Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC 2011-09-20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Comment regarding Name/Title

[edit]

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

Additional introduction

[edit]

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

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

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

Threaded comments

[edit]

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

Regarding descriptive versus common proper noun names for titles
[edit]

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

"When the subject of an article is referred mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." (emphasis mine)

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

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

"In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." (emphasis mine)

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

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

"I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)" (emphasis mine)

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

Evidence for common usage in reliable sources
[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
[edit]

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

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

Last discussed a few weeks ago Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_41#Requested_Move do we need to go through this again?. Mikenorton (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a Request for Comment has a chance at soliciting a wider range of input rather than a Requested Move. I am particularly interested in fellow editors making arguments based on policy rather than invoking past discussions as a kind of stare decisis that is inviolate. A lot of previous rebuttals/supports to this name change either had no direct link to a policy (other than merely claiming it without actually reading/citing which parts they were supposedly referencing, which I do) and an appeal to non-existent or weak evidence (which I cite as well). So yes, I'd love to see people's evidences and counter-evidences and citations and counter-citations. Moogwrench (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moogwrench, have you actually read recent move discussions? From your proposal it appears you have not. In particular you do not mention the issue of RS describing climategate as problematic, you do not consider the use of scare quotes in RS, and you do not consider the arguments that for a lot of RS the event is not the content of the emails, which repeated inquiries have found to have no impact on the state of climate science, but the hacking and what people tried to claim about IPCC and science processes based on the content of the mails.. You also have not adequately explained what was wrong with previous discussions that necessitates an RfC. I don't see too few people involved as a credible reason.. Climategate redirects here, so findability is not an issue - as pointed out in previous discussions. Anyway, asking people to go over the same ground again merely for your benefit seems a little presumptuous. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer each of your concerns: Could you cite the policy where the reason reliable sources use a term as often as they do has anything to do with its prevalence or recognizability as a common name, and thus its suitability as title? How about the policy citation deprecating the use of a common name when it is used in scare quotes? Again, in regards to the direction of the content, this article is currently on the controversy, so we aren't arguing content, we are arguing the name for the content. You are right, findability is not an issue, following policy is. And as I hope to have made clear, it is not for me benefit, but for that of the community as a whole that I have done this RfC. You need to be able to cite policy that supports your concerns. Moogwrench (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the most important question - have you read the recent move discussions? (I conclude that you haven't). Go read them before asking people to reproduce the same points. Frankly, it should also be blindingly obvious that the policy in question is NPOV. People need convincing that you're not simply trying to replay discussions because you didn't like the result.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read them, and I found the same troubling habit again and again: a quick appeal to a particular policy without actually reading it. You say that it is blindingly obvious that the policy in question is WP:NPOV (which I have cited specifically, detailing the exact words of the policy in correlation with my arguments). In previous discussions, many editors invoked a similar response to the one you just gave: "The support for my position is in WP:NPOV." Ah, but where? Unless you can actually cite a part of the policy (the actual words) that supports what you are saying, then a mere blanket invocation of WP:NPOV is not enough. Moogwrench (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, WP:Lawyering is not a policy but an essay. Nonetheless, it says in relevant part that wiki-lawyering may refer to the assertion that "that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express." Although Moogwrench smoothly quotes the letter of the policies on WP:NPOV it states in a nutshell banner at the top: "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." IMO, after numerous investigations have cleared the scientists of serious scientific misconduct, the rest of the saga (allegations of coverup, continuing efforts at FOIA to dig up new dirt) is evidence of a continuing controversy, as the current title states. In contrast, many people in Watergate were found or at least plead guilty. Say again GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY-
Need I go on?
As a result anything-gate carries a stigma of guilt. The only way we can or should imply "GUILTY" is to embrace the conspiracy theory that the investigations themselves were in on some sort of mass coverup. I'm terribly disappointed that anyone would suggest that my intellectual and ethical discipline is so infantile that I might be willing to take that step. "Innocent until proven guilty" is patriotic if we sit on a jury... and its patriotic as citizens of the world right here on wikipedia. Shame shame shame.
Whether the phrase used is based on "hack" or "-gate" both imply misconduct and both violate the spirit of the NPOV policy expressed in the banner text I just quoted. The devil can - and apparently is - quoting the letter of that policy for their own POV beliefs, but that doesn't make it truly neutral. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The devil can - and apparently is - quoting the letter of that policy"? Why would you write that?
