and let me say right now that I am deeply impressed by this commendable effort on your part to try to put past conflict behind you and work in this way. Let me answer each of your questions in turn. First of all, I think any reasonable proposal has merit. This one has been well thought out and proposed in a manner that is least likely to attract conflict; however, I feel that better options are available. Secondly, I am a strong supporter of Misplaced Pages's consensus approach and I won't be standing in the way of it just because I disagree; however, this proposal has zero chance of succeeding unless it is actually put forward on the article talk page and given an independent set of responses (copy and pasting "supports" from here would not be acceptable). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's just see if we can gain some support here first. Obviously any rename proposal has to be vetted on the talk page, I completely agree and the intent was always to do so. The reason for discussing here first is to gauge whether the support is strong enough to to even warrant disrupting the talk page with another proposal. I'm not sure if I agree with the copy/paste comment but even so people who sign are pledging to support and defend the proposal so having them sign again on the talk page should be a formality at best. --GoRight (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think a proposal that takes advantage of WP:SS is going to be more successful though. Child articles on the hacking, the contents of the stolen files, the controversy and perhaps the media coverage would essentially side-step the issue of what to call the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I changed to "Climategate" after I started seeing it used in just about every mention on the topic in the media, but I'm willing to accept "Climate Research Unit email controversy" as a compromise. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  If you are willing to accept and defend the above proposal please consider signing it above. Same for AQFK. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor (currently at least a very infrequent editor to the climate change related articles, although I have been following some of the recent kerfuffle), I think that this change is a good idea, particularly as a sign of cooperation. Hal peridol (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation, it would be good to resolve this issue; however, I have difficulty supporting a long title, so I will pass on signing for now. Any title should be supported by the word weight of sources on the topic. Heavy source support will garner greater wiki support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Would you be able to support it if we dropped the "and document" leaving just "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" per ATren's suggestion above? I suspect some others may prefer that as well. We can't change the proposal without getting agreement from the signatories above but this is one option that could be proposed to the group. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be best to drop "email" and leave "document," actually. Both emails and source code are documents, but source code is not an email, and source code is also at issue. The current title used to mention "emails" and the term was dropped for this reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and that's why I decided to include the document. My first choice was just to use email controversy on the grounds that the emails have, in my totally unscientific estimation, received the majority of the press. We could consider either as you suggest but for now let's proceed with what we have since I think it has the widest appeal even though it may be a bit long. Although it's not really that long considering half of it is the name of the institution. --GoRight (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a good initiative since it removes what some think is not WP:NPV and WP:UNDUE (Hack) without introducing other problematic title words like Climategate and scandal. Hopefully this title is something everybody can agree on even through the case for Climategate looks stronger for each day running (per secondary sources Climategate usage). Maybe the case for this title first can get hold for everybody the day one of the big university press publish a book about it, with this title (been historic). Nsaa (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Documents should stay in, the e-mails only account for 5% of all documents leaked. How about CRU Document Controversy?

This is why I opted to include both email and document, some people lean one way and other people lean the other. So for broadest appeal albeit at the expense of conciseness we arrived at the current proposal. --GoRight (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's ok. Not elegant, not consise, but it's an excellent compromise. Last night I was wondering if even CRU is biased to have in the title. This controversy is much broader than CRU. It includes at least Penn State/Michael Mann and others. Nsaa (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about just "data", or is that considered to be too generic? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people objected to data in prior conversations so I opted to avoid it. I guess if we really want to shorten it we could try "Climatic Research Unit controversy" but that sounds like the CRU is controversial not what happened. If there was an obvious and well accepted name I suspect that it would already be there.  :) You're welcome to sign too, Tarc, if you find this to be an acceptable compromise and are willing to defend it. --GoRight (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the resistance to using the words "documents" or "data" in between "CRU" and "Controversy"? I don't mean this as a critical remark I'm just curious.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, and this is only a guess on my part, but I suspect the issue is one of focusing on the WP:WEIGHT of the media coverage rather than the distribution of what was released. The emails have simply generated the most media coverage and cover what seem to be the most significant aspects of the release, namely the attitudes of scientists involved (from some people's perspective), possible attempts to game the peer review process (which is contested by some), and the legal aspects of seeking to avoid releasing information based on FOI requests.

The code comments, while not very flattering, encouraging, or professional, are simply comments that could be found in anyone's code where they weren't expecting the code to be released for public consumption. The quality of the code itself may also be an issue but whether it shows any smoking guns, or not, is still controversial. There may be good scientific reasons to justify some of the manipulations we see in the code.

So I don't necessarily see it as resistance to using documents as much as a lack of support relative to email. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, GoRight. I'd love to join in, guys, but I just can't. I'm not happy with the proposal - it doesn't have 'hacking' or 'data breach' in it. I wasn't happy when Heyitspeter removed 'e-mail' from the title without discussion, but no one else seemed to care so I let it be. When the inquiries report what really happened, the we can review the whole article and potentially its title. BTW, hacking is now the accepted WP:RS word for it, and doesn't need scare quotes. --Nigelj (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for taking the time to consider it just the same. --GoRight (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

