"

They've forgotten what Jimbo so clearly stated at his user talk page ""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.  "" (oh he is just an ordinary user yeah). And we have the hole world reporting as this name Climategate usage in the first three/four months and in a longer and longer list of books .   "