Specifically when looking the section of WP:NPOV that has to do with naming article titles WP:NPOV#Naming, it specifically states that "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." So, it doesn't matter whether or not you or I regard the title as biased, all that matters is if it is the clearest, most recognizable name. As Wikipedians we don't try to decide who is or is not guilty, what the truth is, whether or not people are being misled, whether the reliable sources are wrong, etc. We only represent what is in the preponderance of the reliable sources. Moogwrench (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining on the basis that "some" might think it is biased, I am complaining on the basis that the expression is inherently biased on a definition basis that supercedes personal opinions of the matter. In this context the definition of anything-gate is: "A suffix used to denote a political scandal. Its use originated with the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration." (Source: [urban dictionary]) The definition of scandal does not include behavior that has been exnonnerated of serious wrong after multiple investigations but rather it implies, as I said GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY: 1 a : discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person b : conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another; 2 loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : disgrace; 3 a : a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it b : a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality <a scandal to the profession; 4 : malicious or defamatory gossip; 5 : indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion. (Source: [merriam webster]). As a result, its not that some might think "-gate" is biased. Since the very expression is biassed on a definition level, rather than as a matter of opinion over which "some" reasonable minds can differ, this is not an example of a term that falls within even the letter of the law you cite. Therefore that exception to the policy does not apply. Errrrrr..... except for definition #4 of course. I do agree that one seems to fit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1)I don't understand your appeals to outside sources. 2) Under your argument, if we agree that a name is non-neutral, it cannot be used. This is patently false. We have numerous examples (i.e. Boston massacre, definitely POV against the British, right?). Wikipedia clearly allows non-neutral titles when they are common names. That is why the subsection of the policy is entitled: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names. This citing of Webster's dictionary and trying to argue what is right and what is just and issues of guilt...it is not our job. We are mere chroniclers of what society is doing and calling things. If an editor thinks the title Climategate is unfair to the scientists, that doesn't matter a hill of beans, because we aren't their guardians. That is what it means to be truly NPOV...you shouldn't care if science, or CRU, or Michael Mann, or the climate skeptics, or the yahoos wins, or not. We merely document what the controversy is being called and what is going on. You are trying to determine if it was/should be called a scandal or not, when you should just give weight to what the sources say and not what you think should happen or what you look up in a dictionary. Moogwrench (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Progress! Your silence says you agree the definition is inherently biased. Each exception to the biased-name rule you cite that I know about is for a dead-and-buried issue of long ago, not unfolding contemporary events with enormous public policy implications. Note that major news outlets are able to talk about the matter without using the inherently biased expression, ([example]). In my view, these efforts are an attempt to wikilawyer technical rules in defiance of the spirit of the rules, for purposes of investing an inherently biased neologism about unfolding events with legitimacy. Its not necessary for findability, and - to repeat - major news outlets (even Fox) manage to talk about the events without using the term. So why are you advocating so hard for an unnecessary term you admit is inherently biased and is capable of influencing public policy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Somehow I overlooked the fact that the very policy you cite says "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: . . . (3) Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues". That's the one I'm arguing in my prior comment. Note that the term was apparently crafted in [the reader comments on partisan Anthony Watt's website], and [was popularized] by [partisan James Delingpole].... who, if you haven't seen it, doesn't read climate science since [he has people who do that for him]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My silence? Seldom has so much of my loquaciousness been termed "silence". "Capable of influencing public policy?" I think you overestimate Wikipedia's ability. Not that we should care... we are mirrors to society, not advocates. Regarding Climategate, I thought the whole point was that this was a fake scandal that had blown over and was now a non-issue, essentially a "historical event". So how can it be an active issue yet a non-issue at the same time?
There are many titles of recent history articles which express a POV but follow the majority of the sources. One with which I was involved with at some point, 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, was extremely contentious because even though there were RSs which explicitly claimed Zelaya's deposition was constitutional, we were obligated to refer to it as a "coup", because the majority of the sources referred to it as such. Many of the same issues as apply to Climategate applied to that article, including initial use of scare quotes, and continuing controversy. At first I was opposed to the name on POV grounds, but came to accept that "coup", though a loaded POV term, was the proper common way to refer to those events, because of common usage in the RSs. Since better understand the NPOV policy, I have tried to be consistent in arguing for non-neutral but common names when in-line with policy. This is an example of a non-"dead-and-buried issue" of really not so "long ago"... not all of the non-neutral POV titles are from decades ago, NEAG. Moogwrench (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The substantive arguments have been made, and I decline to reply to the bb's. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • [climate OR "global warming" emails climategate source:CNN]
  • [climate OR "global warming" emails -climategate source:CNN] (added a minus sign)
Source NO "Climategate" USES "Climategate" Total
NYT 5 79% 2 29% 7
BBC 17 85% 3 15% 20
CNN 5 56% 4 44% 9
Guardian 11 73% 4 27% 15
WashPost 35 68% 16 32% 51
Fox News 6 75% 2 25% 8