OK, I went through and canvassed the remaining people who have voted in the RfC as well as a few additional CC regulars. Let's give them a chance to respond but then we may be ready to take this to the talk page. ChrisO and Hipocrite and any other signatories, what do you think? I think we have a pretty decent showing of support here. There are some signatories that have suggested shortening the title even further, possibly all the way back to "Climatic Research Unit controversy". This would avoid any further arguing over email vs. documents vs. data so it may be workable. Should we canvass the existing signatories about proposing this as an alternative or should we just go with what we have? --GoRight (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit controversy, I like this. It covers everything. mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indifferent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the flaring of tempers on the talk page, I'm not sure the timing is right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. The current RfC will be inconclusive no matter what so we may actually have to wait until that is closed. Anyway, we can continue to gather support and try one iteration on the naming with those that signed up already while the RfC runs its course. --GoRight (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most people support "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy," as encompassing e-mails but recognizing that other kinds of electronic data were leaked / are in question as well. ScienceApologist alone expressed reservations below, but his concerns appear to have been addressed. EDIT:checked signing board and 5-6 came out in support of the even shorter title you're discussing now. Go for it. I'll propose inclusion of the word "documents" on the relevant talkpage later if appropriate.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'll propose inclusion of the word "documents" on the relevant talkpage later if appropriate." - Well, the problem with this is that one of the goals of coming together on this proposal is to reduce these regular challenges to the title. If the title we propose is just going to be challenged again by people from within our little coalition then we have failed at making a difference in that respect. So, am I to understand that if we as a group shortened the proposal to just "Climatic Research Unit controversy" that you would no longer pledge to defend that title but rather might seek to have it changed after the fact? I did notice the "if appropriate" which seems sensible enough depending on what you consider to be an appropriate reason to change. What types of conditions would this entail, have you thought that through? I am only asking so that I can factor such concerns into my thinking moving forward. Alternatively, if we keep the title as currently proposed would you be more willing to defend it rather than seek changes after the fact? --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear / less than straightforward. I would defend it either way as better than the current and wouldn't attenuate my endorsement, but would prefer the proposed or "documents" versions to their further shortened counterpart. If the shorter version is used, I do mean "if appropriate" as you notice, and would wait to propose a change until or if it seemed constructive given the atmosphere.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why I object to "and document"

From what I understand the "documents" in question were all attachments to e-mails. The undue emphasis placed on these attachments seems to me to be related to a singular obsession by denialists with the idealization that somehow the attachments were "smoking guns" of data manipulation, fraud, or worse. However, I see no evidence of this in the "documents" in question (which are much less numerous than the e-mails in number if not in bytes). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I guess my question would be, "What is the NPOV rationale for including 'and document' in the proposal?"

I anxiously await anyone's response.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question, and this is just my opinion as I cannot speak for the group as a whole, is that like it or not there is a reasonable amount of media coverage on the documents in addition to just the emails themselves. WP:WEIGHT therefore demands this this additional POV be given appropriate space in the article and the title, regardless of whether we as editors consider that coverage to be true, or not, since the standard on this encyclopedia is laid out by WP:V which clearly states that verifiability, rather than our interpretation of truth, is the gold standard.

We are likely to consider shortening the proposal to simply "Cimatic Research Unit controversy" which has the benefit of avoiding the whole argument over email vs. documents vs. data altogether. If this should come to pass would you be willing to support the proposal then? --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That particular shortening seems ambiguous to me. We need to indicate that it was about internal computer-based communications somehow. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 3,485 documents in 101 folders (149 MB), but only 1,075 emails (7.85 MB). It is not clear which documents (if any) were attachments to the emails. Q Science (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure were you got that from Sa, What makes you think the other doc`s were attachments?

The enumeration of the documents varies from interest group to interest group. The initial reports were that there were something like 78 documents and over 1000 e-mails. I cannot verify that the other "documents" that Q Science is mentioning are the "documents" that most people are referring to. From what I understand, there are only three non-e-mail documents that have generated any interest and really only one that has been extensively commented on (HARRY_README). However, this "document" has been associated with an e-mail exchange that indicates a likely association of the files with the communications. After all, the communications are what people are interested in and have commented on for the most part. At the very least, it is the communication between climate scientists at CRU that has caused interest. The programs and the data files have been essentially ignored by those commenting on this controversy, and so I continue to maintain that it is the e-mails and not the documents that are of primary interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall you making this argument on the article talk page, and i posted a great many links which showed the code and data released was also of interest. Did you not see them? mark nutley (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you not see my response? . ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@All of you - Given the sensitive nature of this topic please take your sniping elsewhere. I prefer to keep this discussion snipe free. I leave to the individual readers to decide which portions above constitute "sniping". Please put your best feet forward here. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@SA - "I continue to maintain that it is the e-mails and not the documents that are of primary interest." And I haven't disagreed. In fact I have similarly argued that the emails have received the most media coverage and therefore are probably the most significant portion of what was released from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. So I think we are agreed on that point. Where we seem to vary is on whether the documents and other materials have received sufficient coverage to warrant mention. I and others have concluded that they do and so we have included them in the proposal. YMMV and apparently does. The question to you is whether it varies sufficiently that you will let it stand in the way of compromise, or not. This is something only you can decide for yourself. --GoRight (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it is a deal-breaker for me. I see you've amassed what can only be described as a wide-ranging coalition who are able to come to consensus. I applaud you for that but respectfully refrain from endorsing for the reasons I outlined. Best, ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. You are always welcome to reconsider. Thank you for taking the time to make your views and concerns known. --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Hint

Don't repost there. If further steps are needed, go to a neutral venue or ask a neutral party to mediate (probably best to find somebody besides me). Cheers, Jehochman 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)