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

Excellent analysis, NAEG. Even without it, however, I would still vote to close and hat RFC immediately as tendentious and beating a dead horse. Consensus can change, but even a cursory look a the talk page history will show that this issue comes up on a regular basis, and most recently only a few weeks ago in a widely-publicized requested move that attracted numerous editors who had never commented on this talk page before, and had more or less exactly the same reasoning put forth here. I recommend a reinstatement of the discretionary sanction where title change threads are limited to every 6-12 months. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for kinds words and concur with title change protection NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few concerns:
  1. You can't combine the results of multiple terms and then say that together they make up a larger number than one given term. 3+3=6 which > 5 however individually 5 is > than each one (3) individually, and that would indicate most common use. You need to break down your analysis further.
  2. Also regarding those results, I curious as to how you arrived at only "2" sources which used Climategate in them from the NYT, when my search rendered 39? Some links might be helpful, like the ones I provided above in my matrix.
  3. I am also curious as to why you searched for terms that have not, as far as I am aware, been considered for part of the descriptive title? I used the A) proper name of the organization and B) "hack" OR "emails" because they 1)have been used as part of the title, and 2)A+B together are precise enough to identify subject, albeit clumsily. "Climate" or "global warming" + "emails" are too imprecise to be considered. WP:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title states that a name has to be precise in identifying its subject. We would never name this Global warming emails or Climate emails...so why use those as your search terms? Do you really believe that a news article on a hack at the Climatic Research Unit would not mention the name of the place hacked? Is there a more common name for this place besides its proper name that we can search with? I don't think so.
  4. The 30 days of an RfC provide a bit more time than the 7 days afforded a page move. I for one hadn't noticed, at the time, the move request, and hence did not participate in it. I am sure there are others like me. Many of the editors previously against this move edit this page on a weekly, if not daily basis, but the wider community may not realize something is being solicited until it is already over. Moogwrench (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to each numbered paragraph in your concerns about my analysis:
1. Huh?
2. I already stated my search strings with precision.
3. I already stated the reasoning for my search strings.
4. (no comment required, as this was not directed at my analysis)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some links showing your methodology, i.e., the results based on a certain search(es)? Did you combine "climate" + "emails" together with "global warming" + "emails"? How did you include or exclude "Climategate"? For example: "Climate" + "emails" + "Climategate" will always be subset of (i.e. smaller than) the results for "Climate" + "emails". But again, per above and what Arthur mentions below, you need to address the issue of precision, as those words would not be precise enough and are a bit of a catchall. Links, as I said above, would be helpful. That is why I provided them for each assertion I made in my argument. Moogwrench (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google news, date search 2009-2011 (I forgot to mention that... the issue broke in 2009).... so for example, 4 hits are returned from the first search string above using the CNN example like [this].NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is to regular G-hits, not news items, and also, you still aren't addressing the issue of precision. Moogwrench (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't explain it, it brings up G news in my browser. You haven't address the problem of obligue neologistic references or substantive articles that don't mention the formal name of the CRU either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did address a neologism becoming a common name, but I will restate: "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Climategate has effectively become the proper noun name for controversy surrounding the release/hack of those emails. Do you have another name that is shown to be the usual term for this controversy? The preponderance of the RS shows that there is no other word/term/phrase so widely recognized as the common name for it. Absent another name that is more common, Climategate occupies this spot. Moogwrench (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. Your google searching tallied anytime anyone in the news pages mentioned the expression. You may feel that is an appropriate statistic, but I believe the important question is how do the most reliable news sources refer to the matter, in articles that are specifically about it. Flippant sidebars to the expression "climategate" (whether you characterize it as a neologism or not) in the celebrity pages shouldn't count. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you in turn, missed mine. In my tallies of Google News Archives for the three sources I mentioned, Climategate trumped two other very plausible descriptive titles. I provided links for all my searches. You provided some data but insisted on using the flawed notion that a search for "Climatic" + "Research" + "Unit" should not determine the title of an article regarding an incident at the "Climatic Research Unit", and instead wanted to include Climategate stacked up against "climate" or "global warming". 1) They are catchalls that go far beyond this one episode, even with "emails" added in there, as AR suggested below. 2) This makes no sense, because we can't imagine that Climatic Research Unit wouldn't be the name refered to by reliable sources in relation to this episode. Hence I think my method, while not perfect, is far more sound at determining a precise name to this controvery/event. Using your terms skews any kind of result because global warming is a much larger topic than the controversy/hack. Moogwrench (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I concur with title change protection, for the moment, but NAEG's analysis is bogus. It would pick up any discussion of Emails in regard climate change, including phrases such as "please send Emails about this article to nosuchaddress@example.com", without a potential reference to the CRU or climategate. I'm afraid the proponent's analysis is questionable, as well, but that one is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Arthur. No doubt other strings could be devised with a greater liklihood of finding the substantive articles about the event. Do you want to just complain or are you willing to sweat a little bit to try to find a better search string? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much earlier in this discussion Moogwrench quotes Jimbo Wales but omits dave souza's response:

@ Jimbo, thanks for your thoughtful response. As you suggest, I've had a look at the coverage in the NYT. Although a search shows considerable use of the term in their letters pages and blogs, as with the Guardian, they too have been pretty careful, using it specifically regarding "The e-mail episode, dubbed 'climategate' by critics,"[1] or "a recent controversy surrounding e-mails stolen from climate scientists that some have dubbed 'Climategate.'"[2] In other coverage of controversies referring to the e-mails, they've not used the term,[3][4][5] and it's noticeably absent from an op-ed,[6] and from an Associated Press story they ran.[7] Less reliable sources have been more indiscriminate, using "climategate" as a catch-all for complaints about mainstream climate science completely unrelated to the e-mail issue.[8][9][10] The scandal isn't confined to the behaviour of the scientists, as the Guardian noted in its 12 part investigation, as in Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies. Underlying issues include the extent to which data, preliminary calculations, and private e-mails should normally be provided for non-scientific criticism – this could mark a shift in the way science is done.[11] The term "climategate" is indeed political language, and we're looking at adding a specific article about the term, but the background and issues raised by this incident go well beyond that particular political aspect of the science. . . dave souza, talk 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The term has clearly non-neutral connotations. Climategate redirects here, as it should. The policies Moogwrench quotes could be quoted with different emphasis to argue against the change. Most importantly "significant majority of English-language reliable sources" seem to treat the term with care; enclosing it in quotes.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WP:Google test could not possibly support the thesis that "Climategate" is the one ring name, regardless of the numbers, I see no reason to propose search strings. The test might demonstrate that it isn't the most used name, if Moogwrench's results were otherwise, but, in order to be used here, we would need to prove that "Climategate" is the name most commonly used by reliable sources, and we would need a reliable source that it is the most common name. Now, I'm convinced to a moral certainty that it is the most common name, but.... 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Tronic, well, if a reliable source such as CNN declares that the event/controversy is known as "Climategate", is that not a RS saying that the common name for the controversy/event is "Climategate"? Moogwrench (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are only four essential questions to this entire debate:
*(1) Is there any name other than "climategate" that is the most common name, assuming there is a name in the media at all? (Answer: No)
*(2) Does more major news coverage that is specifically on-point use any name at all? (Answer: undetermined, but it was demonstrated above that this does happen)
*(3) Regardless, is the proposal to rename the article for this unfolding controversy based on an inherently biased term that was coined by partisans, thus triggering disqualifier #3 in WP:POVTITLE (Answer YES, see links in my prior comment).
Ok one more.....
*(4) Given Moog's desire for pinpoint policy quotes to defeat "climategate" has been satisifed by disqualifier #3 in WP:POVTITLE, and since findability is not an issue, is there any reason to continue debating the other nuances? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actual text of Wikipedia:POVTITLE says "3.Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues". Give that the inquiries have all found no evidence of major wrongdoing, can this controversy still be called "still-active"? The dust has settled on this one, right? You yourself called it a "historical event", NAEG, which would suggest that it is no longer an active controversy. Hence, the use of the term, even if coined by a partisan, is no longer deprecated. Moogwrench (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't say it was a done and buried one, did I? As Scientific American reported last month, "The NSF audit doesn't put the email scandal completely behind the scientists. A separate case, by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli to obtain emails from when Mann was a professor at the University of Virginia​, remains in court but was rebuffed last year by a state judge who found no evidence of fraud." ... but it's still in court, and then there's the appellate process. So no, it's not all dead and buried, and maybe there are other heads on the hydra of which I'm unaware. Such as allegations about World News and Murdoch. Regardless whether there are any formal proceedings underway or not, leading public figures are still warming up the tar and feathers, such as US GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry ("“There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects,” [[[source]. Finally, many people (in the US anyway) have erroneously been convinced of serious wrongdoing and those attitudes - directly resulting from this fracas - play out in the public policy debate. The controversy is not over, no how no way. More's the pity. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So a dead legal action by a U.S. state AG only tangentially related to the CRU which might be appealed at some point qualifies this controversy as still active though the rest of world has moved on? Uh-huh...can't say that I am really buying it. It might convince others, though, I don't know. So at least you've accepted the idea that non-neutral words/names can, in qualified instances, be used in article names/titles. We are making progress. Heh. Thanks for being such a good sport and discussing this, by the way. Moogwrench (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I missed the "done and buried" policy/guideline somewhere, could you point me to that one? Thanks! (that was a slight attempt at humor). Moogwrench (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That done and buried policy is found in the bolded words upon which you predicated your entire prior comment, and while you may wish to parse the controversy into chapters so that one chapter can be wikilawyered into technical eligibility for the inherently biased, unnecessary, and partisan-coined word "climategate", I prefer to consider the entire continuing controversy in NPOV fashion. Unfortunately, formal proceedings aside, the controversy is alive in the public eye, and will remain so for a good long time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently biased? again non-neutral words can be acceptable titles/names if supported by the RSs as the common name... do we really have to rehash this?
Unnecessary? Wikipedia gives preference to the precise, recognizable, common names, so I don't even know what you mean by unnecessary
Partisan-coined? Sources appear to support that it was done by Delingpole or one of his commentors, but the issue is whether or not this is still an active controversy. It is in your mind, and your already predicted that it will be for a long time, so what can I say? That is your opinion.
Moogwrench (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been boxed into a position from which the only escape is (A) is (or is not) the controversy "still alive" or (B) will I fall prey to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and agree to rehash points we have already established. The arguments have been made, and its time to let your RFC do its work. But note that my statement the controversy is very much alive and well in the (voting) public's eye is not merely my opinion, rather it is based on a recent poll you may have overlooked.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I commented at WP:AT Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC_involving_aspects_of_WP:Article_titles_and_WP:NPOV.23Naming here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded as well. I actually think it is good that you realize that non-neutral words can be used in titles. I don't feel particularly boxed in, either. I would note that apparently out of the last page move someone saw fit to add the bit about the origin of a term--being from a partisan--deprecating its use, the provision we are discussing right now. Even if we don't agree on whether or not this issue is "active" or not, perhaps out of this RfC we will see another change to WP:AT if consensus is that recognizability, naturalness, conciseness, precision, and widespread, common name use of a term trump its origin. I personally think the degree to which society uses a term is a lot more important in deciding whether or not to use it for the article name than who invented it. So yes, by all means, let the RfC run its course. Moogwrench (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amused that you opened this by chastising everyone in prior battles who just shouted NPOV by demanding they cite specific policies, and now that I boxed you in with one, your response is to just ignore it and that failing to seek to re-write the policy. They teach that strategy at law school. I'm going to stop watching both discussions now. 'cheers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do what you want and be as amused as you want. As I said, I am perfectly able to discuss the issue based on what is currently in WP:AT, which I have at length. And again, you have tried to justify your position. Who said anything about ignoring/trying to change policy? I just think it is interesting that that policy was re-written to supposedly reflect a consensus that was never established during the last discussion, and think it is possible that a change to WP:AT might come out of this RfC. In any event, a change in WP:AT is what the closing admin said would be a good idea for a content RfC there; I personally don't share that opinion but it may come to that. Nota bene: try not to regard them as battles. Moogwrench (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moogwrench, you talk about policy as if there can never be a disagreement over interpretation. The problem is, in doing this, you put forward an interpretation of policy that has met little support. Essentially you're trying to determine titles by a simple-headed google hits count (and this is what you are doing), and putting forward a view of commonname as if it is a trump card against any NPOV concerns, or worse still, that it defines NPOV for titles such that opposition on NPOV grounds is redefined as an impossibility. This tandem of views has been tried out by others and I've seen it continually run up against opposition.

Leaving things up to numbers that come out of a search algorithm is not the same as being neutral or objective. It's simply front-loading the bias. Those editors like yourself that get very determined about a strong reading of commonname seem to jump around topics, resulting in an insensitivity to problems in any particular topic area. In the area of climate change, for example, there has been a well-documented, well-funded campaign involving a small number of people to discredit scientists in the public perception, including what you will be directed to on the internet. This campaign, as well as what the campaign wants to achieve, is a topic of discussion. As a result, google hits don't cut it so well: How many of those hits are a mention of climate denialists (I use the term advisedly) using the term, or when it's in scare quotes, or it's a critique of the term itself? How many of those hits are dubious websites with a provably poor record of accuracy on climate change science, that have crept into google news? Establishing this involves going into the hits you find, filtering, analysing - in short using editorial judgement. That may seem open to all sorts of bias, but so is the use of google, particularly how you yourself use it. At least with editorial judgement that uses google as a tool among many but does not surrender to it, we're still in control of our processes.

The point behind COMMONNAME and in particular POVTITLE is not that we ignore real world POV concerns, it is that we don't worry about our own list of words to avoid, and we don't pay heed to fringe little voices we find on the net. There is no respectable real world opposition to calling the Boston Massacre the Boston Massacre in book or article titles, even by those who dispute whether or not it was a massacre. In the very different case of climategate, the suffix -gate has been identified in this case as an attempt to prove there was a scandal. James Delingpole himself complains that wikipedia should use -gate because it is a scandal. That is, there are sources on both sides saying "-gate" is meant to imply there was a climate science scandal. To choose 'gate' is too much like taking sides, and with a minority side at that.

It needs to be said that there is nothing strong, commonsensical or objective about insisting on all titles being the ones that come up more than others in a google search regardless of possible POV outcomes. Being indifferent to the outcome is not the same as being indifferent to whether the outcome breaks NPOV. Sometimes, depending on the topic, what comes out is simply inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. It's why we have the option of descriptive titles coupled with redirects. I cannot see the harm to the encyclopedia by keeping things as they are; however we run into POV issues by choosing a RS-described controversial title as you suggest. NPOV is more important than radical readings of commonname.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO anyone that files another name change petition win the next year should be blocked for that same amount of time. The dead horse is dead. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. This discussion is a repetition of the one in early 2010 that spilled over onto Jimbo's talk page, which is how I got involved in this morass. Enough. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree. Previous discussions have filled numerous article talk page archives. Among other things, these archives contain my detailed and unrefuted explanation why policy requires us to choose the neutral name in this situation. At the time I could also point to specific policy/guideline language explaining that "-gate" titles are typically not OK. This language has since been removed, but not by a consensus that it was incorrect, but rather as a unilateral action by someone who was cleaning up and removing overly specific examples. Hans Adler 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also agree with Tarc. And also with Sailsbystars' recommendation that this dead horse be buried/closed/hatted. This has been discussed ad nauseum already, and is akin to an attractive nuisance at this point, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Tarc, Scotty, Hans, and Ohio. I've seen far too many of these tugs of war over capitalization that go absolutely nowhere. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no need to change the name. The horse is still dead, there's no need to attempt to put the corpse in a blender. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • When we use our judgment to decide what to call a certain article, and that decision goes against adopting general usage in favor of a title that we feel more comfortable with, we cease to be neutral chroniclers (who don't care how it turns out) and become arbitrators of what is right and what is wrong (with an investment in the outcome). We should follow and report, and not pretend to lead, what society believes or what it calls things. But I see that most people don't subscribe to that interpretation, or they can't be bothered to respond to the argument, or insist that it has already been refuted. I don't intend to be pointy, so this RfC may as well be closed. Moogwrench (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Examples_of_articles_about_topics_with_names_whose_titles_are_descriptions about when to use "descriptive" titles rather than the "name" of the subject. This is held as an example of when to use a description, rather than the common name, for reasons of "propriety" since Climategate, the common name, is so contentious/POV. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/RFC_2011-09-20&oldid=1136616746"